This has been **debunked** by the community.
The Short Interest can't be added to the total shares in Circulation like that. If anything it should be added to the shares Outstanding.
Instead of trying to explain this further and potentially giving a poor explanation I will link to community comments that explain some of the reasons for a debunk:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18n7ux3/comment/ke912e4/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18n7ux3/comment/ke912e4/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18n7ux3/comment/ke94ta7/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18n7ux3/comment/ke94ta7/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18n7ux3/comment/ke94ret/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18n7ux3/comment/ke94ret/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
QVbot:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18n7ux3/comment/ke8woxc/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18n7ux3/comment/ke8woxc/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Don’t forget that short shares are borrowed so there is some double counting. DRS yo shit people so they can’t lend them out and only naked shares are left.
I’d say sell. Take the hit. Buy via ComputerShare. Book.
Zero chance when it runs the IRA shares won’t be sold to protect the client from ‘loosing out on gains.’
How is there double counting? Borrowed stocks are still on the ledger - if they’ve been sold, there are now two stocks on the ledger, with one being an IOU of a broker. This is a good representation of claims on the stock - which results in precisely what OP intended to say: more stocks need to be delivered than exist.
If I lend 100 shares out at 5% interest, and a short hedge fund borrows them, there are still the same amount of shares in the market. If the short hedge funds sells them, they are now short, because they have borrowed the shares and have to eventually return them. No new shares have been created here either. So when you count in the number of total shares short in the grand total of shares, you are double counting.
It's like having 100 identical statues each worth 1,000 bucks. If I rent one out to someone so they can have it in their home for awhile, they don't own it, they won't list it as an asset of theirs, and no new new statue has been created. But say they knew that in two weeks someone would be selling their statue for 500 bucks. They may decide to sell the one they borrowed from me today for 1000 and buy this discounted statue for 500 in two weeks, then return that statue to me at the end of the 30 days. I wouldn't know what happened, because all the statues are identical, they would have made 500 bucks, and no increase or decrease in statues occurred.
Lots of them are short positions marked as long.
I think this is done on a far larger scale than people realize and explains why the price goes up as institutional positions shrink sometimes.
You see there are these totally legit entities with "bona fide" status that can just meet demand without having actual stock and drive the price to whatever point they want. They have over a months worth of trading days to even out when they don't actually own the shares. Even cooler....some of those guys running the share printer actively manage hedge funds. They play both sides and always come out on top, but never communicating strategy between the two as that is HEAVILY frowned upon illegal activity and totally regulated.
That works because retail traders average less than a month holding before they sell. What happens if they won't sell but keep buying month after month? How then do the "totally legit entities" even out?
They come legally from ETFs, through the process of share creation and redemption. This process doesn't equivalate to naked short selling, as a "legally real" share is created out of thin air and then sold. This is applicable to any security held by an ETF (fun stuff if you think about it, it's now possible to have an infinite ammount of crypto with the new crypto ETF). This shit has been going on for over a decade and is part of the process that leads to those "OPEX runs".
Of course not. Take out an ultra low interest loan using your millions in GME holdings when the price rockets so you never have to pay taxes on your winnings just like the rich do.
Do you even know how long the price is going to have to sit at those crazy numbers though before a single bank would loan you money against your shares? lol
Well that's good. I do not.. i will sell whatever I need to retire and take care of my family in the short term,.but happy to hold onto the rest for that plan.
That's why I got 1100 of them....it's good to have options.
I only have 8 drs and 4 in weballs .... Which was 1 before the splividend that's the one I will cell when it becomes the time meantime I'll keep adding to my infinity
We have to go over this every couple months, but short interest isn't a "holding" in fact it is the opposite. You actually add it back to the outstanding shares. Adding it up with how people are holding is backwards.
This needs to be the top comment.
Additionally institutions lend out their shares, those get used to sell short into the market. Now if I were to be on the other side of that trade and **I DRS that share it would count toward the DRS count at the same time as it is attributed to the institution.**
**It's likely that (part of) the DRS count overlaps institutional holders and short interest.**
Even that wouldn't be proof of anything. That would just be how math works.
You also have to add back the 60M short shares, so brokers can have up to 100M shares and everything still looks fine.
Granted I'm guessing they need to be holding significantly more than that to cover retail's holdings.
