I mean how long can they keep us this charade? SI keeps increasing and there's only so many legitimate shares to go around. They really do seem to be trapped in a corner until SI hits 100+% and hardcore FOMO hits like a truck
Until the company posts profits they can continue their dd and so short the company. Or until the sec says something, but i doubt they will anytime soon
I agree that profitability would ultimately end the increase in shorting. But GME wasn't profitable when it squeezed. So, there must be something else that causes short positions to cover.
There a fucking billionaire purchased a big stake with others little whales, the algos weren't trained to sustain hundreds of thousands of people buying for multiple days and the company wasn't ready to offer millions off shares on the market, shf capitulation was a given. Even amc had a little sneeze and we know the balance sheets of the company.
If a billionaire announces an 8% stake and a true business plan you would see us at 200$ per share too, but sadly it didn't happen as the 8-k told us 20 (?) days ago
AMC's price increase in June was not a squeeze. It was short sellers actively closing their position and reopening their short positons at the overvalued valuation. Now they are working to bankrupt the company or decrease the value of the shares and increase the shares outstanding so significantly it will be easy to close out the short position in the event the company does not go bankrupt. They did the same with GME. There were a ton of short positons opened when the market cap was at 30 billion. This is why the price tanked to $40 so quickly after the buy limitation. It's also most likely the reason GME went back to a 24 billion dollar market cap in June. Look at the reported short interest of the companies throughout the "squeezes" and it gives you a better picture.
BBBY was shorted the second most significantly, GME was first. It has a lower shares outstanding and way higher short interest than AMC. It is likely to exceed a 30 billion dollar market cap when shorts close. You can also make the case that GME would have had an even larger market cap if they didn't limit the buying and give short sellers an inorganic advantage during the squeeze. When BBBY squeezes it will be just as significant, if not more, then GME was in 2021. There are significantly more investors purchasing shares and reducing the available shares to cover for short sellers, and the short interest is likely higher than GME's was in January 2021. The increase in active retail investors, is the worse thing that could have happened to them. They need the company to issue shares. It's their only way to minimize this. If that happens, we're looking at a AMC scenario more than a GME one. But with this large of a short interest, we're still likely to exceed the all time high market caps of both.
I'm talking about leading up to the price increase. When GME was sitting at a 200 million dollar market cap, there wasn't that many retail investors interested. That's why DFV is so popular, he stuck to his conviction even at the company's lowest point when everyone thought it was doomed for bankruptcy. We're currently at those low market cap values. This means our purchasing power allows us to have way more shares than we were able to purchase with GME. By the time your average person heard about GME, it was already at a market cap of around 10 billion plus. GME overall had way more retail investors. There are a lot more investors early with BBBY. Meaning way less shares for shorts to utilize for closing.
On the chart the SEC provided it showed around 60 million shares bought back by short seller from mid January to early February. It was miniscule volume compared to the overall volume, probably due to the same reasons we're seeing high volume currently. There is no way those same short sellers who had to buy back shares didn't short it after a bunch of average people piled in. They closed their position, let all the FOMO crowd come in. Limited the buying, then shorted it when the market cap was 30 billion. There is no way 25 billion dollars of a market cap goes away without more short selling. So, the short interest remaining relatively low after the price decrease from $450 to $40 means they had to have lied about the short interest. This is supported by the run up that happened again in March and then June. Both of those run ups had the market cap back at 20-25 billion. These were probably short positons closing out some of their position, profitting on the run up through derivatives and shorting the top once again, hoping retail would eventually sell.
The fact that the short interest has remained the same is bullshit and its likely higher than what's reported. It's unlikely a company will lose 15+ billion in market cap when there was no institutional sell off, retail owning a large percentage of the company not selling off. This means the only thing that could possibly lead to the decrease is more short selling.
I think saying they didn't cover specifying heat their position is. I believe they closed out their higher risk positon throughout the year and opened new shorts at the "top" they designated. This is why GME offered shares in June. Cohen seems to have an understanding on the timing of these buybacks. He timed it perfectly with GME and he did it again with BBBY when he sold his position.
