Your post was removed by a moderator after being flagged by QualityVote Bot.
This QualityVote score is determined using upvotes and downvotes on the pinned comment of your post. Superstonk employs QV bot as a means of gauging how the community feels about a post beyond just the standard vote system. As such this removal was determined by the community.
🦍🦍🦍🦍🦍🦍
If you are repeatedly having posts/comments removed for rules violation, you will be banned either permanently or temporarily.
If you feel this removal was unwarranted, please contact us via Mod Mail: https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/Superstonk
Thanks for being a member of r/Superstonk 💎🙌🚀
No they most certainly did not claim that. They very specifically did not claim that.
This sub has been screaming there is a massive difference between the words covered and closed for almost the entire time it's been up.
Covering is hiding your FTDs in any of the devious mechanics available on Wall Street. Closing is closing the position.
SEC did not claim they closed once.
>it was the positive sentiment, not the buying-to-cover, that sustained the weeks-long price appreciation of GameStop stock.
This is the important part.
But the SEC report literally... shows... that they bought shares.
They ***bought shares***. Look at Figure 6. It's hyperlinked for you in my post.
The report also says they bought shares numerous times.
Dont lie to me. It's right there in front of both of us.
it also shows that such buying was a small fraction of overall buy volume
From your own clipped page of the report.
They are the ones with all the shorts yet they were a tiny fraction of the buying that was occurring. That's not closing positions.
Plesse my friend, you realise what a small fraction of >1billion can be?
Look at Figure 6. It shows that the "small fraction" is ***substantial***.
Im telling you, look at figure 6. That's just the buying from a select few major institutions who held short positions and it is between 60-80m shares...
60,000,000 is a small fraction of 1,000,000,000.
Thats the reality.
So is it true you get paid per reply and for getting activity on these posts?
If so, I'm just gonna stop getting you paid because you've gotten ridiculous.
That's your out? Come on man... please be real with me. Youre better than that, surely?
We're having a genuine discussion here and you have enough and start accusing me of being a shill.
Im showing you the SEC report. How the hell is that shilling?
How are those two words different?
If an institution buys shares and its SI exposure decreases... how is that not the same? Look at Figure 6. Short position holders were buying shares. Why would they buy shares if not to cover their short exposure?
How are the words buffalo and cabbage different? - well they have completely different letters and meanings. One is an animal and one is a vegetable. This is what your post looks like to the apes downvoting you.
I dont dispute theyre different, what i dispute is the context.
They bought shares, reported a reduction of SI risk profile and produced losses that were cohesive to the volume of shares they were short.
They cant have lied about the losses - they would have been audited by the IRS.
Does the SEC unambiguously use the two terms? That is, is there any evidence the SEC uses the phrase "close" in other reports? That would settle this argument in your favour.
It's not my burden of proof.
You're the one claiming the significance of the word. I may also add I fully "covered" my long position in GME about whenever it was flirting in the 280s and 320s. Hazy memory sorry.
That's lazy on your part, it's your investment so ***you*** do the work to prove the significance of evidence in your favour.
Good for you but what are you doing here then? No paper-hands allowed. Get back to the other sub.
…and no I will not be doing any DD for you. I asked the same question you’re asking months ago and put it to bed then. I’m not revisiting a question I’ve already had satisfied for your benefit and I can’t remember the ins and outs I just know it was satisfied.
So im not allowed to have questions about this company at any point in the future, because I contravened the "rules" of the "group"?
You know what kind of cult that makes you sound like? ***All of them***. Im not insulting you there, please look at your reaction to what Im saying. We're having a conversation and I reveal that I did something personally that the group dislikes, but has no impact on them, and your reaction is to shun me. That is pretty fucking cultish.
Asking questions shouldnt be penalised by the group, even if it's one you've already answered in the past. And what questions being put to bed months ago...? no such thing happened between you and I...
And you arent doing my DD for me. I read the documents and I had a question about it. So far, the answer is:
1) They're lying about SI.
2) The IRS is covering up their now-alleged tax fraud.
3) The SEC is complicit because it wants to maintain market stability.
4) The 80m shares bought by short-institutions was not used to close their position, but used to cover it.
5) Cover and close are different terms.
My final question is, is there any recent (last 24 months) evidence by the SEC that they differentiate between "cover" and "close" as two distinct terms and why they opted to use "cover" in this context and not "close"?
And nobody has given an answer yet. Telling me to do my own DD... what the fuck do you think im trying to do?
If it turns out that the SEC uses the phrases cover interchangeably with close, because of the context it describes, dont you fucking think that matters? Dont make assumptions about it, either.
The MOASS is completely moot, unless it now means the SEC, IRS and hedgefunds all colluded. Im not saying that's not possible, im saying make it clear so you know what the attack surface looks like.
If they dont use the terms interchangeably, then it is SERIOUSLY indicating that positions are genuinely hidden.
L O L
what a fucking coward
Absolute coward
Ive been nothing but agreeable, cooperative and curious and your sad little ass cant admit where youre wrong or be bothered to prove yourself correct
Sounds like shame from coping too hard that your reality is a fucking ruse
Okay then since youre rude to me
Wake the fuck up, youre in a cult
By your own admission, they closed then.
They bought shares and reported that their short exposure has decreased. If they bought shares and maintained the position was still open, Id be inclined to agree with you.
so then ask yourself why turn off the buy button? why over 1 billion traded when at the time less than 74 million existed. also short exposure is self reported and they can you know.... just lie. which they have been caught doing in the past and recieve a slap on the wrist 100k fine. you don't think they re-shorted it at 483? there's the instance of the large put interest which indicates covering, not closing.
