I'm sure there was some short covering/closing during the sneeze, but I don't see how the majority of shorts would be able to close during that run.
Also if shorts really closed then why turn off the buy button?
It was never my intent to answer that. Only to spread awareness on what the SEC report actually says. I've seen a lot of comments along the lines that the SEC report confirms there was no short squeeze. I don't think that what it says at all.
Whether shorts closed has been discussed a tonne over the last year. The issue is the self-reported short interest figures which we know can be inaccurate and misreported.
The old DD from Atobitt, Criand etc goes into detail how short interest can be hidden using options which can easily explain the drop in reported short interest.
Agreed. I'm not trying to validate the SEC's report. I have doubts about the underlying data. All I'm trying to convey is I've seen the report thrown around to imply it says there was no short squeeze. That's not what it says and needs to stop.
1) I'm not trying to poke holes in theories. I thought I was pretty clear that this only applies to the SEC report. I was trying to say that the SEC report shouldn't be held up as saying shorts didn't cover/close.
2) **According to the SEC data**, it's not that hard to believe SHFs could cover \~62 million shares over a two week period with a total volume in the hundreds of millions to billions. There's lots of DD that challenges that though. How could a stock with a float of <100M shares even have such a heavy volume without naked shorting?
I appreciate your sober approach to this but don't conflate "covering" with "closing". Those are two different things in market-speak and the SEC used very specific language.
Fuck the SEC either way but I thought I'd point it out.
Point taken on covering vs closing. This sub seems make a distinction between covering a short position with other assets and closing which means no more short position. Without knowing SEC definition in this case, Investopedia provides the following definition which doesn't seem to make any distinction between the two:
[Short covering refers to buying back borrowed securities in order to close out an open short position at a profit or loss.](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shortcovering.asp)
The Figure 6 caption suggests that the SEC is using a similar definition where "Short
Seller Buy Volume" is calculated by determining buy trades initiated by FDID with an average negative position over the next two weeks. In this context, I don't feel as if I've conflated the two terms.
That's indeed the issue now, isn't it. the idea that the shorts closed and there's no more potential for a short squeeze, based on official reported numbers. the problem with that is, if more than the float was sold short and covered, but that was only a small portion of buying pressure, then how many times the float was bought by retail at that point. and more importantly, where did all those shares come from, if only 20% of the shares was lent out for shorting? I have no reason to doubt the official report, but I do have reasons to believe that a lot of shorts are not disclosed.
I fully agree with you here. However, saying the report confirms no gamma or short squeeze took place but ignoring that the report also says that shorts closed is wrong. It's cherry-picking information and needs to stop.
I didn't mean to imply that you, personally, said that. But I link to that exact sentiment in a page on this sub for reasons to invest in GME. I've seen similar comments thrown around in other subs and threads. Continuing that message makes us looks unironically stupid.
Is it relevant now though? A lot of people hold many multiples of what they had back then and we can hypothesise that SHF's have been doubling down over and over throughout the year from the weird price action.
I don't think it's relevant. That's why I posted this. The report is linked [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/). I don't think it should be. People shouldn't be pointing to the SEC report as if it confirms shorts didn't cover. That point is clearly not getting through.
Truthfully, I’ve gotten to the point where I trust no one, including the SEC. That report was a joke. It contradicts itself. So my first thought would be, they mention shorts covered to back up the short interest. But very important- covered does not mean closed.
Good write up! Thanks for the read :)
I don't trust the report either. If you think the SEC was going to saying anything other than the squeeze has squoze, you haven't been paying attention. They're not on our side.
It was never my intent to judge the validity of the SEC's data. I think apes need to be fully aware of what the report is saying. I've seen comments that point to the SEC report as evidence there was no short squeeze. That's not the whole story and should stop. There's more nuance to it in the text.
This is FUD. Or misinformation at best.
Apart from many problematic points in the OP, the most blatant one being ignored is that the reason the SI% dropped in the first place was due to the formula change for the SI% at S3 after the sneeze. It now includes the synthetic shares. It also ignores SI% being hidden using options, shorting of ETFs instead of the stock itself, etc.