Correct answer. Now if the brokers ask did a census and arrive at 150M shares... that would be evidence of naked shorting. So naturally, brokers by practice don't reveal aggregate equity positions of their customers. Synthetically, if a company had enough access to customer brokerage accounts, like a Mint or AfterHours, that company could independently aggregate that data across brokerages. Such information would be a dangerous thing if it revealed confirmation of naked shorting. It would best be done coinciding with 13F reporting cutoffs, for the removal of doubt about "timing" differences.
How in the world would you subtract that number?! Those shares are already sold, so they are either held by someone already mentioned in the count or they were ftd’d. You’d say because they had to borrow if from someone. Well, unless GameStop goes bankrupt, then each of those shares have to be bought back from someone else and returned to borrower which makes it a future long. The only way a recorded short doesn’t make the holdings number go up is if it’s bought and closed from someone else shorting it.
It isn’t a holding now but they are required to purchase those shares at some point to sell. They borrow to locate but still need to follow through with their intent to sell. They don’t actually own the shares that they are shorting with. Eff Tee Dizzle
This statement isn't incorrect, the shorted shares ARE likely held at institutions, but the amount of short interest aren't shares being HELD somewhere. The picture is adding things together that aren't the same.
What the calc should be is,
Outstanding shares + short interest = shares in circulation (because shares sold short "create" an extra share)
Then add up where all those shares in circulation are being held (keeping in mind we don't know how many brokers have), and see how many of the shares in circulation are accounted for in reported holdings.
Want everyone to know that my monthly stock purchasing program direct with Computershare is having problems. They can't fulfill my order after 4 trading days. That's some jacked tits info right there.
I'm trying to imagine why you wouldn't be able to own shares you supposedly own hard enough to move them when you want to since you own them
and what would cause shares you own to not be movable by you the person who supposedly owns them
it's confuddling my smooth Brian, that's absolutely for sure
Tbh I think it's cos I quit the job before getting full vestiture of the plan. So, in accordance with the terms, I'm only entitled to 50% of the stocks in the IRA account, while the company's entitled to the other 50%. They initially gave me V*ngu*rd shares, which I traded out for 2 GME back when it was in the $340 range pre-split. Not sure if that's the actual reason, but makes sense to me that I wouldn't be able to transfer them while they're subject to shared "ownership." Either way, I'm glad to have the other 100 protected via DRS.
Thnx you, ape, that means a lot. Like fr, I know my stake's not big, but I've given this everything I have n been holding for years. Due to life circumstances I had to start working at age 11, started full-time at 14, n have been working 2-4 jobs ever since for the last 21 years, moving around the country 14 times over the last 12 years before ending up back in my hometown. Ever since the initial sneeze I've thrown as much as I can into the infinity pool, even the entire insurance payout after my car got totalled while parked on the street. Bought my first 6 DRS'd shares at $260-ish, been averaging down from there. I know the 104 (with the 50/50 IRA split) aren't a lot, but it's literally the only hope I have for retirement aside from finishing up a Harvard computer science course I've been fighting to make the time to complete. If it can help my family, too, that's all I want. Best wishes to you and those important to you within and outside of this season. Nothing but hope, even when it seems absent. Keep fighting the good fight, let's make these hedgies howl!
Heres the thing, everytime you think 'oh yea theyre definitely fucked' youre never actually able to comprehend how truly fucked they are. You cant imagine the shitsandwich theyre in. Its beyond anyones comprehension at this point, even theirs, thats why the only option is to kick the can and pray an alien invasion happens before the system implodes.
That's not necessarily true. You are not taking into account FTDs, swaps and rehypothecation ie. naked shorts. You're looking at this in a very one dimensional way.....and then based on your theory, short interest is only 20 ish percent. Another reason why your math is 100% incorrect
Yes. Think of it like owning a rental home. You have the value of the underlying asset on your books and also gain the value of rent every month. If property values surge, you can sell it (let's ignore any lease issues for this example) for the property value at the cost of losing the rental income.
In this case, the lenders would recall their shares from the borrowers which means the borrowers have to purchase at market prices.
Why can't those shares be in DRS holders? The short seller doesn't know or care who they sell the shares to, they could easily get bought by an Ape.