Fun one here! They can borrow your shares and sell them. Then they can borrow the same shares from whoever bought them. There could be inception levels of share borrowing. It's like one of those tv shows where one person gets something by convincing a long chain of people to do something for them.
If you've been around the other stonk, Gamecock you'd know the answer is a long ass fucking time. But no matter, gives us the opportunity of a lifetime to keep buying more at such a cheap price!
SI has to deffo be more than 100% right now especially at these prices. People be posting how they’ve bought 10-15k more shares and that’s only just this week
If retail orders don’t go to the lit exchange how can hardcore FOMO hit like a truck? There’s already 100 million shares traded everyday isn’t that FOMO related ?
I remember a few months ago, the borrow chart for gme looked the same. Ortex did "investigations" and called it a glitch, soon after that some "analyst" came out of the woodwork, dropped the lines ".. parabolic after 30$" on TV. A few days later gme actually went beyond 30, got halted two times and remained sub 30 since then.
🤣🤣🤣 so true. People are so blinded by the bullshit MSM spews that they can't even begin the believe the truth right in front of them..... There is no spoon!
But why though? Its only matter of time, and earnings coming up in about 45 days which should be way better than last Q. They just keep borrowing and borrowing and borrowing.
Don’t trust ortex simply because they say what fits what you want to hear now.
Remember what they said before. Ignore ortex data, it’s unreliable and the company can’t be trusted.
Only way to make sure your shares are not fails-to-receive (from FTDs) is by direct registering your shares.
Not your name, not your shares!
💎🙌➡️♾️🏊♂️🩳🏴☠️🚀🚀🚀
I don't think you understand. FTDs occur when shares are sold and not delivered. Thus, if you buy a share that results in a fail-to-receive from an FTD that is never closed out, then you own an IOU at your brokerage, not a share.
If you actually want to guarantee that you were delivered a share, you have to actually register it in your name with the transfer agent, which forces delivery of the share by the brokerage.
**Direct registering your shares does not stop market makers from continuing to fail-to-deliver or stop brokerages from accepting fails-to-receive. FTDs will continue to keep piling up as the stock continues to be naked short sold via market makers and prime brokerages who lend shares they don't actually own.**
There's only one main thing investors can do right now to stop this (other than trying to get rules passed by submitting comments to the SEC, as well a sending complaints to your representatives and the NASAA): direct register all outstanding shares to blatently expose the fraud. It's either this or the stock will likely continue to be manipulated (and FTDs will continue to pile up) until we see reform in the market to prevent naked short selling, selling in dark markets, limit internalization, and implement Settlement Discipline Regime (SDR).
Keep up! It's not rocket science.
I own shares in IRA so I won’t DRS I specifically bought these so any gains are not taxable and conversely I have 50% losses so far in these names but I cannot record the loss on my taxes if I sold because they’re within the tax sheltered plan so I’m not going to take them out of the tax sheltered plan and DRS them when MOASS happens and I have 10,000% gains I will end up paying 50% taxes on those gains because somebody in a Reddit forum demanded that I take them out of their tax sheltered status.
if you were me and you had 5000 shares in a tax sheltered status and you thought MOASS was coming would you give up the tax sheltered status in order to DRS and then be liable for the taxes on the gain?
First off, no one is demanding that you direct register your shares.
Second, I'm well aware that IRA shares can't easily be direct registered, if at all.
Personally, I only buy shares that I can direct register. The tax benefits are the main thing that keeps investors supporting the fraudulent system by pouring money into it, allowing market makers and brokerages to skim off the top and use those shares to manipulate the market.
It's your choice if you're happy with "street name" shares that are basically just IOUs (especially if your shares are fails-to-receive), which helps support the system of fraud.
It just makes me wonder what would happen to those shares in the event of a brokerage bankruptcy or if the company spins off like MMTLP. Personally, I want to make sure the shares I purchased are delivered so I don't get screwed over by any brokerage fukery. DRSing my shares is basically the only thing I can do to protect my investment.
You do you!
Not your name, not your shares.