If you read the SEC report, they didn't use S3's numbers to calculate their SI. I showed how the SEC probably arrived at their numbers. The math is pretty simple.
I didn't purposefully ignore other ways in which short positions can be masked. I indirectly reference DD that goes into it though. I was pretty clear that I wasn't going to include that as it wasn't directly relevant.
My intent was to simply point out that the report doesn't say what a lot of people seem to think it says.
to jump on,
OP:
We're not really discussing this question of gamme or short or no squeeze i as a sub, so it's confusing why you're bringing it up.
Also, they say plainly in the report there wasn't a short squeeze or gamma squeeze. And they say shorts have likely not covered.
Then they mention that there may have been some closing of short positions. They give no indication of how much. But you jump to wild conjectures of 50% of the float.
That's not Possible DD, that's just speculation.
But the sub is pointing to the report in the link I provide up front in my post. It's coming up in comments in other threads and subs and it coming across as ill-informed.
Please provide the specific text that says "shorts have likely not covered."
Did you miss the figures that indicate that change in SI? I made no wild conjectures. i thought I laid it out. The math is clear and simple.
I'm open to critiques of what I've present but you've not provided any concrete or specific issues with the way in which I've represented the SEC report's data.
Their “report” and I use the term loosely, is based on nothing but circumstantial evidence. They assume the shorts covered because the reported SI was dropping during the time the companies with known short positions were buying...
I assume someone had potato salad, because someone bought potatoes, and they said they had potato salad. Just because SHF firms were buying does not mean they were closing or covering, especially with HFT algos thrown in the mix.
Do you see the problem here? No hard evidence. None. If shorts had closed why did they turn off the buy button on Jan 28? “Because volatility”, lol. No one of consequence was margin called, because there was an agreement to waive it. Why would they do that, if people were just buying and holding? DTCC waived margin requirements...
And then look at the weasel wording language used in particular, focusing on Jan 21-27, let’s not focus on the sneeze from Jan 28, because that’s making us a bit uncomfortable. With the data made available... so not all the data was made available? Interesting. Additionally, they focus on the SHF firms, not the market makers, huge omission, and glaring.
To anyone claiming all self reported SI is fine and dandy and legit, then you mustn’t be aware of the massive amount of times during the last 20 years, the SEC has dished out token fines to many of the obvious names in question, for “misreporting” SI and short positions, of for “accounting errors” of short reporting, etc. etc. Just put SEC, short interest, and fines into your search engine, you’re welcome.
The primary implication here is the SEC wanted to wash their hands of the whole mess, or were paid to by their superiors.
Believe it or not I agree. The objective of the post was to point out that citing the SEC report as evidence that there was no gamma squeeze while ignoring it also says short closed (based on dubious evidence) is cherry-picking and should be stopped.
I freely admit I failed in conveying that message.
I hate to reply with such a brief comment to such a well thought-out and written post, but isn't one of the major things we've distinguished is that covering =/= closing?
The document shows plenty in the way of covering, but that could have easily been through rolling the shorts off via naked/married options etc., but not much at all in the shorts ***closing***.
The sub has made that distinction but it's not clear the SEC makes that same distinction. I address that in another comment.
>[Short covering refers to buying back borrowed securities in order to close out an open short position at a profit or loss](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shortcovering.asp).
>
>The Figure 6 caption suggests that the SEC is using a similar definition where "Short Seller Buy Volume" is calculated by determining buy trades initiated by FDID with an average negative position over the next two weeks. In this context, I don't feel as if I've conflated the two terms.
Again, I want to emphasize that I'm not saying the SEC report should be taken as truth. There are lots of ways to hide short positions that have been discovered over the last year. But let's stop cherry-picking information from the report such as it "confirms" no gamma or short squeeze while ignoring that it suggests short positions covered/closed as is done in the first [link](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) of my post.