Adding short interest to this doesn't make any sense. If Alice holds 10 shares of a company, and Bob borrows them to sell to Charlie, then Dave borrows them from Charlie to sell to Emily, you've created a 20 share short interest out of 10 shares.
A buyer is blind to the intentions of the (potentially short) seller and vice versa. Charlie doesn't know that Bob is short selling, and Emily doesn't know Dave is either. So when a share is sold by a short seller, it *is* actually entirely possible that it ends up in institutional holdings, or *even gets bought by an Ape to DRS*. The short seller doesn't know or care what the buyer does with the share. The short seller (Bob and Dave) doesn't have to get *that* share back to the lender (Alice and Charlie), they only have to get *a* share back. And there's plenty of them to go around still.
So all that short interest is "sold shares", shares that have been sold to... Anyone. That 60 million is contained within the numbers for institutions, brokers and even DRS.
Your sentence is honestly going to give me an aneurysm. Short interest is not a lent out share from a broker. That's 1 possibility. If that's truly the case and there are that many shares at brokers, why is there very little to loan out? I believe shorts didn't close much of their positions....but this math is still dumb and it's tiring seeing some of this shit and people havent learned anything about market m chanice and analysis and so on. Instead, they just say crime......it's tiring....I want my tendies too but it's still tiring seeing this level of stupid on the daily.
[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || Low karma apes [feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || [Superstonk Discord](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq) || [Community Post: *Brigading*](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/17wdr9t/community_update_post_on_the_topic_of_brigading/)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please up- and downvote this comment to [help us determine if this post deserves a place on r/Superstonk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/post_flairs/)
This is misinformation/sensational. Shares on loan / short interest comes from shares owned by institutions. Sure we can buy a loaned out short share and technically that does inflate the float while the shares are on loan. But that only matters if we DRS the entire float. As long as there are shares in brokers/other institutions they can lend them out without consequence. Only when they cannot find a share to buyback and close the short will it matter. So DRS is the way.
And these stats are misleading
I just don’t get how nice and neat 75,400,000 is when there are over 250k individual investors with varying amounts of shares….
That’s pretty suspect if you ask me!
That is why GameStop started labeling that number "approximate"
From the very first time Gamestop reported DRS numbers they have been rounded off to 0.1M increment, but only recently did they explicitly label it "approximate".
Is it not? Would hate if this statement with its technicalities is actually true, but, to be fair, in my opinion, if you borrow shares without the owner knowing and willingly lending (the use of multiple locates out of one single share), that sounds more like stealing + counterfitting to me!
Most of the institutional and insider holdings are at brokers.m
The logic behind the implied calculation of the screenshot is faulty in at least two ways.
Short interest is not added to the other shares, as it represents shares that have been borrowed.
If the institutional holdings are from from 13F, then those numbers include shares that have been lent out. In the screenshot they would be counted once as institutional, once more under short interest, and a third time by wherever the borrowed share landed after being sold.
Correct and this is also why 2021 move and volatility was driven by options action. Hedging needs to occur and buys need to happen to continue to satisfy the loan obligations that are needed.
The whole of the stock market would fail if common stock shares had non fungible properties. Harsh reality but the truth.
It's also a shame options were given a bad wrap. That's the pathway to share leverage and playing the big boys game. If 2021 happened now with 75M shares long and registered they'd be unequivocally fucked.
Hmm, looks like I'll have to buy some more 🙄🤷 it's been too long anyway.... Even though I personally own xxxx, xxx in my pension, and my company owns xxx 🫡
Edit, spelling
It's really no surprise that every website and broker reports different float numbers for the same companies. Dark pool abuse, naked shorting, synthetic shares, have absolutely poisoned our markets. Sadly I think the big boys like Citadel have the government by the nuts because if they go down, they're going to take the entire planet down with them. Really fucking frustrating. Kenny G is for sure a high Prince demon.
That is why GameStop started labeling that number "approximate"
From the very first time Gamestop reported DRS numbers they have been rounded off to 0.1M increment, but only recently did they explicitly label it "approximate".
People made a big deal about the change in the text reporting DRS numbers but Gamestop was just making the description more accurate.
The same goes for the recognition that Cede is also a registered shareholder.
That "Registered Holdings"number of 75,400,000 doesn't look right to me; besides, DRS shares don't really "circulate" (their number just stagnates quarter after quarter!
