Thanks to our growing list of Patreon Sponsors and Channel Members for supporting the channel. www.patreon.com/PatrickBoyleOnFinance : Marc De Mesel, Annie Chen, Nate Stapleton,Timothy Baird, WIlam, Robertas, Hernan Merino, Random Encounter, Nieuwsbrief Ikwil, Bee Positive Consulting, hyunjung Kim, John Cadena, Ian Tracey, Callum McLean, Oscar, Simon Pena, Ed, Pavle Obradovic, Erik Van Ekelenburg, David O'Connor, Zak Patterson, Pjotr Bekkering, Alex, Robert W Proudfoot, pooh shmoo, Robert Muller, Andre Michel, Ivan Iliev, Gopaljee Atulya, Milan Tomic, Mark Hooker, Artem Vasenin, P H, Sebastian, Michal Lacko, Peter Bočan, Michael Pierce, V Jordan, Gil, HalfwitHam, Mark Brophy, Patrick T, David Urdenata, Juan Valdez, Bruce Roberts, Chad Norman, Bruce Roberts, Shamikh Rana, Friday Guy, Marc De Mesel, Augusto Ramos, Soy Boomer Doomer, Bob Slartabartfast, Robert Feiler, Camil Dbouk, Erik Montesinos, Matthew Loos, Az Indragiri, Aman Bali, Lautaro Parada, Pratap, Deborah Joseph, Robin Sung, Kurt Johnston, Dominik Auerbach, Gurmeet Kaushal, John Hall, Dara Mo, Josef Goergen, Wilbert Cheng, Daniel Talero, Cogitecture, Jaroslav Tupý, Trevor Lucey JB Weld, Alex, Sunny, Carlos Figuera, Peter Pomelov, Null065, Rick Thor, MeBerzerk, Henry Nguyen, Sola F, The Collier, Carlos Mejia, J Wadia, Bitcoin OG, easy boekhouding, Albert, Eugene Jung, Oisin Quinn, Daniel Cervini, Jonathon Yong, Iris Ji, Emil Nicolaie Perhinschi, Charles, Gerard Scott Eli Auto, Excks, Michael Li, Par Hedman, Praveen Mishra, Gerard Scott, joel köykkä, Areeb Ahmed, Luis Torres, Smith Vilcapoma, David Wang, Yazan Qaraqish, Rodolfo Cornetti, Daniel Winroth, johnny, Nick Jerrat, Chris Houston, Alastair Currie, Robert Griffin, Andrei, zizi Golo, Fab Vida, Constantin Petrenco, pawel irisik, NotAScam, James Halliday, 22 Dust, Carsten Baukrowitz, Heinrich, Arron T, Ben Brown, Brian Dennis, Stephen Mortimer (to The Moon), Ryan B. Hicks, B S, Liam, Logan Vrankovic, Sam coatham, William Heaton, Paul McCourt, Andrzej Jasionowski, Daniel, Aaryan Koura, mikhail tyurin, Steven, Christopher Boersma, Dave Cooke, Ulf Lundblad, Cozy thang, Dorothy Watson, Greg Blake, Simon Bone, Livermores Quant, The Collier Report, Scott Gardner, The Man Koala, Brian McCullough, Spardasquad, Daniel S. Smith, Finance Student, Milton Danielsson, Tan Jin Da, Julie, Mohammad Rehman, James Wallace, Daniel Poellmann, Edosa Odigie, Dixon Yuen, joey smit, Josh Ge, Marek Novák, Charles Oosthuizen, Stamatis Drepaniotis Michael Smith, Etienne Cordonnier, Ahmed Hamadto, Chris Davey, Mike Farmwald, Kevin Davis, Michael A. Mayo, Lachezar Georgiev, Kamet Batra, Bradley Johnson, Sagar Gudi, Michael Chessar, Kate ATL, Tong Cheung, Lady Dje, James Barnes, Chris Hall, Kurt Johnston, ICBM Catcher Juan Valdes, KernelSC, Josh Garcia, Linn Engström, Veltsh, Konrad P-kala, Pastacat, Adam Vorting, Matthew McQuade, Christopher Lesner, freebird, Matt L, Kenneth WedMore Lund, erfective, Jason Young, Jonathan Kopnick, Peter Hendrickson, steel, MM420, Bastien, DJ Kash, Tom Willett, Chris Whitehead, Anil Jason, Hany Abdulsamad, JOJO, Jason Butterley, AS7, Greg Thatcher, John Simpson, Ezekiel Templin, Robert M Daily, MrLuigi1138 Grecia Bate, Leszek Frankowski, Nam Nguyen, fang, Goutham, Priam Pillai, Karim THIBAULT, C, David R. Ingemi, Robert Wave, Dmitri Alexeev, Aaron Rose, Ethan Hernandez, Brett Turley, Claude Chevroulet and Yoshinao Kumagai
Patrick, what is the likelyhood of SEC being corrupt and these short sellers getting out at unrealistically low prices? I'm not saying that just because of this report, but I was assuming that would happen during the "short squeeze". My assumption is based on the fact that government agencies have proven to be corrupt, and the more money is on the line, the more likely such intervention would be. I don't know everything about mechanisms according to which prices are established and orders are filled, but I would assume that there are private bookies and a regulatory body like the SEC watching if they're calculating their prices according to supply and demand, and that they are executing trades where people who order are placed in exact time. I am, however, personally familiar with corruption in my country (Croatia), and our stock market, and no normal person would ever invest into our stock market unless they're insiders, politicians or crooks (which are all insiders). If I were a bookie, I would help my friend by changing the time stamp on his short cover. It would put him before the next buyer and everyone else would keep gambling. From what I understand, there is a 1-2 day period before the actual transaction happens. In that period, market makers can do whatever they want.