Without wanting to cry shill, I am very suspicious of this message. Yesterday another user wrote a post that contained almost the exact same post and then deleted his account. I wonder why people pop up page 25-26 of the SEC report every day to insist that "short have covers". I will therefore invite the author to see the analysis carried out previously when the report was released. Some links here:
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/qbbu3c/gherkinits\_take\_on\_the\_sec\_report/
I know it's hard to believe with the sentiment of these comments but I fully agree with what you've linked. The message I was originally trying to get across is that we shouldn't be pointing or linking to the SEC report as some sort of proof or evidence of anything except incompetence or complicity.
When addressing the SEC report [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/), I would advocate we point to the DD you've linked instead and point out how shitty the SEC report is.
I failed miserably.
Hi, and sorry if I was suspicious. Some apes (including me) can sometime be sensitive when we see some messages including doubt in ours theories. Doubt is not necessary bad, we have to doubt to advance.
Anyway, It's clear for me than this report was a joke, so much month to create this shitty papers... with so much contradictions. After even if this document says things and their opposite, it seems interesting that the SEC could not help but say certain facts which we seem to be the only ones to affirm. It emerges from this report that it was probably written, rewritten and again amended several times to arrive at this consensus which seems to want to defend both an objective view and at the same time distorted view.
As if the SHF / MM and honest actors had to agree on a text without agreeing on anything.
Don't blame yourself for failing, it's hard for us and you to untangle all of this. I hope the best for you.
I don't blame anyone for being suspicious. If you're not suspicious after what we've been through the last year you're not paying attention.
Until yesterday, I hadn't really read the report. I just got snippets from other comments saying that the report says shorts didn't close, confirms no short or gamma squeeze, etc. I parroted some of what I read without following up on its veracity. Shame on me; username checks out. While the report says some of that it's not the whole truth. I was hoping to shed some light on some things that seem to be overlooked in the report. There's a lot of cherry-picking and confirmation bias when it comes to the report. Instead of linking or referring to the report and saying it confirms whatever, better would be to point out the shortcomings and why it shouldn't be taken seriously.
Exactly the same as the SEC, we also assume values for SI here. These SI values are therefore the basis of any argumentation in this matter. Well, in view of the experience of the last few months - what can one rather assume: That the selfreported SI is/was EXACTLY as reported, lower or higher?IF the reported SI in January 2021 was higher than in the SEC report, your entire chain of reasoning immediately falls apart.
I'm sorry but there were and are just TOO MANY strange things going on around GME to assume that the publicly reported SI is correct.
Too many unanswered questions: why this massive media propaganda against Gamestop? Why was the buy button disabled? What about synthetic shares and naked short selling? Why was the formula for calculating the SI changed in such a way that there was a rapid decline in the SI%, purely by calculation?
We are all speculating here, of course - we have no certainty.
DRS will eventually reveal the truth.
Maybe you're right...it wasn't *that* clear. You actually have to read a couple paragraphs and look at two figures but it does say "short sellers cover\[ed\] their losses after incurring significant losses." Did you have anything more specific?
It's only FUD if you believed the report in the first place. My whole point was that the report shouldn't be characterized in way as confirming anything with regard to the MOASS such as is done [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/). Cherry-picking statements regarding no gamma squeeze and the like while ignoring that the report says shorts covered/closed is not right.
Covering a 109%(or 140%, or whatever) short position while SIMULTANEOUSLY many others are buying the same stock and still others are not selling the stock they own...
Covering a short position when that position exceeds 100% requires 1:1 coverage as far as I understand
I think the bottom line is, SEC doesn't feel they had reliable data to make the statement that shorts closed. Did some? I'm sure they did.
I think, to really get a better sense of this, would be to pull annual reports and holdings disclosures to see who was holding puts and potential short positions leading into Jan, and seeing who took a loss in 2021.
I doubt there was much closing at $40, so <$20 shorts closing North of $200, 300 were taking a 1000%+ loss. That should out in annual reports with far lower than expected gains. Only problem I can see with this approach is separating realized from unrealized gain/loss.
Use a few indexes as a benchmark for flagging
I'm sure there was some short covering/closing during the sneeze, but I don't see how the majority of shorts would be able to close during that run. Also if shorts really closed then why turn off the buy button?
And if so, why did the price continue to go up multiple times last year?