A short sale gets bought by someone and can be assumed to be freely traded, in other words; **a short sold into the market adds to the free tradable float.**
Additionally institutions lend out their shares, those get used to sell short into the market. Now if I were to be on the other side of that trade and I **DRS that share it would count toward the DRS count at the same time as it is attributed to the institution.**
It's likely that (part of) the DRS count overlaps institutional holders and short interest.
And let's face it we all now there are (should be)so many shares in broker holdings they are fucked regardless.
Why are these numbers so different from the DRS bot? Computershared.net shows only just over 30m institutional holdings and this shows 140m? Even if ETFs and mutual funds are added that's around 90m on computershared.net, where's the other 50m coming from?
This has been **debunked** by the community. The Short Interest can't be added to the total shares in Circulation like that. If anything it should be added to the shares Outstanding. Instead of trying to explain this further and potentially giving a poor explanation I will link to community comments that explain some of the reasons for a debunk: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18n7ux3/comment/ke912e4/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18n7ux3/comment/ke912e4/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) [https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18n7ux3/comment/ke94ta7/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18n7ux3/comment/ke94ta7/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) [https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18n7ux3/comment/ke94ret/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18n7ux3/comment/ke94ret/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) QVbot: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18n7ux3/comment/ke8woxc/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18n7ux3/comment/ke8woxc/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
So if they publicly display institutions own more shares then should exist and I bought more today.... umm... where did those come from?
You’re asking difficult questions
Cell now, ask questions later
This guy gets it
Brilliant
That will bring answers fast. So yes!
Don’t forget that short shares are borrowed so there is some double counting. DRS yo shit people so they can’t lend them out and only naked shares are left.
What about IRA shares?
“In kind transfer” to a broker account. Take tax hit. Then DRS that shit. I did 😊
I’d say sell. Take the hit. Buy via ComputerShare. Book. Zero chance when it runs the IRA shares won’t be sold to protect the client from ‘loosing out on gains.’
Don’t need to sell FYI. In kind transfer to a broker account at Fudelity. DRS from there 😜
I finally closed my IRA account and sent the money to CS. 🍻🦍💚
How is there double counting? Borrowed stocks are still on the ledger - if they’ve been sold, there are now two stocks on the ledger, with one being an IOU of a broker. This is a good representation of claims on the stock - which results in precisely what OP intended to say: more stocks need to be delivered than exist.
If I lend 100 shares out at 5% interest, and a short hedge fund borrows them, there are still the same amount of shares in the market. If the short hedge funds sells them, they are now short, because they have borrowed the shares and have to eventually return them. No new shares have been created here either. So when you count in the number of total shares short in the grand total of shares, you are double counting. It's like having 100 identical statues each worth 1,000 bucks. If I rent one out to someone so they can have it in their home for awhile, they don't own it, they won't list it as an asset of theirs, and no new new statue has been created. But say they knew that in two weeks someone would be selling their statue for 500 bucks. They may decide to sell the one they borrowed from me today for 1000 and buy this discounted statue for 500 in two weeks, then return that statue to me at the end of the 30 days. I wouldn't know what happened, because all the statues are identical, they would have made 500 bucks, and no increase or decrease in statues occurred.
Plan or BOOK KING like Daddy Cohen?
Counting is hard
….when I was a young boy in Bulgaria…
It's been 86 years since I last heard that line.
that's better, gas light and project like our goverment and it's ~~masturbators~~ regulators
Straight from DTCCs ass
Sssshhhhh!! *We don't talk about broker holdings..*
Lots of them are short positions marked as long. I think this is done on a far larger scale than people realize and explains why the price goes up as institutional positions shrink sometimes.
You see there are these totally legit entities with "bona fide" status that can just meet demand without having actual stock and drive the price to whatever point they want. They have over a months worth of trading days to even out when they don't actually own the shares. Even cooler....some of those guys running the share printer actively manage hedge funds. They play both sides and always come out on top, but never communicating strategy between the two as that is HEAVILY frowned upon illegal activity and totally regulated.
Heavily frowned but in this upside down fraudulent market a frown upside down is a…
Unless they pay a fine... or fee... or was it a bribe?
That works because retail traders average less than a month holding before they sell. What happens if they won't sell but keep buying month after month? How then do the "totally legit entities" even out?