Patrick's sense of humor is both sharp and flat. A rare treat. I laugh out loud at least 3 times per video and I probably miss a lot of the jokes since they are often subtle and sneak delivered.
I had to actually hit pause. So that I don't fail to hear the rest of his message. Whilst I laugh my behind off :-) In fact, I'm still on pause, laughing as I type
I remember following GameStop discussion very closely on wallstreetbets at the time. I remember everyone was pretty much flying blind, however, this news is actually even better than what everyone expected. Because what it shows to me, is that the retail investors had much more influence on moving the market than what anyone expected, I think that is very important to consider when things like this happen in the future.
@@youtubing9762 If you actually integrate over the shortseller-buys area in figure 6 of the report, you will see that the bought volume does not even come close to the over 100% of the shares they needed to cover. The decrease of the short interest is pretty easily explainable by them just "hiding" the shorts in total return swaps and similar products.
First off institutions try their best not to move the stock price much if they can help it, if not everyone could see their intentions and follow their trades and make the easiest money of their life. Secondly, retail traders always had influence over illiquid stocks. Back in the days penny stocks pump and dump were a thing.
Where there's a Will, there's a... Oh damnt there's nothing in my last Will and Testament because I leveraged my grandchildrens children into utter poverty... But at least I tried to go to the moon and it's the thought that counts, amirite 😁😁😁
so wait, if over 140% of the shares were sold short and then the price spiked up, not because of shorts buying back what they borrowed, but instead due to a bunch of people buying and holding it because they like the stock, and there was never a short squeeze or a gamma squeeze... then how could that many shorts possibly close out and get more shares than exist without buying them? and what made the price go down to $40 right afterwards? unless most of the short positions still exist unreported that is, and now there are even more of them, naked shorts, yeah.
before the spike up in price, most shares were held by institutions, after the stock price spiked most of the gme shares are held by individuals. Thus, other institutions (teachers pension funds etc) were taking this opportunity to take a huge gain so they sold to anyone short covering of just love the heck out of the stock lol
@@menamgamg because the people buying that no one was selling to were other retail traders not shorts. Shorts waited until the run up and covered during flat periods. Telling everyone to "Hold" probably had a bigger effect on price and no one selling had a bigger effect on price than actual short interest (who covered after volatility & volume cooled off)
@@menamgamg yeah, what Alex is trying to say is that institutions had no desire to short squeeze and were happy to just make their money. The short sellers would then have stock to cover some of their positions. But after that happens, where does the stock go? Back to whomever they borrowed it from in the first place. And if that was those same institutional investors, they’d be selling that same stock again at an even higher price. Unraveling a 140% short squeeze situation doesn’t always mean that the price goes to infinity. Doing that requires that the stock can’t be bought at any price because there are no sellers willing to sell. But if the majority of the stock was still held by normal institutional investors who have no desire to “hold no matter what” and will just sell, the position can be unraveled without the short sellers being completely destroyed. Just… lightly toasted.
*TL;DR "So, this can be seen as a rally that started as a short squeeze which then just continued on as a bubble (due partially to a lack of willing-short sellers)."*
Regarding NSCC & margin requirements. You were explaining that the NSCC were waiving margin requirements, and only increased it from Robinhood - so no conspiracy there. Yet, brokers kept restricting buying, not just Robinhood. What about Trading 212, WeBull, TDA, ..., and even boomer broker Interactive Brokers? CEO of IBKR even stated on CNBC that he will keep GME in PCO until it's reaching "reasonable value" again. He said that if they did not restrict buying, the share price would have gone into the thousands. So if there was no issue due to margin requirements, why did the brokers still keep the limitation up? And exactly this question should be answered as well, and hopefully getting prosecuted as well. The SEC report tries to be non-judgemental and tries to convey facts on what happened. Just saying that there was no conspiracy or market manipulation maybe a little early.
First, they were not waiving margin requirements lol, margin requirements are.. a requirement. It's the ECP addtional charge it waived, for all brokers. Second, how having to add 6.9 billion collectively in margin requirement a definition of "no issue due to margin requirement"? "NSCC made intraday margin calls from 36...totalling 6.9 billion, bringing the total... to 25.5 billion". Third, I have to say I like how your logic work; Since Robinhood was treated differently, there is probably a conspiracy (you never wrote this but you made it pretty obvious it was your point through sarcasm). Totally ignoring the fact that a different treatment might be warranted due to its different exposure. Nah just throw that possibility in the garbage, it clashes with your opinion...
"The SEC report tries to be non-judgemental and tries to convey facts on what happened. Just saying that there was no conspiracy or market manipulation maybe a little early." So, you didn't understand the video then? Maybe you should watch it again... on a slower speed this time (it's in the settings).