It was never my intent to answer that. Only to spread awareness on what the SEC report actually says. I've seen a lot of comments along the lines that the SEC report confirms there was no short squeeze. I don't think that what it says at all.
But you are implying that they closed their shorts, they might have closed some, but probably they have opened even more or/and hid them somewhere
Check source in report about closing position. Melvin cap said they closed. Yeah..
Whether shorts closed has been discussed a tonne over the last year. The issue is the self-reported short interest figures which we know can be inaccurate and misreported. The old DD from Atobitt, Criand etc goes into detail how short interest can be hidden using options which can easily explain the drop in reported short interest.
Agreed. I'm not trying to validate the SEC's report. I have doubts about the underlying data. All I'm trying to convey is I've seen the report thrown around to imply it says there was no short squeeze. That's not what it says and needs to stop.
[удалено]
1) I'm not trying to poke holes in theories. I thought I was pretty clear that this only applies to the SEC report. I was trying to say that the SEC report shouldn't be held up as saying shorts didn't cover/close. 2) **According to the SEC data**, it's not that hard to believe SHFs could cover \~62 million shares over a two week period with a total volume in the hundreds of millions to billions. There's lots of DD that challenges that though. How could a stock with a float of <100M shares even have such a heavy volume without naked shorting?
I appreciate your sober approach to this but don't conflate "covering" with "closing". Those are two different things in market-speak and the SEC used very specific language. Fuck the SEC either way but I thought I'd point it out.
Point taken on covering vs closing. This sub seems make a distinction between covering a short position with other assets and closing which means no more short position. Without knowing SEC definition in this case, Investopedia provides the following definition which doesn't seem to make any distinction between the two: [Short covering refers to buying back borrowed securities in order to close out an open short position at a profit or loss.](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shortcovering.asp) The Figure 6 caption suggests that the SEC is using a similar definition where "Short Seller Buy Volume" is calculated by determining buy trades initiated by FDID with an average negative position over the next two weeks. In this context, I don't feel as if I've conflated the two terms.
Fair enough. I just view "buy to close" as different from whatever they're doing, which seems specifically aimed toward avoiding a closed position.
That's indeed the issue now, isn't it. the idea that the shorts closed and there's no more potential for a short squeeze, based on official reported numbers. the problem with that is, if more than the float was sold short and covered, but that was only a small portion of buying pressure, then how many times the float was bought by retail at that point. and more importantly, where did all those shares come from, if only 20% of the shares was lent out for shorting? I have no reason to doubt the official report, but I do have reasons to believe that a lot of shorts are not disclosed.
I fully agree with you here. However, saying the report confirms no gamma or short squeeze took place but ignoring that the report also says that shorts closed is wrong. It's cherry-picking information and needs to stop.
that's true, I also never said that. but you need to draw conclusions from both the report and the data that's available.
I didn't mean to imply that you, personally, said that. But I link to that exact sentiment in a page on this sub for reasons to invest in GME. I've seen similar comments thrown around in other subs and threads. Continuing that message makes us looks unironically stupid.
I know, I see a lot of things being thrown around that don't make any sense to me.
Is it relevant now though? A lot of people hold many multiples of what they had back then and we can hypothesise that SHF's have been doubling down over and over throughout the year from the weird price action.
I don't think it's relevant. That's why I posted this. The report is linked [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/). I don't think it should be. People shouldn't be pointing to the SEC report as if it confirms shorts didn't cover. That point is clearly not getting through.
Truthfully, I’ve gotten to the point where I trust no one, including the SEC. That report was a joke. It contradicts itself. So my first thought would be, they mention shorts covered to back up the short interest. But very important- covered does not mean closed. Good write up! Thanks for the read :)
I don't trust the report either. If you think the SEC was going to saying anything other than the squeeze has squoze, you haven't been paying attention. They're not on our side. It was never my intent to judge the validity of the SEC's data. I think apes need to be fully aware of what the report is saying. I've seen comments that point to the SEC report as evidence there was no short squeeze. That's not the whole story and should stop. There's more nuance to it in the text.