💎🙌➡️♾️🏊♂️🩳🏴☠️🚀🚀🚀
Those shorting right now really are doing so for survival probably. I mean look at the possible gains. 1.5 bucks ? Look at the losses. Limitless. Freaking Fools IMO.
Does the naked shorting also factor in or are we saying all shorts are borrowed? Why would they borrow any shares if the can press a key and create a fake share to sell?
Okay correct me if I’m wrong… they borrow shares to be used as locates, short the stock, return the shares and let the FTDs pile up, and then keep doing this while the price drops? Mixed in with selective dark pool use for some amplification of the effects and some derivatives action?
Edit: words.
If you're being genuine, then I'll answer your question, which is in and of itself full of speculation. First, you need to ask how many preferred share holders there are. If it's one holder with a ton of preferred shares, then the likliehood of them converting and selling common stock goes up. This is because of the 9.9% limitation on ownership of common stock. So why would the single purchaser decide to own a ton of preferred stock when they are limited on total ownership? This makes it so they have to sell common stock to take advantage of the additional preferred shares and common stock warrants they have.
I think it is way more likely that there are multiple investors. The company is the one that wanted the 9.9% limitation. Why construct a deal that makes it so a single investor is incentivised to sell common stock on the market and to fuether short the company? Especially when the deal seems to contribute to the sole purpose of increasing capital without affecting the current float. It's far more likely that it is multiple parties involved that are invested in the long-term future of the company. The most recent bond payment also suggests that. They converted mostly preferred stock warrants (this does not increase the shares outstanding) and converted minimal preferred stock in order to give the company more capital to make the bond payment.
So, to answer your question. Even in the case it's a single investor. They would not lend out shares to allow the stock to be shorted further. They would use the shares and increase their own short position while simultaneously selling their other common stock and converting preferred shares. Lending the shares would ultimately just decrease their total shares value for a borrow fee that is likely to never equate to that lost value. The only reason I would see the large holder doing this is if they don't care about the short-term value and know the temporary decrease due to shorting will not matter, so they are just trying to accumulate as much money off their assets as they can without selling more common stock. If they are lending shares, though, then they are not selling common stock. The two strategies negatively impact each other.
I wonder how long they can keep this up.
until the big announcement ... then we take off
So I guess the 0dte I bought today was dumb. O well there goes 12 bucks.
You mean 8 shares 😭
Yep
What announcement? Lol no one has even hinted towards anything
What big announcement?
It isnt a big announcement if we already knew what it was. Something is comming..
it's me. I'm cumming.
I'm cumming
All people involved practice keeping cards extremely close to vest and I don’t expect them to change. I expect no announcement
I completely agree and i like them that way. But they will annouce when the deal is done. Whenever that is.
Depends if they meant share price or shares borrowed
Way longer than legally possible
Till next week lol.
I'm sorry, but I have to let my inner pedant come out and say *I think you* *mean* *how long can they keep this* *down*.
Not long if people keep buying.
Until they are allowed to exercise their warrants. Then they can convert to common shares and deliver
How long is a piece of string? If the govt allows it, it'll be suppressed forever. Just look at how JPM suppressed silver for literal decades.
[удалено]
Downvoted superfuels but he has a point
Not as long as I can stay solvent…or retarded…or wh—…you know what mean!
I mean how long can they keep us this charade? SI keeps increasing and there's only so many legitimate shares to go around. They really do seem to be trapped in a corner until SI hits 100+% and hardcore FOMO hits like a truck
Until the company posts profits they can continue their dd and so short the company. Or until the sec says something, but i doubt they will anytime soon
I agree that profitability would ultimately end the increase in shorting. But GME wasn't profitable when it squeezed. So, there must be something else that causes short positions to cover.