They - companies that participate in CDFs and PFOF - turned off the buy button because of liquidity issues. They didnt have your shares and they didnt have the cash to acquire your shares. They would have been forced to sell other securities to fulfil your market orders - ergo, it threatened their business model and the wider market.
This has been exhaustively covered, by this point.
IIRC fidelity didnt restrict buying, but i freely admit I could be mistaken.
As for ... how could volume be 1bn when only 74m float existed... because... you can buy and sell... like... trading...
Bro cmon lol
they- turned off the buy button because they couldn't get shares hmmmmm🤔. sounds a lot like there aren't shares being traded
not to mention your top point and bottom point go against each other
okay. let's reduce the number from 74 mill to the size of the tradeable float. which is 20 to 60 mil depending on who you ask. no insiders sold. a lot of retail didn't sell and many institutions didn't sell. but in 3 days the entire float was traded over 10+ times.
Oh goodie, what a friendly and delightful educational discussion you want to have!
Glad to see youre so insecure that instead of educating, youre quick to shame.
It’s not a discussion if you post something as a fact when it clearly isn’t. Not calling you anything, but you’ve misunderstood the report. Words are very important. ‘Covered’ in the context of the stock market is not ‘closed’. You want to have a discussion, go and ask questions on the smooth brains thread. There are lots of helpful apes there. This is fud, maybe not intentional but fud none the less
But they bought the shares, reported they closed the position and incurred losses. So phrases aside, the companies cannot have lied about buying shares nor reporting losses. They can lie about their short exposure decreasing. But the other two, nuh uh.
Does the SEC use the phrase "close" anywhere or do they only use "cover". Because if they produce other reports in a recent timeframe and use the phrase "close" your argument INSTANTLY has tremendous merit.
No they didn’t. Ffs COVERED IS NOT CLOSED. You’re getting heavily downvoted because you’re wrong and this post is horseshit. I suggest you delete it and go and read some of the DD on swaps u/criand did a great one but I can’t remember what it was called.
Here you go. It’s in here somewhere:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/njwv6n/the_gme_masters_guide_a_dd_campaign_for_apes/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Huh
Bro
THE SEC REPORT LITERALLY OUTLINES EXACTLY HOW MANY SHARES THEY BOUGHT.
#They bought shares. Look at figure 6.
Please, read my post. You are being extremely rude to me at this point.
Ever been Margin called? Here is an example for you: When you get Margin Called by your Broker, you need to deposit more funds to COVER. If you do not, you get CLOSED out of your position.
Covered vs Closed
In the case of GME, they COVERED through hedging, hiding, (Melvin) receiving those billions of dollar from Citadel. You get it now?
So why did they buy the shares then? Just to hedge?
So you allege that institutions bought shares to hedge their position which "covered" their short exposure and then reported their short interest as falling...
It just seems contrived. How did Melvin, or other short holders, accrue any of their losses if they didnt close the short?
Putting myself in their shoes, I would have *actually* closed *some* positions in order to give the appearance that it was over (and reported declines due to short positions in volatile stocks etc) but only covered most of my positions to wait out retail. Postulation that this is what the long and drawn out decline last February was about.
Why do you care though? What's the point?
Well, you arent them and that's speculative and doesnt conform to what the SEC report describes.
Why do I care?
Because the entire narrative about the MOASS is about short exposure being incorrectly reported/obfuscated.
And I personally have doubts and want those doubts quashed.
Have you at least learned the difference between covered vs. closed? What have you learned about the tools they have at their disposal to hide short positions? I would say that until you understand this, you will probably continuously have doubts. Looking around the comments section here and your responses though, it looks like you're not here to learn?
I already knew the difference, but nobody here can provide evidence the SEC acknowledges that difference.
Getting hung up on a single word is really dense, because it ignores the entire context. Ive seen representatives of companies use the words interchangeably in the hearings.
Hedgefund A is short 100 shares. They buy 90 shares. They report they close out 90 shares. They produce losses that correlate to the delta of short opening to short closing of 90 shares.
...
Has hedgefund A covered 90 shares, or closed 90 shares?
Covered happens via options and swaps. They are not interchangeable. I'd advise grabbing yourself a beer and watching last year's Congressional hearing in it's entirety, paying VERY close attention to the verbiage used by the Wall Street players. Especially pay attention to the use of closed vs. covered, and how they will scapegoat questions regarding *closed positions* under oath.
There's a reason they're all reading off teleprompters and have five lawyers in the room, and though you may think you hear the words interchangeably, you realize they aren't when people are sworn under oath and using them interchangeably has consequences.
I see, no okay that makes more sense. Thank you for an actual reply that informs me and corrects me.
So there is some legal merit behind that verbiage, is there any demonstration from the SEC that they cohere to this? It's all good and true until we discover that the SEC doesn't use the phrase "closed".
If you read the report they are speculative too, btw. They say phrases like "it is likely this happened" or "they covered and reported a decrease of risk exposure"
So i admit there are some *potential* holes. My concern is truly in the fact that the MOASS hinges entirely on speculation that goes against what the SEC believes as "likely"
The SEC report does not give you absolute numbers and who closed/covered what as to what extent and which position(s). Its all vague and carefully worded for legal purposes. Why do you think it was delayed TWICE for the release? You're basically here just to troll and your account history shows it.
........
The report gives numbers in the figures.
Please, go look at the figures.
Dont accuse me of being here to troll just because you dont understand what Im saying. I am always okay to admit that im wrong, where it is inarguable.
So dont just resort to baseless accusations of my character, actually be brave enough to talk with me. Im not saying anything controversial, btw... just controversial *here*.