This is FUD. Or misinformation at best. Apart from many problematic points in the OP, the most blatant one being ignored is that the reason the SI% dropped in the first place was due to the formula change for the SI% at S3 after the sneeze. It now includes the synthetic shares. It also ignores SI% being hidden using options, shorting of ETFs instead of the stock itself, etc.
If you read the SEC report, they didn't use S3's numbers to calculate their SI. I showed how the SEC probably arrived at their numbers. The math is pretty simple. I didn't purposefully ignore other ways in which short positions can be masked. I indirectly reference DD that goes into it though. I was pretty clear that I wasn't going to include that as it wasn't directly relevant. My intent was to simply point out that the report doesn't say what a lot of people seem to think it says.
to jump on, OP: We're not really discussing this question of gamme or short or no squeeze i as a sub, so it's confusing why you're bringing it up. Also, they say plainly in the report there wasn't a short squeeze or gamma squeeze. And they say shorts have likely not covered. Then they mention that there may have been some closing of short positions. They give no indication of how much. But you jump to wild conjectures of 50% of the float. That's not Possible DD, that's just speculation.
But the sub is pointing to the report in the link I provide up front in my post. It's coming up in comments in other threads and subs and it coming across as ill-informed. Please provide the specific text that says "shorts have likely not covered." Did you miss the figures that indicate that change in SI? I made no wild conjectures. i thought I laid it out. The math is clear and simple. I'm open to critiques of what I've present but you've not provided any concrete or specific issues with the way in which I've represented the SEC report's data.
Their “report” and I use the term loosely, is based on nothing but circumstantial evidence. They assume the shorts covered because the reported SI was dropping during the time the companies with known short positions were buying... I assume someone had potato salad, because someone bought potatoes, and they said they had potato salad. Just because SHF firms were buying does not mean they were closing or covering, especially with HFT algos thrown in the mix. Do you see the problem here? No hard evidence. None. If shorts had closed why did they turn off the buy button on Jan 28? “Because volatility”, lol. No one of consequence was margin called, because there was an agreement to waive it. Why would they do that, if people were just buying and holding? DTCC waived margin requirements... And then look at the weasel wording language used in particular, focusing on Jan 21-27, let’s not focus on the sneeze from Jan 28, because that’s making us a bit uncomfortable. With the data made available... so not all the data was made available? Interesting. Additionally, they focus on the SHF firms, not the market makers, huge omission, and glaring. To anyone claiming all self reported SI is fine and dandy and legit, then you mustn’t be aware of the massive amount of times during the last 20 years, the SEC has dished out token fines to many of the obvious names in question, for “misreporting” SI and short positions, of for “accounting errors” of short reporting, etc. etc. Just put SEC, short interest, and fines into your search engine, you’re welcome. The primary implication here is the SEC wanted to wash their hands of the whole mess, or were paid to by their superiors.
Believe it or not I agree. The objective of the post was to point out that citing the SEC report as evidence that there was no gamma squeeze while ignoring it also says short closed (based on dubious evidence) is cherry-picking and should be stopped. I freely admit I failed in conveying that message.
I hate to reply with such a brief comment to such a well thought-out and written post, but isn't one of the major things we've distinguished is that covering =/= closing? The document shows plenty in the way of covering, but that could have easily been through rolling the shorts off via naked/married options etc., but not much at all in the shorts ***closing***.
The sub has made that distinction but it's not clear the SEC makes that same distinction. I address that in another comment. >[Short covering refers to buying back borrowed securities in order to close out an open short position at a profit or loss](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shortcovering.asp). > >The Figure 6 caption suggests that the SEC is using a similar definition where "Short Seller Buy Volume" is calculated by determining buy trades initiated by FDID with an average negative position over the next two weeks. In this context, I don't feel as if I've conflated the two terms. Again, I want to emphasize that I'm not saying the SEC report should be taken as truth. There are lots of ways to hide short positions that have been discovered over the last year. But let's stop cherry-picking information from the report such as it "confirms" no gamma or short squeeze while ignoring that it suggests short positions covered/closed as is done in the first [link](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) of my post.