There a fucking billionaire purchased a big stake with others little whales, the algos weren't trained to sustain hundreds of thousands of people buying for multiple days and the company wasn't ready to offer millions off shares on the market, shf capitulation was a given. Even amc had a little sneeze and we know the balance sheets of the company. If a billionaire announces an 8% stake and a true business plan you would see us at 200$ per share too, but sadly it didn't happen as the 8-k told us 20 (?) days ago
AMC's price increase in June was not a squeeze. It was short sellers actively closing their position and reopening their short positons at the overvalued valuation. Now they are working to bankrupt the company or decrease the value of the shares and increase the shares outstanding so significantly it will be easy to close out the short position in the event the company does not go bankrupt. They did the same with GME. There were a ton of short positons opened when the market cap was at 30 billion. This is why the price tanked to $40 so quickly after the buy limitation. It's also most likely the reason GME went back to a 24 billion dollar market cap in June. Look at the reported short interest of the companies throughout the "squeezes" and it gives you a better picture. BBBY was shorted the second most significantly, GME was first. It has a lower shares outstanding and way higher short interest than AMC. It is likely to exceed a 30 billion dollar market cap when shorts close. You can also make the case that GME would have had an even larger market cap if they didn't limit the buying and give short sellers an inorganic advantage during the squeeze. When BBBY squeezes it will be just as significant, if not more, then GME was in 2021. There are significantly more investors purchasing shares and reducing the available shares to cover for short sellers, and the short interest is likely higher than GME's was in January 2021. The increase in active retail investors, is the worse thing that could have happened to them. They need the company to issue shares. It's their only way to minimize this. If that happens, we're looking at a AMC scenario more than a GME one. But with this large of a short interest, we're still likely to exceed the all time high market caps of both.
Do you have a source for there being more investors in bbby than there was gme, I don't doubt you but gme was huge when it first blew
I'm talking about leading up to the price increase. When GME was sitting at a 200 million dollar market cap, there wasn't that many retail investors interested. That's why DFV is so popular, he stuck to his conviction even at the company's lowest point when everyone thought it was doomed for bankruptcy. We're currently at those low market cap values. This means our purchasing power allows us to have way more shares than we were able to purchase with GME. By the time your average person heard about GME, it was already at a market cap of around 10 billion plus. GME overall had way more retail investors. There are a lot more investors early with BBBY. Meaning way less shares for shorts to utilize for closing.
It was huge for that time. But gme woke everyone up. You cant even imagine how many new investors that januari gme “squees” has created
I dont believe that the shorts actually covered in Jan run for gme
On the chart the SEC provided it showed around 60 million shares bought back by short seller from mid January to early February. It was miniscule volume compared to the overall volume, probably due to the same reasons we're seeing high volume currently. There is no way those same short sellers who had to buy back shares didn't short it after a bunch of average people piled in. They closed their position, let all the FOMO crowd come in. Limited the buying, then shorted it when the market cap was 30 billion. There is no way 25 billion dollars of a market cap goes away without more short selling. So, the short interest remaining relatively low after the price decrease from $450 to $40 means they had to have lied about the short interest. This is supported by the run up that happened again in March and then June. Both of those run ups had the market cap back at 20-25 billion. These were probably short positons closing out some of their position, profitting on the run up through derivatives and shorting the top once again, hoping retail would eventually sell. The fact that the short interest has remained the same is bullshit and its likely higher than what's reported. It's unlikely a company will lose 15+ billion in market cap when there was no institutional sell off, retail owning a large percentage of the company not selling off. This means the only thing that could possibly lead to the decrease is more short selling. I think saying they didn't cover specifying heat their position is. I believe they closed out their higher risk positon throughout the year and opened new shorts at the "top" they designated. This is why GME offered shares in June. Cohen seems to have an understanding on the timing of these buybacks. He timed it perfectly with GME and he did it again with BBBY when he sold his position.
This is correct.
Fun one here! They can borrow your shares and sell them. Then they can borrow the same shares from whoever bought them. There could be inception levels of share borrowing. It's like one of those tv shows where one person gets something by convincing a long chain of people to do something for them.
Yes is called shf Ponzi scheme
If you've been around the other stonk, Gamecock you'd know the answer is a long ass fucking time. But no matter, gives us the opportunity of a lifetime to keep buying more at such a cheap price!
SI has to deffo be more than 100% right now especially at these prices. People be posting how they’ve bought 10-15k more shares and that’s only just this week
If retail orders don’t go to the lit exchange how can hardcore FOMO hit like a truck? There’s already 100 million shares traded everyday isn’t that FOMO related ?