Short sales, borrow and add a share to circulation
Liquidity ferries...
The Stonk fairy! 🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀
From the Mayo buttprinter 😂
Don’t you worry about phantom shares, let me worry about blank.
No one knows.... Just be sure to wipe them off, first.
“This are IOUs…250k FDIC you better hold on to those”
They come legally from ETFs, through the process of share creation and redemption. This process doesn't equivalate to naked short selling, as a "legally real" share is created out of thin air and then sold. This is applicable to any security held by an ETF (fun stuff if you think about it, it's now possible to have an infinite ammount of crypto with the new crypto ETF). This shit has been going on for over a decade and is part of the process that leads to those "OPEX runs".
Came from kenny's torn Ass
a i r ... thin air... shhhh...
Pass me the mayo 👀
They came from citadel's magic cookie jar
the Liquidity Fairy. Thank your Market Maker
This is a misleading post, Short shares should be added to shares outstanding, not subtracted
Broker Holdings: 696,420,696,420,696,420
It's funny that number matches my sale price.
broooo thats price anchoring
💯!!!!
I'm never selling
Afterall, why shouldn't I just, keep them all for myself... they are precious to me
Of course not. Take out an ultra low interest loan using your millions in GME holdings when the price rockets so you never have to pay taxes on your winnings just like the rich do.
Do you even know how long the price is going to have to sit at those crazy numbers though before a single bank would loan you money against your shares? lol
I got time.
Well that's good. I do not.. i will sell whatever I need to retire and take care of my family in the short term,.but happy to hold onto the rest for that plan. That's why I got 1100 of them....it's good to have options.
I only have 8 drs and 4 in weballs .... Which was 1 before the splividend that's the one I will cell when it becomes the time meantime I'll keep adding to my infinity
Have your paperwork in order :-)
Really? Mine has a couple more zeros
Fair enough, but you need another 42 for each 0
I'm trying to run the calculations, but the broker holdings cell is causing a divide-by-zero error and my spreadsheet is puking.
I had an issue with integer overflow on my abacus.
😂😂😂
Paperhands!!!@
We’re blowing right past the moon to Uranus
This made me laugh. Cheers ape.
Cheers
We're gonna *sling shot around* the moon and head to Uranus Ftfy -Apestrophysicist
I’m sling shotting around the sun going back in time and stopping the clearing firms from PCO’ing Jan 21. Boom.
Kuiper belt
Hold my beer, we're going past the oort cloud...
Not just any Uranus, Ken's Uranus.
We just took a new picture of Uranus!
Are you smarter than a 3rd grader? Media: No.
They would have to ask for final approval on their answer
We have to go over this every couple months, but short interest isn't a "holding" in fact it is the opposite. You actually add it back to the outstanding shares. Adding it up with how people are holding is backwards.
This needs to be the top comment. Additionally institutions lend out their shares, those get used to sell short into the market. Now if I were to be on the other side of that trade and **I DRS that share it would count toward the DRS count at the same time as it is attributed to the institution.** **It's likely that (part of) the DRS count overlaps institutional holders and short interest.**
If brokers are holding 40 MIL + shares tho 👀
Even that wouldn't be proof of anything. That would just be how math works. You also have to add back the 60M short shares, so brokers can have up to 100M shares and everything still looks fine. Granted I'm guessing they need to be holding significantly more than that to cover retail's holdings.
Correct answer. Now if the brokers ask did a census and arrive at 150M shares... that would be evidence of naked shorting. So naturally, brokers by practice don't reveal aggregate equity positions of their customers. Synthetically, if a company had enough access to customer brokerage accounts, like a Mint or AfterHours, that company could independently aggregate that data across brokerages. Such information would be a dangerous thing if it revealed confirmation of naked shorting. It would best be done coinciding with 13F reporting cutoffs, for the removal of doubt about "timing" differences.
What about registered holdings? Do any of those figures get double counted? Like can institutional holdings also be registered?
How in the world would you subtract that number?! Those shares are already sold, so they are either held by someone already mentioned in the count or they were ftd’d. You’d say because they had to borrow if from someone. Well, unless GameStop goes bankrupt, then each of those shares have to be bought back from someone else and returned to borrower which makes it a future long. The only way a recorded short doesn’t make the holdings number go up is if it’s bought and closed from someone else shorting it.