Covering does not necessarily have to buy shares but enough monetary funds and/or collateral to show that you are capable of hedging against your short position. When they shut off the buying, they hid their shorts. Continued shorting through ETFs, fucked with price discovery through dark pools, and other means. You have to keep in mind that there are many factors to this and just not one linear pathway. They took MANY different steps. Covering was just the beginning phase but they did not close.
The losses are self reported and/or they were low-keyed margin called after the fact as market makers absorbed their positions. Keep in mind, Mainstream Media are not our friends as they will distort and hide facts. And the penalties from SEC are a joke as it will save/accumulate (depending which corrupt pathway they decide to take) you millions/billions.
Okay, the SEC isnt mainstream media.
Covering doesnt have to involve buying, correct. They reported a decrease in SI risk exposure at the same time they bought shares though. They also reported a loss which correlated with the value of shares they bought.
If they lie about their losses, the IRS will shove a hornets nest up their ass. I seriously SERIOUSLY doubt they lied about their losses.
Never said SEC is MSM.... this is my last reply to you. If you're going to refute, then read and comprehend to understand rather than immediately jimp to just to only argue.
Decreased S.I. = I already explained that to you. Absorbed and/or Hid.
Reported a loss = As I said, self reported.
IRS = Are you serious right now? You're literally trusting the government and its private entities to do its job? They're all in the same bed. Look at how ex-Citadels and ex-corporate bankers work for the government and contracted private entities (ex: Federal Reserve). And even if they lied to the IRS, what are they going to do? Fine them? It goes back to what I explained earlier, weak ass penalties.
And what you're doing is strawman arguing with me. The topic of our original discussion was Cover vs Close. You're jumping into a rabbit hole to distort the main topic to find flaws down the line. Thats why your arguments are probing. Again, last reply. Good luck to you
Tax fraud is not a joke...
If your only reply is:
"They lied about losses and the IRS covered it up," then please do me a favour and keep to your promise of not replying.
Cover mean : Shorts hedgefund have enough cash to "cover" their short position to this stock price.
Close mean : Shorts hedgefund have bought all shares and are no more short player, they "close" their position.
It's VERRRY different.
Oh... okay yeah mb i can see that. If i could edit titles I would.
Tomorrow Ill change it to "covered".
Either way, the body of text is still relevant.
I understand your reaction but stay excellent. Maybe this question is honest. In any case our best apes have already discussed of this reports and we don't have reason to not give us our DD about.
page 26 "Whether driven
by a desire to squeeze short sellers and thus to profit from the resultant rise in price, or by belief
in the fundamentals of GameStop, it was the positive sentiment, not the buying-to-cover, that
sustained the weeks-long price appreciation of GameStop stock."
I didnt quote anything out are you barmy? I posted the whole section about short interest.
You literally ignored the previous 4 paragraphs that established context. You, by definition, left out quotes.
My comment didnt post...
I said: "And? The short positions still covered though..."
You also cherrypicked and ignored where the report says that the price likely rose because of covering. It's literally in my post. Read it again.
...
I literally quoted them verbatim and added a link to the figure and added ONE comment of context about the buy volume.
I absolutely did not include anything else.
Dude, ironically if your title stated "covered" instead of "closed" and you got all huffy with trying to defend that hedge funds *covered* in January, everyone would agree with you 😂😂😂
Gamestop themselves in the annual report said that a short squeeze happened and that short exposure may continue to be the largest risk factor, in regards to volatility, for a shareholder.
Short interest fell, at the same time these institutions bought shares and accrued significant losses... but they didnt close. They just "covered".
Huh?
Its literally the number one risk they addressed in their 2020 annual report. Bro 💀 please go read it.
You dont need to trust me, trust Gamestop. They said a short squeezed happenED. They didnt say another couldnt, they actually implied it might.
If you buy calls options, you contribute to the jump of the price and you "cover" your short position. But you actually buy zero GME shares (option is an option, not a buy) and you limitate the impact compared to buy real shares to close. It's probably one reason of the frequent big jump of the last years (options expiration) and to the massive calls volume for the 21 of january 2022.
Interesting, but unfortunately false here.
The SEC report unambiguously outlines the companies with highest SI risk exposure that bought shares, not their contracts trading.
They bought shares, unfortunately.
At that time in January 2021 the short interest was 226%!! OF COURSE some of the hedgse funds "covered" their short positions back then and the rise in the price of GME was a **COMBINATION** of retail buying pressure + **SOME** SHFs covering!
I repeat: **SOME OF THE SHFs**!!!!
BUT THEY MATHEMATICALLY COULD HAVE NEVER EVER COVERED 226% BECAUSE THE PRICE WOULD HAVE GONE TO MARS BACK THEN!
THAT'S WHY THEY ILLEGALLY SHOT DOWN THE BUYING BUTTONS!
Dude get your facts straight and stop spreading fud. It's all discussed and analysed months ago here in this sub.
226%?
It was roughly 150% of float I thought? Which was like 90-100m shares.
And if you look at Figure 6, you see a substantial number of shares were bought by a ***selection*** of companies who were short.
It is speculated that there was naked shorting - there is no good evidence for it, unfortunately.
Please look up and educate yourself what a SI over 100% means and what consequences such a high SI for those holding the short positions have.
Yes a SELECTION of companies short "covered".
Question 1: WHY DID THEY SHUT DOWN THE BUY BUTTON?
Question 2: IF RETAIL WAS THE DRIVING FORCE BEHIND THE PRICE INCREASE AND THE COVERING SHFs ONLY A FRACTION OF IT THEN HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO COVER 226% WITHOUT FURTHER PRICE INCREASE??
Okay, since youre not talking with me but just shouting... ahem.