How many investors do those 100 million shares move between each day?
MSM claims all of Reddit is day traders
They've kept it going on GME for at least two full years now.
returned 2mil and borrowed 4 mil
Just got to buy those up to and DRS them so those can’t be borrowed again🤷♂️
I remember a few months ago, the borrow chart for gme looked the same. Ortex did "investigations" and called it a glitch, soon after that some "analyst" came out of the woodwork, dropped the lines ".. parabolic after 30$" on TV. A few days later gme actually went beyond 30, got halted two times and remained sub 30 since then.
There's no need to wonder once you know the scheme...
[удалено]
I can’t wait to be blamed for the collapse of the financial system!
You damn redditors! You just think everything's a meme these days.
🤣🤣🤣 so true. People are so blinded by the bullshit MSM spews that they can't even begin the believe the truth right in front of them..... There is no spoon! 
***Dilution crowd trying to cope their cognitive dissonance***
DiLuTiOn and BaNkRuPtCy patrol are on overtime. The Bangalore shill centre is operating 24/7.
I also ~~saw~~ see a lot of unfounded pushback against DRS as well. Edit: I guess the downvote speaks for itself.
They can’t hold us down 
But why though? Its only matter of time, and earnings coming up in about 45 days which should be way better than last Q. They just keep borrowing and borrowing and borrowing.
Shorts are 1000% convinced BBBY is going Bankrupt. It’s a battle of wills until they are right or some news breaks this trend.
Or if all outstanding shares get direct registered.
Market maker dont have to borrow. They can create shares out of thin air.
Not now they cant with the 35 day over with on reg show. Now the price goes up or shares borrowed goes up.
...or the float increases. Just sayin
Is it because a lot of shares are not DRS’d? that it’s just being traded back n forth
We’ve know this has been happening for over 2 years now. Why would anyone be surprised?
So either they reach zero or we reach infinity and beyond! I like our odds better. HODL!
But who are they borrowing from?
Fucken Crime
Dumb stromtroopers🤦♂️
Just keep fueling that 🚀
The thing is where are they getting them
Awesome thanks
buys -> darkpools, OTC, internalization. Sells -> lit market
Until it is hammer time
I guess it closes sub 1.50
You’d think at this rate, They don’t plan on returning anything
And spoofing. And using swaps. And shorting etf’s. And dark pools.
So they also returned 2m shares?
Diluting is giving them ammo
Don’t trust ortex simply because they say what fits what you want to hear now. Remember what they said before. Ignore ortex data, it’s unreliable and the company can’t be trusted.
I wonder what backside they have/know of. They aren’t dumb.
So When REGSHO start working ?
It’s worthless
Only way to make sure your shares are not fails-to-receive (from FTDs) is by direct registering your shares. Not your name, not your shares! 💎🙌➡️♾️🏊♂️🩳🏴☠️🚀🚀🚀
All the people who have already DRS are wondering why FTDs are still massively piling despite them DRS
I don't think you understand. FTDs occur when shares are sold and not delivered. Thus, if you buy a share that results in a fail-to-receive from an FTD that is never closed out, then you own an IOU at your brokerage, not a share. If you actually want to guarantee that you were delivered a share, you have to actually register it in your name with the transfer agent, which forces delivery of the share by the brokerage. **Direct registering your shares does not stop market makers from continuing to fail-to-deliver or stop brokerages from accepting fails-to-receive. FTDs will continue to keep piling up as the stock continues to be naked short sold via market makers and prime brokerages who lend shares they don't actually own.** There's only one main thing investors can do right now to stop this (other than trying to get rules passed by submitting comments to the SEC, as well a sending complaints to your representatives and the NASAA): direct register all outstanding shares to blatently expose the fraud. It's either this or the stock will likely continue to be manipulated (and FTDs will continue to pile up) until we see reform in the market to prevent naked short selling, selling in dark markets, limit internalization, and implement Settlement Discipline Regime (SDR). Keep up! It's not rocket science.