The real thing to note is that they tiptoed around things that would lead to litigation. On purpose. Whatever the reason is, one should realize that that they're very aware of that line in the sand and that they know a lot more than they're letting on in the report. Whether they actually start dropping rules and fines is a different matter entirely. But pretending that everything is fine because they left that stuff out of the report is either fooling themselves, or trying to fool you.
What about the deep itm options and failures to deliver in march, and again in July? How does the SEC explain that? Or the stocks traded being higher then the float comtinuing after February?
@@thomaslgregoryjr its not that the SEC doesnt know, its that by stating there were naked shorts the SEC would be complicit in not enforcing reguations on the market maker. Its a nothing burger of a report. Only thing it confirms is shorts did not cover evidened by the volume vs the maximum "reported" short interst of 140% of the float. Compair this to the legal documents agaist Robinhood of 226% short and what you have is a confirmation short could not have closed and the market maker has joined in clearing these short positions. The graph shows it. Also reguardless of the volatility you cannot halt trading on a public stock unless under investigation by the SEC, and thats your opening to a conspiracy right there.
I said it back then. Legacy retail has value. People enjoy shopping. It's a leisure activity that is social and has a strong emotional connection to places, seasons, and family. We're never going to be rid of retail stores.
as long as moms get their nails done at strip malls there will be gamestops they drop their kids off at ps never use the demo machines, we don't clean them. You're basically soaking your hands in booger germs when you touch those controllers.
price falls when shorts choose to not close their shorts and increased their shorting. While the buy button was taken away. So basically the shorts never closed. They went back to being hidden like the rest of the other shorts. Melvin's biggest mistake was showing reported short interest
Its literally impossible for 130% of the SHARES OUTSTANDING to be covered (especially with additional retail buying pressure) without the price exploding. Shorts have not covered.
First time viewer. That was the best 20 minute setup to a punchline I've seen in a while. I'm sure you jumped with delight when you navigated that closer. Kudos!
This is excellent, to actually get the facts and not just an opinion. Most financial youtubers do not base their information in facts and often come to the wrong conclusions. This video is detail dense, it took me 5 times to get to the end.
My only question is why was trading not halted but instead certain brokers allowed to only prevent new buy orders. This is not fair market activity. In 15 years of following markets I have never seen this ever happen.
I appreciate your ability to explain these very complicated entities to the everyday guy 😉. Your content has been so interesting and helpful 👍. Thnx as always.. Regards, Old G 😁
While I agree there were too many unfounded conspiracy theories, I also find convenient that the SEC found no wrong doing by any of the financial players involved. There were substantially more shares shorted than available and that's fact. I could go on but anybody knows the SEC is like Roger Godell of Wallstreet.
They let a HF lunatic who has been stealing antiques off the hook... when these rich crooks do crime they are not held accountable. The SEC is complicit and history proves that. Madoff alone proves that. They are all crooks and the SEC exists to cover everything up.
Please, look up synthetic shorts. They are publicly visible due to options open interest being public and they are not limited by available stock (until/unless exercised).
There wouldn't be an actual conspiracy if they got caught from time to time, name one arrest. I know plenty of people who got busted with weed, it doesn't matter if it was a mistake... hanging out with the wrong crowd etc.
What?? Michael burry wrote back in September, of last year, wrote why it was a good reason to buy and was analyzed since then and people took positions since way before dec and Jan, based off that analysis Also why did Robinhood and citadel lie to congress. Email leaks showed they spoke prior to the halting, and they said they didn't. Why allow to only sell but not buy, why not stop all trading. And why did other platforms outside if robinhood also stop the ability to buy? This report is garbage. I appreciate your breakdown of it, as you didn't write it just explained what's in it
Burry also updated later with a negative sentiment on meme stocks. RH and Citadel didn't lie, Griffin specifically said they spoke. What he said was they did not instruct RH to shut down trading. It wasn't just buying that was disabled, some brokers moved to position close only which means no new positions could be opened. The report isn't garbage, you are just misinformed.
An interesting take and well delivered but imo significantly overlooks many aspects that continues to drive the conspiracy theory. Where did the 226% short interest that Melvin built up go? It was gone overnight with no relative volume? All evidence point to bundling into etfs and variance swaps and new CDO’s. The etf ftd pileups in January are what is assumed to cause the January run up, not just the internalizing of ATS market orders. Combined with retail and institutional fomo into NTM or ITM call options caused massive delta hedging and contractual obligations to fulfill option exercising. Whether or not there was a gamma ramp starting from November and ending in February is the ultimate crux of the technical side of this. SEC had to be very particular with this report. It was months late, and as we now know, there is clear evidence pointing from a hand off from SEC to DOJ stemming from the share voting. While we don’t have a crystal ball, the one thing the SEC was clear on, was the run up was not a true gamma squeeze or a short squeeze. Because of this, retail continues to believe the shorts have NOT closed.
I dont quite get it. @7:42 a graph by the SEC is shown telling us that shorts cover their position. So that means that between 90 million shares and 170 million shares were purshased by shorts (130% - 240% shoet interest january and february) yet it is said that it was retailers that pushed the price up?? What?? Does the graph show the volumen/ number of shares purshased by short players?