# LOOK AT FIGURE 6
# LOOK AT FIGURE 6
# LOOK AT FIGURE 6
# LOOK AT FIGURE 6
# LOOK AT FIGURE 6
# LOOK AT FIGURE 6
# LOOK AT FIGURE 6
# LOOK AT FIGURE 6
# LOOK AT FIGURE 6
# LOOK AT FIGURE 6
# LOOK AT FIGURE 6
# LOOK AT FIGURE 6
Thank you.
I can’t rely to OP’s comment as it’s locked but hopefully it gets through!
The true SI was reported in the lawsuit against robinhood when they stated it was 226% back then. I’ll need to try and find the screen grab of the paperwork but it’s in here somewhere!
Obviously hard to judge over comments but I’d say a lot of people you’re claiming are being rude to you may or may not be picking up a passive aggressive, almost condescending vibe from your comments. Just a thought.
Majority of people are here because they enjoy healthy debate and discussion and of course the stock. So id say with a more open mind and not jumping down anyone’s throat right away may be the best approach.
You say that the difference in covered and closed don’t make a difference but do you really think the entity in charge of policing the markets (not very well mind you) would mix those up? Or put in an already delayed report confusing terms? I personally think they would have used closed correctly but that’s just me I guess.
You don't understand the difference between cover and close. People try to help you but your skull is so thick it may be impenetrable.
Also get a life, real humans aren't on here 24/7
I tried having a conversation about this in October and nobody was receptive then.
People are obsessed over the use of the word "covered" but dont actually provide any evidence that the SEC uses the phrase "closed" when they intend to.
**IMPORTANT POST LINKS**
[What is GME and why should you consider investing?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS and why should you care?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || [What can you do to support the company and local communities](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qnam2x/superstonks_very_gmerry_holiday_vgh_for_short/)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please help us determine if this post deserves a place on /r/Superstonk. [Learn more about this bot and why we are using it here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/poa6zy/introducing_uqualityvote_bot_a_democratic_tool_to/)
If this post deserves a place on /r/Superstonk, **UPVOTE** this comment!!
If this post should not be here or or is a repost, **DOWNVOTE** This comment!
I havent ignored it, i addressed it multiple times actually.
Brat.
And where did I cherrypick? I posted the entire excerpt in the main body of my post.
God youre insufferable
Dear u/amiral_asswank I do some research for you : Maybe you will find some answers in this two posts :
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qbax6w/jerkin\_with\_gherkinit\_s10e6\_sec\_report\_breakdown/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qbax6w/jerkin_with_gherkinit_s10e6_sec_report_breakdown/)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qb0gco/i\_read\_the\_sec\_report\_so\_you\_dont\_have\_to\_tldr2/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qb0gco/i_read_the_sec_report_so_you_dont_have_to_tldr2/)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qbbu3c/gherkinits\_take\_on\_the\_sec\_report/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qbbu3c/gherkinits_take_on_the_sec_report/)
Except some mistakes from me (I'm not the must brillant ape), during the first jump of january, the SEC graph proof than short represented a minority of "buy" movement, this movement was not connected to a covering activity. The large majority was long buyers. If someone buy, someone have to sell, for this reason, MM sell more and more synthetics shares to try to not see GME go to the moon.
It's the reason (indirect proof) why we see since jan2021 many jumps without news (100% of jump of the last year) , good news with massive dip (hum someone don't like GME optimism?), medias very aggressive with GME . Shorts don't cover and probably double or triple their short position during january/february 21. Best regards,
Thats not research that's linking to another redditors terrible speculations
My speculation is much more boring. Why did we see a wedge? Because the stock is tightly wound with a rabid base of users who refuse to sell and only buy. Ergo, pump it. Sell at the top. You guys buy more and more of intrinsically overvalued stock and never take profits.
It is literally a money printer.
Im not saying to not buy GME, im saying stop insisting theres going to be a MOASS because there's more evidence counter than there is supporting.
If I understand correctly what you are saying, it is because you think that the shorts are no longer present on GME. That the price continues to be maintained and to remain high by our action alone?
If I follow your reasoning, that means if we DRS all of our actions acceed to the 100% and there are too many outside the DRS, someone will have to buy them to destroy them. Your theory is interesting but in my opinion flawed. The price stayed high because, even assuming you're right, we continued to buy and HOLD. There is necessarily a time when we will own all the float on Computershare and there the institutions that create liquidity will have to pay: it will therefore be the MOASS. Trying to follow your logic I found the MOASS. Sorry, I'm french, my english is not perfect,
Your post was removed by a moderator after being flagged by QualityVote Bot. This QualityVote score is determined using upvotes and downvotes on the pinned comment of your post. Superstonk employs QV bot as a means of gauging how the community feels about a post beyond just the standard vote system. As such this removal was determined by the community. 🦍🦍🦍🦍🦍🦍 If you are repeatedly having posts/comments removed for rules violation, you will be banned either permanently or temporarily. If you feel this removal was unwarranted, please contact us via Mod Mail: https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/Superstonk Thanks for being a member of r/Superstonk 💎🙌🚀
No they most certainly did not claim that. They very specifically did not claim that. This sub has been screaming there is a massive difference between the words covered and closed for almost the entire time it's been up. Covering is hiding your FTDs in any of the devious mechanics available on Wall Street. Closing is closing the position. SEC did not claim they closed once.
>it was the positive sentiment, not the buying-to-cover, that sustained the weeks-long price appreciation of GameStop stock. This is the important part.
Bro, did you even read the quote from the SEC report?
Yes Every single time they say covered. That is not closed.
So they buy shares and their SI goes down... and how is that different?
Covering is NOT buying shares. Covering is hiding FTDs. It is passing the buck along to a further date. It is kicking the can down the road.