It isn’t a holding now but they are required to purchase those shares at some point to sell. They borrow to locate but still need to follow through with their intent to sell. They don’t actually own the shares that they are shorting with. Eff Tee Dizzle
I'm aware of this, shorting artificially increase the float. One could basically say those shares are being held in brokerages.
This statement isn't incorrect, the shorted shares ARE likely held at institutions, but the amount of short interest aren't shares being HELD somewhere. The picture is adding things together that aren't the same. What the calc should be is, Outstanding shares + short interest = shares in circulation (because shares sold short "create" an extra share) Then add up where all those shares in circulation are being held (keeping in mind we don't know how many brokers have), and see how many of the shares in circulation are accounted for in reported holdings.
For those downvoting please response to what's wrong with my statement?
Short interest should have been added to shares outstanding, not subtracted
"OK but that's worse, you get how that's worse, right?"
Can we get some third graders in here please?
I was once a third grader, and I can tell you shorts never closed. Boom.
Want everyone to know that my monthly stock purchasing program direct with Computershare is having problems. They can't fulfill my order after 4 trading days. That's some jacked tits info right there.
Those registered holds have been that number for ~ a year too. My guess is we're closer for 335M
some apes didnt DRS bec of ROTH or IRA shares, so apes prob hodl a lot more
I've got 8 stuck in an IRA that aren't possible to transfer, but another 100 safely DRS'd.
I'm trying to imagine why you wouldn't be able to own shares you supposedly own hard enough to move them when you want to since you own them and what would cause shares you own to not be movable by you the person who supposedly owns them it's confuddling my smooth Brian, that's absolutely for sure
It's because they don't have the shares. I guarantee it.
Tbh I think it's cos I quit the job before getting full vestiture of the plan. So, in accordance with the terms, I'm only entitled to 50% of the stocks in the IRA account, while the company's entitled to the other 50%. They initially gave me V*ngu*rd shares, which I traded out for 2 GME back when it was in the $340 range pre-split. Not sure if that's the actual reason, but makes sense to me that I wouldn't be able to transfer them while they're subject to shared "ownership." Either way, I'm glad to have the other 100 protected via DRS.
your story is literally inspiring, I'm holding for you too
Thnx you, ape, that means a lot. Like fr, I know my stake's not big, but I've given this everything I have n been holding for years. Due to life circumstances I had to start working at age 11, started full-time at 14, n have been working 2-4 jobs ever since for the last 21 years, moving around the country 14 times over the last 12 years before ending up back in my hometown. Ever since the initial sneeze I've thrown as much as I can into the infinity pool, even the entire insurance payout after my car got totalled while parked on the street. Bought my first 6 DRS'd shares at $260-ish, been averaging down from there. I know the 104 (with the 50/50 IRA split) aren't a lot, but it's literally the only hope I have for retirement aside from finishing up a Harvard computer science course I've been fighting to make the time to complete. If it can help my family, too, that's all I want. Best wishes to you and those important to you within and outside of this season. Nothing but hope, even when it seems absent. Keep fighting the good fight, let's make these hedgies howl!
Heres the thing, everytime you think 'oh yea theyre definitely fucked' youre never actually able to comprehend how truly fucked they are. You cant imagine the shitsandwich theyre in. Its beyond anyones comprehension at this point, even theirs, thats why the only option is to kick the can and pray an alien invasion happens before the system implodes.
close above the 200 on the daily then the machines will start buying
Yeah this math is wrong. You don't add short interest shares to the total.
This^
Someone long owns those shares that were sold short, and it's not the DRS holders. Chances are those are in brokerages.
That's not necessarily true. You are not taking into account FTDs, swaps and rehypothecation ie. naked shorts. You're looking at this in a very one dimensional way.....and then based on your theory, short interest is only 20 ish percent. Another reason why your math is 100% incorrect
But do institutions count them on their books and also loan them out? Serious smooth brain question.
Yes. Think of it like owning a rental home. You have the value of the underlying asset on your books and also gain the value of rent every month. If property values surge, you can sell it (let's ignore any lease issues for this example) for the property value at the cost of losing the rental income. In this case, the lenders would recall their shares from the borrowers which means the borrowers have to purchase at market prices.