@@janknoblich4129 first, are you going to ignore figure 6 that shows SI plummeting to ~20%? Second, are you referring to figure 7? Please read footnote 78. The short seller buy volume is a subset of short positions, not all of them. Furthermore, it only includes short positions accumulated after the 24th of December 2020.
You mentioned that short covering was a small percentage while more buys from retail were coming in. How can anyone cover in that scenario? Stock is already shorted over 100%, It's not making mathematical sense to me. Cheers.
@@amplifyd_tv9612 The report says it was mostly retail buying. They have a graph of how small a percentage shorts covering was compared to retail buying. Going off that graph - they’re not even close to covering 100% of the float let alone the 126%-226% that has been spouted in numerous sec documents.
@@amplifyd_tv9612 Look at the graph at 7:19 in the video. Observe the fact that short covering was a very small percentage of the daily volume. The math doesn’t add up.
Short Sellers didn't cover a damn thing. They rolled positions and kept themselves in terrible positions that are now 20x worse than they were back in January. That's why many AMC GME investors are already rich, while many more are going to be ridiculously rich, in my opinion.
"There was no naked shorting" Is not a conclusion in the staff report because it cannot be measured by SEC. You may want to look back at this bold conclusion in the next few quarters.
Thank you for your insight here. I find it odd though how this investigation didn't include conflict of interest One of my complaints regarding the Gamestop fiasco was how Citadel, a market maker, had financial ties with these companies such as Melvin Capital holding short positions. It was in their interest that Melvin Capital made back their money. I can't see how that's not a conflict of interest. Of course people were going to speculate that the difficulties surrounding the buying (but not selling) of gamestop shares had ulterior motives. Citadel as a market maker should not have financial incentives towards any one player in the market. This needs to be looked into much more thoroughly.
exactly, there is nothing new in this report... reading reddit/twitter provides these information, so funny when people using robinhood still defending it believing they own all that dogecoin of the biggest wallet.... which actually stopped buying before the last leg up...meaning they are f up even if thats a rh wallet. currently price is still 3.5X from there
lol even Patrick called the people conspiracyterrorists yet everything came out to be true so far...lot of people bought the stock because they like the company? bs they bought because f melvin and the shorters using shady ways
The report doesn't say that at all. It says shorts covering wasn't the main cause of the squeeze, not that there was no covering. The graph showing the long buys and short buys is a subset of data, it doesn't show all short buys. See the footnote about this graph, the CAT system was only started on Dec 2020 so it can only show short buy orders for short positions accumulated after mid Dec.
It says shares may have been used, at least in Parts, to cover short positions Now i'm no Financial wizard but if 120% of shorts covered and this was about 1/8th of Total volume... The float would be like what? 960%?
So retail is responsible for over 100 meme stocks rising at the same time? I really doubt that it’s called manipulation, shorts never closed the report said that most of the volume for GameStop was retail not shorts covering, not to mention the new shorts opening at 300+
Lol lemme list em. Gme amc bb bbby nakd nok bliaq shldq. And a few of my own theories you may want to look at 1yr charts and ftds: rlay angi 1800flowers
He literally just got done explaining why the SEC report debunks the conspiracies churned out by the gme cult lol. But i guess people will just see what they want to see -_-
I’ve never quite understood this attitude of a complete conspiracy between regulators, market makers, and data reporting agencies. If the conspiracy really is that big and powerful, than you are never getting your fucking money.
Market makers were exempt from research regarding naked short selling, if they didn't naked short sell why they needed to collude with brokers to disable buy button?
It's funny how retail investors thought they were sticking it to hedge funds when they bought GME. As it turns out, the hedge funds were right there with them when GME went to the moon.
That's what I thought! Also, most of the ideas proposed on reddit turned out to be inaccurate or straight up false. Who wouldv'e thought reddit wasn't a good place to learn about finance...
@@westboy52 It honestly used to be. There were plenty of solid subreddits around finance and investing. But this whole fiasco brought in a bunch of new investors who bought into conspiracies rather than reasonable understandings of market mechanics.
Hint : the clue is in the name. Hedge. Fund. They are always there, on both sides of any trade lol. If they weren't literally called 'hedge funds' i would understand people not realsiing that lel
@@spartan868 where is the best place for this sort of information, I’m fed up of my mates telling me amc is going to the moon. I would like to be less ignorant
@@jimmysmith736 late to the party but i understand where you are coming from!! Books written by successful investors is a good place to start. If you want to listen to youtubers about what "good stocks to buy" are be sure they are showing you finances from the company. I would recommend learning to go over financial reports yourself. Its not sexy but one of the better ways to get rich/wealthy in the market is buying companies that have strong balance sheets and holding them fir 2-7 years. Options(calls/puts) is a decent way to make some money in the market. If you youtube search options trading their is a video by a white bald guy around 3 hours long.... its a little dense and you may need to either watch it in sections or watch it multiple times(i have watched it 4 times) but its a solid educational video on options. I would also recommend paper trading options to start till you get the feel of things. Good luck 🙏💯💯💯
Well, there's still many unanswered questions concerning the deep itm calls that were bought, en masse, that certainly gave the appearance of buy-to-write shenanigans happening. I opened my position as a GME long last September, shortly after Ryan Cohen bought his stake in the company. January's run paid off pretty handsomely for me, but I kept a good portion of my shares because of my initial thesis behind my initial buy in. I'll hold five years or more, as I do have faith in Cohen and the caliber of talent they've hired for the c-suite. Coincidentally, they've elected to receive much of their compensation in shares, in leu of cash.