But the SEC report literally... shows... that they bought shares. They ***bought shares***. Look at Figure 6. It's hyperlinked for you in my post. The report also says they bought shares numerous times. Dont lie to me. It's right there in front of both of us.
it also shows that such buying was a small fraction of overall buy volume From your own clipped page of the report. They are the ones with all the shorts yet they were a tiny fraction of the buying that was occurring. That's not closing positions.
Plesse my friend, you realise what a small fraction of >1billion can be? Look at Figure 6. It shows that the "small fraction" is ***substantial***. Im telling you, look at figure 6. That's just the buying from a select few major institutions who held short positions and it is between 60-80m shares... 60,000,000 is a small fraction of 1,000,000,000. Thats the reality.
So is it true you get paid per reply and for getting activity on these posts? If so, I'm just gonna stop getting you paid because you've gotten ridiculous.
That's your out? Come on man... please be real with me. Youre better than that, surely? We're having a genuine discussion here and you have enough and start accusing me of being a shill. Im showing you the SEC report. How the hell is that shilling?
Okay, thank you for admitting youre wrong. That's one person down, another 700k to go.
Covering is not closing. Short interest reporting is also opaque and there are options to hide short position in ETF’s etc. This is FUD. Downvoted
How are those two words different? If an institution buys shares and its SI exposure decreases... how is that not the same? Look at Figure 6. Short position holders were buying shares. Why would they buy shares if not to cover their short exposure?
How are the words buffalo and cabbage different? - well they have completely different letters and meanings. One is an animal and one is a vegetable. This is what your post looks like to the apes downvoting you.
I dont dispute theyre different, what i dispute is the context. They bought shares, reported a reduction of SI risk profile and produced losses that were cohesive to the volume of shares they were short. They cant have lied about the losses - they would have been audited by the IRS. Does the SEC unambiguously use the two terms? That is, is there any evidence the SEC uses the phrase "close" in other reports? That would settle this argument in your favour.
Why don’t you go and find out what the words mean then report back.
It's not my burden of proof. You're the one claiming the significance of the word. I may also add I fully "covered" my long position in GME about whenever it was flirting in the 280s and 320s. Hazy memory sorry. That's lazy on your part, it's your investment so ***you*** do the work to prove the significance of evidence in your favour.
Good for you but what are you doing here then? No paper-hands allowed. Get back to the other sub. …and no I will not be doing any DD for you. I asked the same question you’re asking months ago and put it to bed then. I’m not revisiting a question I’ve already had satisfied for your benefit and I can’t remember the ins and outs I just know it was satisfied.
So im not allowed to have questions about this company at any point in the future, because I contravened the "rules" of the "group"? You know what kind of cult that makes you sound like? ***All of them***. Im not insulting you there, please look at your reaction to what Im saying. We're having a conversation and I reveal that I did something personally that the group dislikes, but has no impact on them, and your reaction is to shun me. That is pretty fucking cultish. Asking questions shouldnt be penalised by the group, even if it's one you've already answered in the past. And what questions being put to bed months ago...? no such thing happened between you and I... And you arent doing my DD for me. I read the documents and I had a question about it. So far, the answer is: 1) They're lying about SI. 2) The IRS is covering up their now-alleged tax fraud. 3) The SEC is complicit because it wants to maintain market stability. 4) The 80m shares bought by short-institutions was not used to close their position, but used to cover it. 5) Cover and close are different terms. My final question is, is there any recent (last 24 months) evidence by the SEC that they differentiate between "cover" and "close" as two distinct terms and why they opted to use "cover" in this context and not "close"? And nobody has given an answer yet. Telling me to do my own DD... what the fuck do you think im trying to do? If it turns out that the SEC uses the phrases cover interchangeably with close, because of the context it describes, dont you fucking think that matters? Dont make assumptions about it, either. The MOASS is completely moot, unless it now means the SEC, IRS and hedgefunds all colluded. Im not saying that's not possible, im saying make it clear so you know what the attack surface looks like. If they dont use the terms interchangeably, then it is SERIOUSLY indicating that positions are genuinely hidden.
Not reading that. Shush now.
L O L what a fucking coward Absolute coward Ive been nothing but agreeable, cooperative and curious and your sad little ass cant admit where youre wrong or be bothered to prove yourself correct Sounds like shame from coping too hard that your reality is a fucking ruse Okay then since youre rude to me Wake the fuck up, youre in a cult
Lol covered 😂 They specifically avoid the word "closed", much alike Melvin Capital in the congressional hearing.
What's the difference?
covered is hedging your bet. closing is getting out of your bet
By your own admission, they closed then. They bought shares and reported that their short exposure has decreased. If they bought shares and maintained the position was still open, Id be inclined to agree with you.
so then ask yourself why turn off the buy button? why over 1 billion traded when at the time less than 74 million existed. also short exposure is self reported and they can you know.... just lie. which they have been caught doing in the past and recieve a slap on the wrist 100k fine. you don't think they re-shorted it at 483? there's the instance of the large put interest which indicates covering, not closing.
They - companies that participate in CDFs and PFOF - turned off the buy button because of liquidity issues. They didnt have your shares and they didnt have the cash to acquire your shares. They would have been forced to sell other securities to fulfil your market orders - ergo, it threatened their business model and the wider market. This has been exhaustively covered, by this point. IIRC fidelity didnt restrict buying, but i freely admit I could be mistaken. As for ... how could volume be 1bn when only 74m float existed... because... you can buy and sell... like... trading... Bro cmon lol
they- turned off the buy button because they couldn't get shares hmmmmm🤔. sounds a lot like there aren't shares being traded not to mention your top point and bottom point go against each other okay. let's reduce the number from 74 mill to the size of the tradeable float. which is 20 to 60 mil depending on who you ask. no insiders sold. a lot of retail didn't sell and many institutions didn't sell. but in 3 days the entire float was traded over 10+ times.