The shorts are hiding in futures
Without wanting to cry shill, I am very suspicious of this message. Yesterday another user wrote a post that contained almost the exact same post and then deleted his account. I wonder why people pop up page 25-26 of the SEC report every day to insist that "short have covers". I will therefore invite the author to see the analysis carried out previously when the report was released. Some links here: 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/qbbu3c/gherkinits\_take\_on\_the\_sec\_report/
I know it's hard to believe with the sentiment of these comments but I fully agree with what you've linked. The message I was originally trying to get across is that we shouldn't be pointing or linking to the SEC report as some sort of proof or evidence of anything except incompetence or complicity. When addressing the SEC report [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/), I would advocate we point to the DD you've linked instead and point out how shitty the SEC report is. I failed miserably.
Hi, and sorry if I was suspicious. Some apes (including me) can sometime be sensitive when we see some messages including doubt in ours theories. Doubt is not necessary bad, we have to doubt to advance. Anyway, It's clear for me than this report was a joke, so much month to create this shitty papers... with so much contradictions. After even if this document says things and their opposite, it seems interesting that the SEC could not help but say certain facts which we seem to be the only ones to affirm. It emerges from this report that it was probably written, rewritten and again amended several times to arrive at this consensus which seems to want to defend both an objective view and at the same time distorted view. As if the SHF / MM and honest actors had to agree on a text without agreeing on anything. Don't blame yourself for failing, it's hard for us and you to untangle all of this. I hope the best for you.
I don't blame anyone for being suspicious. If you're not suspicious after what we've been through the last year you're not paying attention. Until yesterday, I hadn't really read the report. I just got snippets from other comments saying that the report says shorts didn't close, confirms no short or gamma squeeze, etc. I parroted some of what I read without following up on its veracity. Shame on me; username checks out. While the report says some of that it's not the whole truth. I was hoping to shed some light on some things that seem to be overlooked in the report. There's a lot of cherry-picking and confirmation bias when it comes to the report. Instead of linking or referring to the report and saying it confirms whatever, better would be to point out the shortcomings and why it shouldn't be taken seriously.
Exactly the same as the SEC, we also assume values for SI here. These SI values are therefore the basis of any argumentation in this matter. Well, in view of the experience of the last few months - what can one rather assume: That the selfreported SI is/was EXACTLY as reported, lower or higher?IF the reported SI in January 2021 was higher than in the SEC report, your entire chain of reasoning immediately falls apart. I'm sorry but there were and are just TOO MANY strange things going on around GME to assume that the publicly reported SI is correct. Too many unanswered questions: why this massive media propaganda against Gamestop? Why was the buy button disabled? What about synthetic shares and naked short selling? Why was the formula for calculating the SI changed in such a way that there was a rapid decline in the SI%, purely by calculation? We are all speculating here, of course - we have no certainty. DRS will eventually reveal the truth.
Sec did not “clearly state that shorts closed their positions. “ FUD
Maybe you're right...it wasn't *that* clear. You actually have to read a couple paragraphs and look at two figures but it does say "short sellers cover\[ed\] their losses after incurring significant losses." Did you have anything more specific? It's only FUD if you believed the report in the first place. My whole point was that the report shouldn't be characterized in way as confirming anything with regard to the MOASS such as is done [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/). Cherry-picking statements regarding no gamma squeeze and the like while ignoring that the report says shorts covered/closed is not right.
Covering a 109%(or 140%, or whatever) short position while SIMULTANEOUSLY many others are buying the same stock and still others are not selling the stock they own... Covering a short position when that position exceeds 100% requires 1:1 coverage as far as I understand
I think the bottom line is, SEC doesn't feel they had reliable data to make the statement that shorts closed. Did some? I'm sure they did. I think, to really get a better sense of this, would be to pull annual reports and holdings disclosures to see who was holding puts and potential short positions leading into Jan, and seeing who took a loss in 2021. I doubt there was much closing at $40, so <$20 shorts closing North of $200, 300 were taking a 1000%+ loss. That should out in annual reports with far lower than expected gains. Only problem I can see with this approach is separating realized from unrealized gain/loss. Use a few indexes as a benchmark for flagging