i thought people were buying deep itm calls because either they were lucky and flipping them or people were dumb and actually thinking they'd print on the "moass"
@@zakwhite5159 you would buy deep otm calls if you thought the moass was imminent… why pay the premium + excercise cost when you could just buy the underlying to go long with no expiry
@@zakwhite5159 check the sec bulletin from 2013. It comes when you Google the term "buy to write". Essentially, calls are bought and exercised for illiquid securities, allowing short sellers to a) close positions without adding buying pressure to the security, and b) create further sell pressure by further diluting the float with these shares that had been created essentially out of thin air. The timing of these calls being purchased, as well as the sheer volume of them, is suspicious to say the least.
Patrick, you might want to look through the sources used to write the report. Several lead to marketwatch articles that were fluffspeculation pieces that that the report then uses as fact despite being PR bs.
I wish you added to the insightful breakdown a comment on why they didn't just halt all trading of the meme stonks, rather than allowing Robinhood and other, to limit buying.
@@troysweeney8432 Why would they screw over all their users when only a couple of stocks with asymmetrical demand were the entire problem? If you weren't interested in GME or AMD, you'd be pissed that you couldn't trade for no good reason. Or do you mean that they allowed people to close their positions? There would be no reason to stop that concidering it wouldn't need any more capital.
If the sec is reported a si of just over 100% back in Jan/feb, why did rhs official statement/deposition say that gme short interest was over 200% in February? We’re they wrong? Why are so many individuals telling people to sell sell sell if there is no concern for a run up due to si?
I've been trading options for 40 years. Options can be hedged with other options for relatively little capital. The gamma squeezes people keep claiming on stocks like TSLA make no sense and are repeatedly shown to be nonsense.
Congratulations. So what are you trying to say? Gamma squeezes are rare? Gamma squeezes don't exist? What about gamma squeezes and GameStop and this report?
Excellent summary and it saved me a lot of time in reading the report, continue with the good work. Obviously the small individual speculator were ble to manipulate the price because it was an insignificant company with low liquidity and worse fundamentals
The fundamentals weren't nearly as bad as they were painted out to be, at the time the company was FCF+, had restructured their debt, and had substantially cut it's operating expenses. There's a reason Dr Burry and a few other securities analysts took contrarian long positions well before the explosion in January.
Also, if they're saying the price spikes weren't only due to shorts covering, then what was the sudden increase on 2/24/2021 from when it went from around $37 to nearly $200 before it got halted for over 15 minutes right before closing? Or the huge swings in both direction from $267 to $348, down to $172 and right back up to around $267, closing green on the day (3/10/21)? Volume and volatility doesn't seem to be retail. What's that from? Not to mention the other days with these kinds of crazy moves you almost never see in any other stock. Highly manipulated!
8:20 would what the SEC said be considered longs trapping shorts or at least a version of it? I understand the shorts didn’t get trapped in but did they get trapped out? If that makes sense.
Considering AMC and GME SI% is around the same as it was prior to those gamma squeezes, they did get trapped in, doubled down and expect to ride the wave. Institutional buyer just purchased 12.5k OTM $60 calls for December. They're getting ready to cover and they're hedging their shorts with options.
@@jacobc4582 what SI% are you looking at? For example, the numbers reported by Ortex are calculated differently now than the numbers reported by Ortex in January. The formula has changed. And the number of married puts that hide short interest is high.
@@martinucristi I'm aware. Reported SI% is still the same, is my point. This video is FUD and the dude is trying to explain it with fundamental crap when there's nothing fundamental about it
@ 1:43 . I am not sure how Patrick's chart is reading at 185.42. The Chart I have here from G reads that it never traded above 81.25 on the date of January 29 of 2021. Y charts says same thing. Yet MW charts says it never traded above $53 on the day of 6-1-2021? Is G charts broken?