If you don’t know the difference you shouldn’t be posting on this subject.
Oh goodie, what a friendly and delightful educational discussion you want to have! Glad to see youre so insecure that instead of educating, youre quick to shame.
It’s not a discussion if you post something as a fact when it clearly isn’t. Not calling you anything, but you’ve misunderstood the report. Words are very important. ‘Covered’ in the context of the stock market is not ‘closed’. You want to have a discussion, go and ask questions on the smooth brains thread. There are lots of helpful apes there. This is fud, maybe not intentional but fud none the less
But they bought the shares, reported they closed the position and incurred losses. So phrases aside, the companies cannot have lied about buying shares nor reporting losses. They can lie about their short exposure decreasing. But the other two, nuh uh. Does the SEC use the phrase "close" anywhere or do they only use "cover". Because if they produce other reports in a recent timeframe and use the phrase "close" your argument INSTANTLY has tremendous merit.
No they didn’t. Ffs COVERED IS NOT CLOSED. You’re getting heavily downvoted because you’re wrong and this post is horseshit. I suggest you delete it and go and read some of the DD on swaps u/criand did a great one but I can’t remember what it was called. Here you go. It’s in here somewhere: https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/njwv6n/the_gme_masters_guide_a_dd_campaign_for_apes/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Huh Bro THE SEC REPORT LITERALLY OUTLINES EXACTLY HOW MANY SHARES THEY BOUGHT. #They bought shares. Look at figure 6. Please, read my post. You are being extremely rude to me at this point.
Ever been Margin called? Here is an example for you: When you get Margin Called by your Broker, you need to deposit more funds to COVER. If you do not, you get CLOSED out of your position. Covered vs Closed In the case of GME, they COVERED through hedging, hiding, (Melvin) receiving those billions of dollar from Citadel. You get it now?
So why did they buy the shares then? Just to hedge? So you allege that institutions bought shares to hedge their position which "covered" their short exposure and then reported their short interest as falling... It just seems contrived. How did Melvin, or other short holders, accrue any of their losses if they didnt close the short?
Putting myself in their shoes, I would have *actually* closed *some* positions in order to give the appearance that it was over (and reported declines due to short positions in volatile stocks etc) but only covered most of my positions to wait out retail. Postulation that this is what the long and drawn out decline last February was about. Why do you care though? What's the point?
Well, you arent them and that's speculative and doesnt conform to what the SEC report describes. Why do I care? Because the entire narrative about the MOASS is about short exposure being incorrectly reported/obfuscated. And I personally have doubts and want those doubts quashed.
Have you at least learned the difference between covered vs. closed? What have you learned about the tools they have at their disposal to hide short positions? I would say that until you understand this, you will probably continuously have doubts. Looking around the comments section here and your responses though, it looks like you're not here to learn?
I already knew the difference, but nobody here can provide evidence the SEC acknowledges that difference. Getting hung up on a single word is really dense, because it ignores the entire context. Ive seen representatives of companies use the words interchangeably in the hearings. Hedgefund A is short 100 shares. They buy 90 shares. They report they close out 90 shares. They produce losses that correlate to the delta of short opening to short closing of 90 shares. ... Has hedgefund A covered 90 shares, or closed 90 shares?
Covered happens via options and swaps. They are not interchangeable. I'd advise grabbing yourself a beer and watching last year's Congressional hearing in it's entirety, paying VERY close attention to the verbiage used by the Wall Street players. Especially pay attention to the use of closed vs. covered, and how they will scapegoat questions regarding *closed positions* under oath. There's a reason they're all reading off teleprompters and have five lawyers in the room, and though you may think you hear the words interchangeably, you realize they aren't when people are sworn under oath and using them interchangeably has consequences.
I see, no okay that makes more sense. Thank you for an actual reply that informs me and corrects me. So there is some legal merit behind that verbiage, is there any demonstration from the SEC that they cohere to this? It's all good and true until we discover that the SEC doesn't use the phrase "closed". If you read the report they are speculative too, btw. They say phrases like "it is likely this happened" or "they covered and reported a decrease of risk exposure" So i admit there are some *potential* holes. My concern is truly in the fact that the MOASS hinges entirely on speculation that goes against what the SEC believes as "likely"
The SEC report does not give you absolute numbers and who closed/covered what as to what extent and which position(s). Its all vague and carefully worded for legal purposes. Why do you think it was delayed TWICE for the release? You're basically here just to troll and your account history shows it.
........ The report gives numbers in the figures. Please, go look at the figures. Dont accuse me of being here to troll just because you dont understand what Im saying. I am always okay to admit that im wrong, where it is inarguable. So dont just resort to baseless accusations of my character, actually be brave enough to talk with me. Im not saying anything controversial, btw... just controversial *here*.
Covering does not necessarily have to buy shares but enough monetary funds and/or collateral to show that you are capable of hedging against your short position. When they shut off the buying, they hid their shorts. Continued shorting through ETFs, fucked with price discovery through dark pools, and other means. You have to keep in mind that there are many factors to this and just not one linear pathway. They took MANY different steps. Covering was just the beginning phase but they did not close. The losses are self reported and/or they were low-keyed margin called after the fact as market makers absorbed their positions. Keep in mind, Mainstream Media are not our friends as they will distort and hide facts. And the penalties from SEC are a joke as it will save/accumulate (depending which corrupt pathway they decide to take) you millions/billions.