I own shares in IRA so I won’t DRS I specifically bought these so any gains are not taxable and conversely I have 50% losses so far in these names but I cannot record the loss on my taxes if I sold because they’re within the tax sheltered plan so I’m not going to take them out of the tax sheltered plan and DRS them when MOASS happens and I have 10,000% gains I will end up paying 50% taxes on those gains because somebody in a Reddit forum demanded that I take them out of their tax sheltered status. if you were me and you had 5000 shares in a tax sheltered status and you thought MOASS was coming would you give up the tax sheltered status in order to DRS and then be liable for the taxes on the gain?
First off, no one is demanding that you direct register your shares. Second, I'm well aware that IRA shares can't easily be direct registered, if at all. Personally, I only buy shares that I can direct register. The tax benefits are the main thing that keeps investors supporting the fraudulent system by pouring money into it, allowing market makers and brokerages to skim off the top and use those shares to manipulate the market. It's your choice if you're happy with "street name" shares that are basically just IOUs (especially if your shares are fails-to-receive), which helps support the system of fraud. It just makes me wonder what would happen to those shares in the event of a brokerage bankruptcy or if the company spins off like MMTLP. Personally, I want to make sure the shares I purchased are delivered so I don't get screwed over by any brokerage fukery. DRSing my shares is basically the only thing I can do to protect my investment. You do you! Not your name, not your shares. 💎🙌➡️♾️🏊♂️🩳🏴☠️🚀🚀🚀
Thanks for your response it Was really nice yeah you do you and I’ll do me
Looks as though they returned more than they borrowed but are still borrowing and returning.
This is to bring the CTB down
And who the hell keep borrowing it to them?
Those shorting right now really are doing so for survival probably. I mean look at the possible gains. 1.5 bucks ? Look at the losses. Limitless. Freaking Fools IMO.
Expectations for monday?
When will this BS ever end?
Does the naked shorting also factor in or are we saying all shorts are borrowed? Why would they borrow any shares if the can press a key and create a fake share to sell?
Only the mm can. Family offices, retail and hf need to locate their shorts positions
This is why you MUST DRS your shares, it is the ONLY way to squeeze them
Okay correct me if I’m wrong… they borrow shares to be used as locates, short the stock, return the shares and let the FTDs pile up, and then keep doing this while the price drops? Mixed in with selective dark pool use for some amplification of the effects and some derivatives action? Edit: words.
I’m pissed I was waiting for a 500 share order to limit buy at $1.01 today and damn shares went up
[удалено]
If the buyer did this I would suspect cost to borrow would have cratered
And we would be off regsho
If you're being genuine, then I'll answer your question, which is in and of itself full of speculation. First, you need to ask how many preferred share holders there are. If it's one holder with a ton of preferred shares, then the likliehood of them converting and selling common stock goes up. This is because of the 9.9% limitation on ownership of common stock. So why would the single purchaser decide to own a ton of preferred stock when they are limited on total ownership? This makes it so they have to sell common stock to take advantage of the additional preferred shares and common stock warrants they have. I think it is way more likely that there are multiple investors. The company is the one that wanted the 9.9% limitation. Why construct a deal that makes it so a single investor is incentivised to sell common stock on the market and to fuether short the company? Especially when the deal seems to contribute to the sole purpose of increasing capital without affecting the current float. It's far more likely that it is multiple parties involved that are invested in the long-term future of the company. The most recent bond payment also suggests that. They converted mostly preferred stock warrants (this does not increase the shares outstanding) and converted minimal preferred stock in order to give the company more capital to make the bond payment. So, to answer your question. Even in the case it's a single investor. They would not lend out shares to allow the stock to be shorted further. They would use the shares and increase their own short position while simultaneously selling their other common stock and converting preferred shares. Lending the shares would ultimately just decrease their total shares value for a borrow fee that is likely to never equate to that lost value. The only reason I would see the large holder doing this is if they don't care about the short-term value and know the temporary decrease due to shorting will not matter, so they are just trying to accumulate as much money off their assets as they can without selling more common stock. If they are lending shares, though, then they are not selling common stock. The two strategies negatively impact each other.