Thanks to our growing list of Patreon Sponsors and Channel Members for supporting the channel. www.patreon.com/PatrickBoyleOnFinance : Marc De Mesel, Annie Chen, Nate Stapleton,Timothy Baird, WIlam, Robertas, Hernan Merino, Random Encounter, Nieuwsbrief Ikwil, Bee Positive Consulting, hyunjung Kim, John Cadena, Ian Tracey, Callum McLean, Oscar, Simon Pena, Ed, Pavle Obradovic, Erik Van Ekelenburg, David O'Connor, Zak Patterson, Pjotr Bekkering, Alex, Robert W Proudfoot, pooh shmoo, Robert Muller, Andre Michel, Ivan Iliev, Gopaljee Atulya, Milan Tomic, Mark Hooker, Artem Vasenin, P H, Sebastian, Michal Lacko, Peter Bočan, Michael Pierce, V Jordan, Gil, HalfwitHam, Mark Brophy, Patrick T, David Urdenata, Juan Valdez, Bruce Roberts, Chad Norman, Bruce Roberts, Shamikh Rana, Friday Guy, Marc De Mesel, Augusto Ramos, Soy Boomer Doomer, Bob Slartabartfast, Robert Feiler, Camil Dbouk, Erik Montesinos, Matthew Loos, Az Indragiri, Aman Bali, Lautaro Parada, Pratap, Deborah Joseph, Robin Sung, Kurt Johnston, Dominik Auerbach, Gurmeet Kaushal, John Hall, Dara Mo, Josef Goergen, Wilbert Cheng, Daniel Talero, Cogitecture, Jaroslav Tupý, Trevor Lucey JB Weld, Alex, Sunny, Carlos Figuera, Peter Pomelov, Null065, Rick Thor, MeBerzerk, Henry Nguyen, Sola F, The Collier, Carlos Mejia, J Wadia, Bitcoin OG, easy boekhouding, Albert, Eugene Jung, Oisin Quinn, Daniel Cervini, Jonathon Yong, Iris Ji, Emil Nicolaie Perhinschi, Charles, Gerard Scott Eli Auto, Excks, Michael Li, Par Hedman, Praveen Mishra, Gerard Scott, joel köykkä, Areeb Ahmed, Luis Torres, Smith Vilcapoma, David Wang, Yazan Qaraqish, Rodolfo Cornetti, Daniel Winroth, johnny, Nick Jerrat, Chris Houston, Alastair Currie, Robert Griffin, Andrei, zizi Golo, Fab Vida, Constantin Petrenco, pawel irisik, NotAScam, James Halliday, 22 Dust, Carsten Baukrowitz, Heinrich, Arron T, Ben Brown, Brian Dennis, Stephen Mortimer (to The Moon), Ryan B. Hicks, B S, Liam, Logan Vrankovic, Sam coatham, William Heaton, Paul McCourt, Andrzej Jasionowski, Daniel, Aaryan Koura, mikhail tyurin, Steven, Christopher Boersma, Dave Cooke, Ulf Lundblad, Cozy thang, Dorothy Watson, Greg Blake, Simon Bone, Livermores Quant, The Collier Report, Scott Gardner, The Man Koala, Brian McCullough, Spardasquad, Daniel S. Smith, Finance Student, Milton Danielsson, Tan Jin Da, Julie, Mohammad Rehman, James Wallace, Daniel Poellmann, Edosa Odigie, Dixon Yuen, joey smit, Josh Ge, Marek Novák, Charles Oosthuizen, Stamatis Drepaniotis Michael Smith, Etienne Cordonnier, Ahmed Hamadto, Chris Davey, Mike Farmwald, Kevin Davis, Michael A. Mayo, Lachezar Georgiev, Kamet Batra, Bradley Johnson, Sagar Gudi, Michael Chessar, Kate ATL, Tong Cheung, Lady Dje, James Barnes, Chris Hall, Kurt Johnston, ICBM Catcher Juan Valdes, KernelSC, Josh Garcia, Linn Engström, Veltsh, Konrad P-kala, Pastacat, Adam Vorting, Matthew McQuade, Christopher Lesner, freebird, Matt L, Kenneth WedMore Lund, erfective, Jason Young, Jonathan Kopnick, Peter Hendrickson, steel, MM420, Bastien, DJ Kash, Tom Willett, Chris Whitehead, Anil Jason, Hany Abdulsamad, JOJO, Jason Butterley, AS7, Greg Thatcher, John Simpson, Ezekiel Templin, Robert M Daily, MrLuigi1138 Grecia Bate, Leszek Frankowski, Nam Nguyen, fang, Goutham, Priam Pillai, Karim THIBAULT, C, David R. Ingemi, Robert Wave, Dmitri Alexeev, Aaron Rose, Ethan Hernandez, Brett Turley, Claude Chevroulet and Yoshinao Kumagai
Are you going to give your opinion of the current state of the market with AMC and GME. Are we wearing foil hats currently ?
Nice
Where did you get you jacket?
Patrick, what is the likelyhood of SEC being corrupt and these short sellers getting out at unrealistically low prices?
I'm not saying that just because of this report, but I was assuming that would happen during the "short squeeze".
My assumption is based on the fact that government agencies have proven to be corrupt, and the more money is on the line, the more likely such intervention would be.
I don't know everything about mechanisms according to which prices are established and orders are filled, but I would assume that there are private bookies and a regulatory body like the SEC watching if they're calculating their prices according to supply and demand, and that they are executing trades where people who order are placed in exact time.
I am, however, personally familiar with corruption in my country (Croatia), and our stock market, and no normal person would ever invest into our stock market unless they're insiders, politicians or crooks (which are all insiders).
If I were a bookie, I would help my friend by changing the time stamp on his short cover. It would put him before the next buyer and everyone else would keep gambling.
From what I understand, there is a 1-2 day period before the actual transaction happens. In that period, market makers can do whatever they want.
Love this! This video is rich in information and I learned a lot. Thanks Patrick!
I’ve shown the first 17 seconds of this to a few of my friends and they think it’s the funniest thing ever
Collab with Mr. Boyle?
Patrick's sense of humor is both sharp and flat. A rare treat. I laugh out loud at least 3 times per video and I probably miss a lot of the jokes since they are often subtle and sneak delivered.
just came to check if i was the only one laughing
His humour is absolute gold.
Dead pan British humour lol
@@priceandpride but he's Irish
A true gentleman humour.
