Counter-DD: The Real (Legal) Count of Available Shares... and why computershared.net doesn't show short-interest

  1. What does a broker, MM, et al. have to do to satisfy the "reasonably locate a share" language? Do we know? Pretty vague language for such an important law, I guess we should not be surprised at the level of shenanigans swirling around it.

  2. Lots of Dr t quotes about the locate requirement. Its a red herring. These guys dont need to locate shares when they can just ftd. There is no locate, not even any record of a short sale. They can just ftd. The book describes what amounts to unlimited and perpetual ftds. "Infinite liquidity fairy" is not a joke - its literally true. Infinite liquidity. But those ftd still represent a liability on somebody's books and it can only work for so long, especially if people start to register those shares ..

  3. You're absolutely right. I encourage you to watch the Lucy Komisar video. She talks about an instance where multiple different brokers use the same share as their locate.

  4. Be able to locate meaning someone says they are avail for lending. Market makers and certain particpants have exceptions which allow them to FTD without recourse under “marketmaking activities and providing liquidity”. They also sign in their addition to the markets when IPO that original share count will pay the issuer but anything over the original amount stays between participants. Plumbing is fukkkkd here. Rehypothication is part of the fuckkening

  5. 100% of shares outstanding, and not a share less, in direct ownership is where I see this winding up. Whether or not MOASS has started by the time it happens.

  6. 100% of the public float is definitely going to be interesting too... People are going to be like WTF is going on when 100% of public float is locked and we just keep DRSing. DRS FOMO will insue when we get under 10% of public float

  7. I agree. Dumb ape here, but institutions can still lend shares with the free float locked, doesn’t that mean that they can legally naked short still?

  8. GOVT. Judges, Regulators, Enforcement, FED, DTCC, MSM, shorties, brokers and many institutions are on the same side VS. APES. Battle won't be easy, so be it. Corruptiin fighting mode is activated that day first share DRSed.

  9. I wish I believed you were wrong, but this is how it has seemed to me to be going for awhile now. I'm buckled up, but I'll be making pit stops to pee on this long trip.

  10. 100% ownership of the total public float will either cause MOASS or it will expose to the global investing community the depth and breadth of corruption in US financial markets.

  11. If 100% does get DRS’d, will the company not just be pulled from the DTC and outstanding shares forced closed? I.e. given ‘value at time’

  12. my sense is that the locate requirement applies only at the time of shorting...after that, there is no regulatory requirement to re-certify that shorted share.

  13. Correct. You can locate a share, short a share legally (because you as a locate) and never use the locate. The short becomes naked (illegal) when this happens.

  14. I love this community (mostly) mature civilised counter DD not arguing and requesting hopium and confirmation bias. SHFs are fucked from multiple angles

  15. Just want to personally thank you for your contributions to the community. I visit your site everyday, and love showing it to people- they’re floored when I show them we’ve registered 30% of the entire company in 15 months.

  16. Hi - this is a good way to illustrate what's going on, however the "marking rule" you are referring to doesn't do what you hope it does. The new marking rule is just for regulators and the CAT to know that when a TRADE takes place, it was a short sale. It has nothing to do with the settlement process - when a broker executes a buy order, there is no way for that broker to know (nor will there be in the foreseeable future) whether that share was purchased from someone selling short or selling long.

  17. Disappointing about the new rule, but not surprising. Do hard locates thwart the ability of a single share being used as a locate by multiple firms?

  18. As much as I’d like for MOASS to start at 70% or 80% DRS, reading this makes me feel like we will have to wait for 100%, or maybe that’s when it’s just getting started. Who knows

  19. the real question is what would force them to close? we have all the institutions on the other side. including useless regulators. its in the interest of the system to keep criminal behaviour because there's no alternative

  20. listen to the interviews with computershare on this sub. they CANNOT allocate more than 100% of the float. Like, would not be possible. so the first ape who tried to DRS after 100% locked will cause computershare to say "no", which has never happened in this world.

  21. I don't think the 7M figure is necessarily the start of MOASS. It's metaphorically the warning shot. Imagine the media trying to make up an excuse for why there is an overlapping between retail DRS, institutions, mutual funds, ETFs, and insiders and trying to take into account shorted shares with the remaining float. The best part? The retail DRS number will only keep rising. The DRS number creep only serves as a countdown for the shorts. If they were nervous so far, 2023 is going to need therapy sessions.

  22. the media don't need any excuse, they just avoid talking about it. remember when institutional holdings alone were over 100%?😂

  23. That audio vid from the Twitter space and the other old banker saying they don’t give a F about a locate always got me feelin they don’t know how to not over-destroy themselves eventually

  24. so what I struggle with in this concept is that every single share of the company was bought (10 shares) so what happens if there were new bullish investors who want to buy a share? Those shortsellers "supposedly" drop the price of a company which has sold all it's shares, and those shares got bought up... but what if 10 new guys wanted to invest? Would they have to wait for a real seller ie. bid up the price? or would some market maker just synthesise stock under their "infinite liquidity" promise making supply and demand irrelevant in the "free" market.

  25. Your claim “shorts will not be forced to close” and his claim that “shorts can no longer legally short” and/or “shorts can no longer cover” can all be true. Your claim doesn’t debunk his claim.

  26. Hi - the point of my post was not to say they have to “close” or can’t short anymore. It marks a point where on paper, the math stops checking out. When we effectively get to the point where there are less shares left in “existence” based on a simple equation, you as an investor can actually prove and say that something is wrong here. The reason this by definition was never possible before DRS was because all shares previously were owned at the broker which means they were always in the brokers name and never the investor so short sellers could never “theoretically” be in a position that they couldn’t “close” because you could point to all the shares at the broker and claim they are available to use the cover. now DRS brought a variable/metric that could be used as a check on that equation. Because of that we can calculate the difference in the equation and when they no longer balance, it shows us that there is not enough available liquidity for shorts to “close” as DRS shares cannot be touched as they are held at the transfer against and not in broker name. I don’t know what will happen when we reach the point I mentioned in my post, I just know we can look at the equation and without a doubt, be able to prove something is not right.

  27. I believe they can buy itm options and use that as a locate, also they short buying loads of puts causing market makers to sell shares to balance the delta on the options chain. You can effectively short without having to borrow anything this way although it's expensive. With all the loopholes using options and etf share creation it will be impossible to accurately come up with "how many legal shares they can short with".

  28. I don’t think it’s an acceptable premise to assume that the shorts only max out at 140%. Sure, it works for the purpose of your point, but it would be more accurate probably to say your company has 50 shares in creation.

  29. It's the most exciting quest and I'll just keep playing harder and harder, to see what happens next! 🟣

  30. Point I was making too. You need float + short interest officially. So 8 million + short interest + 1 for good measure to prove naked shorting. And then wait..

  31. i can sort of understand the left hand / right hand problem the brokers have with locating shares, i think its BS - but i can understand it.

  32. I thought the whole point of DRS (apart from actually owning your own shares) was that we can lock up the full float then we have proof that if we have our shares locked, then they can't be trading off real shares and must be trading off naked shorts.

  33. Wasn't there a case (don't remember name of the company) in the past when someone directly registered 100% of the shares of their company, and it still traded and shorted and price changed in the market?

  34. I know nobody knows what week 5 will look like, but as selling a share short “creates a share” … what happens if a short seller buys a real share back, and delivers it to the IOU holder? Does the real share annihilate the synthetic or do two remain in circulation (eg broker keeps the real share and leaves the IOU in place)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Author: admin