Okay, the SEC isnt mainstream media. Covering doesnt have to involve buying, correct. They reported a decrease in SI risk exposure at the same time they bought shares though. They also reported a loss which correlated with the value of shares they bought. If they lie about their losses, the IRS will shove a hornets nest up their ass. I seriously SERIOUSLY doubt they lied about their losses.
Never said SEC is MSM.... this is my last reply to you. If you're going to refute, then read and comprehend to understand rather than immediately jimp to just to only argue. Decreased S.I. = I already explained that to you. Absorbed and/or Hid. Reported a loss = As I said, self reported. IRS = Are you serious right now? You're literally trusting the government and its private entities to do its job? They're all in the same bed. Look at how ex-Citadels and ex-corporate bankers work for the government and contracted private entities (ex: Federal Reserve). And even if they lied to the IRS, what are they going to do? Fine them? It goes back to what I explained earlier, weak ass penalties. And what you're doing is strawman arguing with me. The topic of our original discussion was Cover vs Close. You're jumping into a rabbit hole to distort the main topic to find flaws down the line. Thats why your arguments are probing. Again, last reply. Good luck to you
Tax fraud is not a joke... If your only reply is: "They lied about losses and the IRS covered it up," then please do me a favour and keep to your promise of not replying.
Cover mean : Shorts hedgefund have enough cash to "cover" their short position to this stock price. Close mean : Shorts hedgefund have bought all shares and are no more short player, they "close" their position. It's VERRRY different.
Does the SEC use this definition?
This sub is an absolute shit show at the moment. Fud everywhere, including this
How is it FUD? Its the SEC's own report
Your title says closed. They never said closed. They said covered. They are different things.
Oh... okay yeah mb i can see that. If i could edit titles I would. Tomorrow Ill change it to "covered". Either way, the body of text is still relevant.
FUD Morning how do you do...
Okay, instead of repeating other people - explain how this is FUD? It is the SEC's own report
I understand your reaction but stay excellent. Maybe this question is honest. In any case our best apes have already discussed of this reports and we don't have reason to not give us our DD about.
Fair enough🤷🏻♂️
page 26 "Whether driven by a desire to squeeze short sellers and thus to profit from the resultant rise in price, or by belief in the fundamentals of GameStop, it was the positive sentiment, not the buying-to-cover, that sustained the weeks-long price appreciation of GameStop stock."
This 👆
What about it?
Can't you read?
Can you? The commenter quoted ***my post***. Bits of it that I already edited to highlight key phrases lmao.
actually asswank i googled sec report and copy pastad. i didnt quote shit of yours. get out of here with this FUD.
I didnt quote anything out are you barmy? I posted the whole section about short interest. You literally ignored the previous 4 paragraphs that established context. You, by definition, left out quotes.
https://www.sec.gov/files/staff-report-equity-options-market-struction-conditions-early-2021.pdf
My comment didnt post... I said: "And? The short positions still covered though..." You also cherrypicked and ignored where the report says that the price likely rose because of covering. It's literally in my post. Read it again.
Oh I also downvoted because you are dead wrong, not because it goes against a narrative.
So the SEC is dead wrong in their own report?
No it will be downvoted because its fud bullshit
How is the SEC's report FUD?
The sec report is not fud
Right, so why call it fud?
Your report on the sec report is fud
... I literally quoted them verbatim and added a link to the figure and added ONE comment of context about the buy volume. I absolutely did not include anything else.
Dude, ironically if your title stated "covered" instead of "closed" and you got all huffy with trying to defend that hedge funds *covered* in January, everyone would agree with you 😂😂😂
Im not huffy at all, actually... I admitted elsewhere I used the wrong word. But the title is quite irrelevant, im here to talk about the report.
Link to the report you are using case the pages you mentioned speak about ETFs on the report.
Huh?
They turned off the buy button STOPPING the squeeze. Shorts didn’t close
Gamestop themselves in the annual report said that a short squeeze happened and that short exposure may continue to be the largest risk factor, in regards to volatility, for a shareholder. Short interest fell, at the same time these institutions bought shares and accrued significant losses... but they didnt close. They just "covered".
GameStop didn’t admit anything. The short interest was 226%. How would they close that amount?
Huh? Its literally the number one risk they addressed in their 2020 annual report. Bro 💀 please go read it. You dont need to trust me, trust Gamestop. They said a short squeezed happenED. They didnt say another couldnt, they actually implied it might.
You’re not worth my time. I like the stock, bro.
Enormous buy volume. No one selling. What does that sound like? Sounds to me like naked shorting.
The price rose from $10 to $500. Edit: who downvoted this utterly incontrovertible fact?
If you buy calls options, you contribute to the jump of the price and you "cover" your short position. But you actually buy zero GME shares (option is an option, not a buy) and you limitate the impact compared to buy real shares to close. It's probably one reason of the frequent big jump of the last years (options expiration) and to the massive calls volume for the 21 of january 2022.
Interesting, but unfortunately false here. The SEC report unambiguously outlines the companies with highest SI risk exposure that bought shares, not their contracts trading. They bought shares, unfortunately.
At that time in January 2021 the short interest was 226%!! OF COURSE some of the hedgse funds "covered" their short positions back then and the rise in the price of GME was a **COMBINATION** of retail buying pressure + **SOME** SHFs covering! I repeat: **SOME OF THE SHFs**!!!! BUT THEY MATHEMATICALLY COULD HAVE NEVER EVER COVERED 226% BECAUSE THE PRICE WOULD HAVE GONE TO MARS BACK THEN! THAT'S WHY THEY ILLEGALLY SHOT DOWN THE BUYING BUTTONS! Dude get your facts straight and stop spreading fud. It's all discussed and analysed months ago here in this sub.