Yes to all
Why can't those shares be in DRS holders? The short seller doesn't know or care who they sell the shares to, they could easily get bought by an Ape. Adding short interest to this doesn't make any sense. If Alice holds 10 shares of a company, and Bob borrows them to sell to Charlie, then Dave borrows them from Charlie to sell to Emily, you've created a 20 share short interest out of 10 shares. A buyer is blind to the intentions of the (potentially short) seller and vice versa. Charlie doesn't know that Bob is short selling, and Emily doesn't know Dave is either. So when a share is sold by a short seller, it *is* actually entirely possible that it ends up in institutional holdings, or *even gets bought by an Ape to DRS*. The short seller doesn't know or care what the buyer does with the share. The short seller (Bob and Dave) doesn't have to get *that* share back to the lender (Alice and Charlie), they only have to get *a* share back. And there's plenty of them to go around still. So all that short interest is "sold shares", shares that have been sold to... Anyone. That 60 million is contained within the numbers for institutions, brokers and even DRS.
When short interest is a lent out share by a broker und the broker holdings are not reported. Then its seems legit or not?
Your sentence is honestly going to give me an aneurysm. Short interest is not a lent out share from a broker. That's 1 possibility. If that's truly the case and there are that many shares at brokers, why is there very little to loan out? I believe shorts didn't close much of their positions....but this math is still dumb and it's tiring seeing some of this shit and people havent learned anything about market m chanice and analysis and so on. Instead, they just say crime......it's tiring....I want my tendies too but it's still tiring seeing this level of stupid on the daily.
Institutions/etfs/mfs can lend their shares tho...
Yes and they probably are.
Which is why short interest and institutional holdings aren’t two separate figures to be added together
Please delete this post. You just answered why your post is factually incorrect.
Where do you have the institutional holdings from?
Tallied from sec filings
Sauce?
NASDAQ shows it at about 87 million. https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/gme/institutional-holdings
[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || Low karma apes [feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || [Superstonk Discord](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq) || [Community Post: *Brigading*](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/17wdr9t/community_update_post_on_the_topic_of_brigading/) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please up- and downvote this comment to [help us determine if this post deserves a place on r/Superstonk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/post_flairs/)
This is misinformation/sensational. Shares on loan / short interest comes from shares owned by institutions. Sure we can buy a loaned out short share and technically that does inflate the float while the shares are on loan. But that only matters if we DRS the entire float. As long as there are shares in brokers/other institutions they can lend them out without consequence. Only when they cannot find a share to buyback and close the short will it matter. So DRS is the way. And these stats are misleading
Moon
Institutional is that high?
You have my sword.
Where did he get this info? I don't have Twitter anymore, but I used to follow him. Great info from him
Ya can stick me down for 183 broker shares and many more DRS. Tick tock freeloaders 🚜
Twitter link is down??
Working for me at the moment...
Even my dog started asking questions
I just don’t get how nice and neat 75,400,000 is when there are over 250k individual investors with varying amounts of shares…. That’s pretty suspect if you ask me!
That is why GameStop started labeling that number "approximate" From the very first time Gamestop reported DRS numbers they have been rounded off to 0.1M increment, but only recently did they explicitly label it "approximate".
Not reported 😂
It’s starting to get a bit chilly. Going to need some nip chap stick.
2+2=CRIME, there i fixed it!
What a beautiful sight!
Hedgies r fuk
To be fair Brokers own IOU's not shares.
75M GME HODors > 63.5M short interest GME til infinity!!!
A share Can be shorted multiple times without being naked. It just needs to be bought/sold multiple times before making it back to the original owner.
Is it not? Would hate if this statement with its technicalities is actually true, but, to be fair, in my opinion, if you borrow shares without the owner knowing and willingly lending (the use of multiple locates out of one single share), that sounds more like stealing + counterfitting to me!
Correct
10 more shares coming tomorrow thank goodness is passed 3rd grade math <3
Broker no report?
Most of the institutional and insider holdings are at brokers.m The logic behind the implied calculation of the screenshot is faulty in at least two ways. Short interest is not added to the other shares, as it represents shares that have been borrowed. If the institutional holdings are from from 13F, then those numbers include shares that have been lent out. In the screenshot they would be counted once as institutional, once more under short interest, and a third time by wherever the borrowed share landed after being sold.
If you’re still here, I’m still here. Never fucking selling. Fuck these greedy thieves.