"If you are from the SEC, like and subscribe"
Patrick Boyle
😂 😂 😂
This was a highlight for me too
If not, sod off.
I had to actually hit pause. So that I don't fail to hear the rest of his message. Whilst I laugh my behind off :-) In fact, I'm still on pause, laughing as I type
Yeah, made me laugh out loud 😂🙄
"people bought a lot of game stop basically, because they like the stock" 😂😂😂 Patrick is the best
I remember following GameStop discussion very closely on wallstreetbets at the time.
I remember everyone was pretty much flying blind, however, this news is actually even better than what everyone expected. Because what it shows to me, is that the retail investors had much more influence on moving the market than what anyone expected, I think that is very important to consider when things like this happen in the future.
@@youtubing9762 If you actually integrate over the shortseller-buys area in figure 6 of the report, you will see that the bought volume does not even come close to the over 100% of the shares they needed to cover. The decrease of the short interest is pretty easily explainable by them just "hiding" the shorts in total return swaps and similar products.
So hodl on, are you saying DRS and hodl is the way?
This is pretty cringe so, sorry.
First off institutions try their best not to move the stock price much if they can help it, if not everyone could see their intentions and follow their trades and make the easiest money of their life. Secondly, retail traders always had influence over illiquid stocks. Back in the days penny stocks pump and dump were a thing.
@@InvestingAlex "Back in the day *(and continuing into the present)* penny stocks pump and dump were a thing." (ftfy)
I think it is important for retail investors to remember that stonks only go up, and max leverage is your friend.
Also same day out the money options are the best value for money
Where there's a Will, there's a... Oh damnt there's nothing in my last Will and Testament because I leveraged my grandchildrens children into utter poverty... But at least I tried to go to the moon and it's the thought that counts, amirite 😁😁😁
@@jw2862 holy moly just realized your username hahahha
@@JW.... Top tier initials 🤝
Buy high sell low
I absolutely love the SEC title. Honestly got a loud chuckle out of me. Man you bring us the greatest of financial content sir! Much obliged!
I represent the SEC* and I approve of your channel's content.
*super economically challenged
😂
so wait, if over 140% of the shares were sold short and then the price spiked up, not because of shorts buying back what they borrowed, but instead due to a bunch of people buying and holding it because they like the stock, and there was never a short squeeze or a gamma squeeze... then how could that many shorts possibly close out and get more shares than exist without buying them? and what made the price go down to $40 right afterwards?
unless most of the short positions still exist unreported that is, and now there are even more of them, naked shorts, yeah.
before the spike up in price, most shares were held by institutions, after the stock price spiked most of the gme shares are held by individuals. Thus, other institutions (teachers pension funds etc) were taking this opportunity to take a huge gain so they sold to anyone short covering of just love the heck out of the stock lol
@@InvestingAlex that does not make sense lol
@@menamgamg because the people buying that no one was selling to were other retail traders not shorts.
Shorts waited until the run up and covered during flat periods. Telling everyone to "Hold" probably had a bigger effect on price and no one selling had a bigger effect on price than actual short interest (who covered after volatility & volume cooled off)
They closed out by buying the shares which can be bought and sold and change ownership more than once.
@@menamgamg yeah, what Alex is trying to say is that institutions had no desire to short squeeze and were happy to just make their money. The short sellers would then have stock to cover some of their positions. But after that happens, where does the stock go? Back to whomever they borrowed it from in the first place. And if that was those same institutional investors, they’d be selling that same stock again at an even higher price. Unraveling a 140% short squeeze situation doesn’t always mean that the price goes to infinity. Doing that requires that the stock can’t be bought at any price because there are no sellers willing to sell. But if the majority of the stock was still held by normal institutional investors who have no desire to “hold no matter what” and will just sell, the position can be unraveled without the short sellers being completely destroyed. Just… lightly toasted.
SEC also had issued a statement saying that they have investigated Bernie Madoff and there are no wrong doings
*TL;DR "So, this can be seen as a rally that started as a short squeeze which then just continued on as a bubble (due partially to a lack of willing-short sellers)."*
I'm just gonna save this video to come back to it after #MOASS cause the squeeze ain't squoze! #GME #AMC to the moon!
copium surely
@@DrugedBatmanStrikes Well the SEC admitted themselves that there was no short squeeze back in January, so the squeeze ain't squoze yet brah.
If the buy button didn’t evaporate the truth would of played out
God it's funny to come back to videos about GME and see these comments
I love your lack of nonsense Patrick. This has become my favorite channel due to how much I learn every time I watch. Love the dry humor too, so good!
Regarding NSCC & margin requirements. You were explaining that the NSCC were waiving margin requirements, and only increased it from Robinhood - so no conspiracy there. Yet, brokers kept restricting buying, not just Robinhood. What about Trading 212, WeBull, TDA, ..., and even boomer broker Interactive Brokers? CEO of IBKR even stated on CNBC that he will keep GME in PCO until it's reaching "reasonable value" again. He said that if they did not restrict buying, the share price would have gone into the thousands. So if there was no issue due to margin requirements, why did the brokers still keep the limitation up? And exactly this question should be answered as well, and hopefully getting prosecuted as well.
The SEC report tries to be non-judgemental and tries to convey facts on what happened. Just saying that there was no conspiracy or market manipulation maybe a little early.