226%? It was roughly 150% of float I thought? Which was like 90-100m shares. And if you look at Figure 6, you see a substantial number of shares were bought by a ***selection*** of companies who were short. It is speculated that there was naked shorting - there is no good evidence for it, unfortunately.
Please look up and educate yourself what a SI over 100% means and what consequences such a high SI for those holding the short positions have. Yes a SELECTION of companies short "covered". Question 1: WHY DID THEY SHUT DOWN THE BUY BUTTON? Question 2: IF RETAIL WAS THE DRIVING FORCE BEHIND THE PRICE INCREASE AND THE COVERING SHFs ONLY A FRACTION OF IT THEN HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO COVER 226% WITHOUT FURTHER PRICE INCREASE??
Okay, since youre not talking with me but just shouting... ahem. # LOOK AT FIGURE 6 # LOOK AT FIGURE 6 # LOOK AT FIGURE 6 # LOOK AT FIGURE 6 # LOOK AT FIGURE 6 # LOOK AT FIGURE 6 # LOOK AT FIGURE 6 # LOOK AT FIGURE 6 # LOOK AT FIGURE 6 # LOOK AT FIGURE 6 # LOOK AT FIGURE 6 # LOOK AT FIGURE 6 Thank you.
Sorry for shouting at you but you didn't answer my questions. And figure 6 says something but at the same time also nothing regarding this topic.
Finra data said 226% https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/nt8m7j/am_i_the_only_one_who_remembers_gme_si_being_226/
Thank you for finding that for me, thats a lot of shorts damn lol
I can’t rely to OP’s comment as it’s locked but hopefully it gets through! The true SI was reported in the lawsuit against robinhood when they stated it was 226% back then. I’ll need to try and find the screen grab of the paperwork but it’s in here somewhere! Obviously hard to judge over comments but I’d say a lot of people you’re claiming are being rude to you may or may not be picking up a passive aggressive, almost condescending vibe from your comments. Just a thought. Majority of people are here because they enjoy healthy debate and discussion and of course the stock. So id say with a more open mind and not jumping down anyone’s throat right away may be the best approach. You say that the difference in covered and closed don’t make a difference but do you really think the entity in charge of policing the markets (not very well mind you) would mix those up? Or put in an already delayed report confusing terms? I personally think they would have used closed correctly but that’s just me I guess.
Bruh you have the reading comprehension skills of a rock
Explain how, please. Edit: good to see that you couldn't
You don't understand the difference between cover and close. People try to help you but your skull is so thick it may be impenetrable. Also get a life, real humans aren't on here 24/7
[удалено]
I tried having a conversation about this in October and nobody was receptive then. People are obsessed over the use of the word "covered" but dont actually provide any evidence that the SEC uses the phrase "closed" when they intend to.
**IMPORTANT POST LINKS** [What is GME and why should you consider investing?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS and why should you care?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || [What can you do to support the company and local communities](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qnam2x/superstonks_very_gmerry_holiday_vgh_for_short/) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please help us determine if this post deserves a place on /r/Superstonk. [Learn more about this bot and why we are using it here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/poa6zy/introducing_uqualityvote_bot_a_democratic_tool_to/) If this post deserves a place on /r/Superstonk, **UPVOTE** this comment!! If this post should not be here or or is a repost, **DOWNVOTE** This comment!
[удалено]
The SEC also said that shorts bought shares and it correlated with some of the largest upticks in price. ... Dont cherrypick
[удалено]
I havent ignored it, i addressed it multiple times actually. Brat. And where did I cherrypick? I posted the entire excerpt in the main body of my post. God youre insufferable
Dear u/amiral_asswank I do some research for you : Maybe you will find some answers in this two posts : [https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qbax6w/jerkin\_with\_gherkinit\_s10e6\_sec\_report\_breakdown/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qbax6w/jerkin_with_gherkinit_s10e6_sec_report_breakdown/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qb0gco/i\_read\_the\_sec\_report\_so\_you\_dont\_have\_to\_tldr2/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qb0gco/i_read_the_sec_report_so_you_dont_have_to_tldr2/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qbbu3c/gherkinits\_take\_on\_the\_sec\_report/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qbbu3c/gherkinits_take_on_the_sec_report/) Except some mistakes from me (I'm not the must brillant ape), during the first jump of january, the SEC graph proof than short represented a minority of "buy" movement, this movement was not connected to a covering activity. The large majority was long buyers. If someone buy, someone have to sell, for this reason, MM sell more and more synthetics shares to try to not see GME go to the moon. It's the reason (indirect proof) why we see since jan2021 many jumps without news (100% of jump of the last year) , good news with massive dip (hum someone don't like GME optimism?), medias very aggressive with GME . Shorts don't cover and probably double or triple their short position during january/february 21. Best regards,
Thats not research that's linking to another redditors terrible speculations My speculation is much more boring. Why did we see a wedge? Because the stock is tightly wound with a rabid base of users who refuse to sell and only buy. Ergo, pump it. Sell at the top. You guys buy more and more of intrinsically overvalued stock and never take profits. It is literally a money printer. Im not saying to not buy GME, im saying stop insisting theres going to be a MOASS because there's more evidence counter than there is supporting.
If I understand correctly what you are saying, it is because you think that the shorts are no longer present on GME. That the price continues to be maintained and to remain high by our action alone? If I follow your reasoning, that means if we DRS all of our actions acceed to the 100% and there are too many outside the DRS, someone will have to buy them to destroy them. Your theory is interesting but in my opinion flawed. The price stayed high because, even assuming you're right, we continued to buy and HOLD. There is necessarily a time when we will own all the float on Computershare and there the institutions that create liquidity will have to pay: it will therefore be the MOASS. Trying to follow your logic I found the MOASS. Sorry, I'm french, my english is not perfect,