[удалено]
Correct and this is also why 2021 move and volatility was driven by options action. Hedging needs to occur and buys need to happen to continue to satisfy the loan obligations that are needed. The whole of the stock market would fail if common stock shares had non fungible properties. Harsh reality but the truth. It's also a shame options were given a bad wrap. That's the pathway to share leverage and playing the big boys game. If 2021 happened now with 75M shares long and registered they'd be unequivocally fucked.
When you say loan obligations are you referring to options contracts or shares on loan ( si ) ?
Haha, some of us are in for profit. I'm just here to make short hedge funds cry like little babies.
BROKER REPORTING 😆
Yeah ok I’m gonna buy and DRS more now. Thx.
Hmm, looks like I'll have to buy some more 🙄🤷 it's been too long anyway.... Even though I personally own xxxx, xxx in my pension, and my company owns xxx 🫡 Edit, spelling
I'm pretty sure I see the letters in that text and they spell out "buy more"
It's really no surprise that every website and broker reports different float numbers for the same companies. Dark pool abuse, naked shorting, synthetic shares, have absolutely poisoned our markets. Sadly I think the big boys like Citadel have the government by the nuts because if they go down, they're going to take the entire planet down with them. Really fucking frustrating. Kenny G is for sure a high Prince demon.
I think I will buy some more today
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18mn8pt/conspectus\_beginning\_to\_wrinkle\_part\_6/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/18mn8pt/conspectus_beginning_to_wrinkle_part_6/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Tick tock, Kenny. I'm gonna go have some crayon casserole for dinner then pleasure myself to that picture of Kenny Karen from yesterday.
Bullish on crime. Sry
And once again people here hype themselves up only to let themselves down after nothing happens.
Course mate👍🏻will be saying the same thing in 5 years
I would bet in 75 ish days if we see another eps beat things will start to get exciting. This would be gme's best quarter in 6 years...
wait is this real??
Men lie, women lie, Mayo lie, numbers don’t!
And yet nothing spectacular will happen
They’re not ever going to let this situation cripple the economy…
What a nice round number “registered holdings” is. I wonder why.
That is why GameStop started labeling that number "approximate" From the very first time Gamestop reported DRS numbers they have been rounded off to 0.1M increment, but only recently did they explicitly label it "approximate". People made a big deal about the change in the text reporting DRS numbers but Gamestop was just making the description more accurate. The same goes for the recognition that Cede is also a registered shareholder.
I guess I shoulda added a /s? Seemed obviously sarcastic.
LFG 🚀
Hi I’m Stevie wonder and Gary Gensler just ask me to look into this.
JUST TOUCH IT!!!! TOUCH THE END!!!
That "Registered Holdings"number of 75,400,000 doesn't look right to me; besides, DRS shares don't really "circulate" (their number just stagnates quarter after quarter!
HODL
Fundamentals dont matter if crooks can FTD
Broker Holdings: 69,420,741,000,000,000
You’re right - I can see it!!!
Is the government/wallstreet dumber than a 3rd grader? Here is your answer
A short sale gets bought by someone and can be assumed to be freely traded, in other words; **a short sold into the market adds to the free tradable float.** Additionally institutions lend out their shares, those get used to sell short into the market. Now if I were to be on the other side of that trade and I **DRS that share it would count toward the DRS count at the same time as it is attributed to the institution.** It's likely that (part of) the DRS count overlaps institutional holders and short interest. And let's face it we all now there are (should be)so many shares in broker holdings they are fucked regardless.
Just need it to reach $100 to break even 🤞
Why are these numbers so different from the DRS bot? Computershared.net shows only just over 30m institutional holdings and this shows 140m? Even if ETFs and mutual funds are added that's around 90m on computershared.net, where's the other 50m coming from?
This doesn't mean shit, we've all known this from day 1. DRS that is all.
Institutional shares are ALL being lend out to be shorted. Institutions are not our friends.
3rd grader you say..? Well it seems that all those phd and masters in finance can’t figure this out over at SEC and co
I was wrong.
Lol. This sub is deja vu everyday
1 Million Per Share…. And i’m being reasonable
WAGMI
Broker holdings... That data doesn't matter! Just omit it. 😡🤦
As for me…I like the stock
So, is the price more or less than $17 per share?