First, they were not waiving margin requirements lol, margin requirements are.. a requirement. It's the ECP addtional charge it waived, for all brokers. Second, how having to add 6.9 billion collectively in margin requirement a definition of "no issue due to margin requirement"? "NSCC made intraday margin calls from 36...totalling 6.9 billion, bringing the total... to 25.5 billion". Third, I have to say I like how your logic work; Since Robinhood was treated differently, there is probably a conspiracy (you never wrote this but you made it pretty obvious it was your point through sarcasm). Totally ignoring the fact that a different treatment might be warranted due to its different exposure. Nah just throw that possibility in the garbage, it clashes with your opinion...
"The SEC report tries to be non-judgemental and tries to convey facts on what happened. Just saying that there was no conspiracy or market manipulation maybe a little early."
So, you didn't understand the video then?
Maybe you should watch it again... on a slower speed this time (it's in the settings).
They removed the buy button
The real thing to note is that they tiptoed around things that would lead to litigation. On purpose. Whatever the reason is, one should realize that that they're very aware of that line in the sand and that they know a lot more than they're letting on in the report.
Whether they actually start dropping rules and fines is a different matter entirely. But pretending that everything is fine because they left that stuff out of the report is either fooling themselves, or trying to fool you.
IBKR also stopped gme buying ? Wtf ? I thought they were so good thah they are used by small hedge funds and institutional investors.
Does this help me decide whether to YOLO all my tendies on MOASS? Yes and no.
What about the deep itm options and failures to deliver in march, and again in July? How does the SEC explain that? Or the stocks traded being higher then the float comtinuing after February?
@@thomaslgregoryjr its not that the SEC doesnt know, its that by stating there were naked shorts the SEC would be complicit in not enforcing reguations on the market maker. Its a nothing burger of a report. Only thing it confirms is shorts did not cover evidened by the volume vs the maximum "reported" short interst of 140% of the float. Compair this to the legal documents agaist Robinhood of 226% short and what you have is a confirmation short could not have closed and the market maker has joined in clearing these short positions. The graph shows it. Also reguardless of the volatility you cannot halt trading on a public stock unless under investigation by the SEC, and thats your opening to a conspiracy right there.
@@Gusando I disagree with you. There’s a lot the report does say, and I do not believe the SEC is being dishonest, as you insinuate.
@@thomaslgregoryjr Thank your for your opinion, we will have to agree to disagree on the matter I'm afraid.
@@thomaslgregoryjr not being dishonest = not telling the whole truth
He said retail refused to sell. What apocalyptic doomsday theory are you people banking on now
Lol some poor grad at SEC had to look through all the meme posts on WSB 😂
Nancy Pelosi the world's greatest ever stock trader approves of this video.
Not as good as Loeffler and Perdue🙄🙄
Jerome Powell: Hold my beer
Nancy is truly bad in trading, her husband on the other hand seems to have this mindfull insight on trading
I said it back then. Legacy retail has value. People enjoy shopping. It's a leisure activity that is social and has a strong emotional connection to places, seasons, and family. We're never going to be rid of retail stores.
as long as moms get their nails done at strip malls there will be gamestops they drop their kids off at
ps never use the demo machines, we don't clean them. You're basically soaking your hands in booger germs when you touch those controllers.
You forgot to explain how shares shorted fell from high 108% to 16% while the price was falling or sideways trading.
@@chrissi.enbyYT without a doubt.
More people willing to sell then willing to buy (outside of the existing shorted positions).. How else do prices fall?
price falls when shorts choose to not close their shorts and increased their shorting. While the buy button was taken away. So basically the shorts never closed. They went back to being hidden like the rest of the other shorts. Melvin's biggest mistake was showing reported short interest
@@purplerings1969 prices can fall regardless of shorting positions, it's called selling pressure
@@chrissi.enbyYT yes they did lol
Its literally impossible for 130% of the SHARES OUTSTANDING to be covered (especially with additional retail buying pressure) without the price exploding. Shorts have not covered.
Lol "literally" impossible. You guys are hilarious
ONE BILLION TRADES HAPPENED.
ONE BILLION.
Shorters would only need to be 5% of that to cover.
I could be wrong, but...I do believe that Patrick could win a staring contest against ANYONE.
Mirrors weep
Thanks! Gonna buy more GME and AMC cause I like the stock!
First time viewer. That was the best 20 minute setup to a punchline I've seen in a while. I'm sure you jumped with delight when you navigated that closer. Kudos!
I love the salty comments from uneducated fresh “investors” who are down 75% on a meme stock and are unable to let go of ridiculous conspiracies.
This presentation has been a goldmine! Thank You Patrick!
@@youtubing9762 By reading what the SEC reported a week ago?
This is excellent, to actually get the facts and not just an opinion.
Most financial youtubers do not base their information in facts and often come to the wrong conclusions. This video is detail dense, it took me 5 times to get to the end.
The conspiracy theory about this SEC report is that it was written by Citadel's Ken Griffin
what i was thinking as well. who can trust the SEC?!?!?!?
ken griffin and gary ginsler play golf together every weekend
My only question is why was trading not halted but instead certain brokers allowed to only prevent new buy orders.
This is not fair market activity. In 15 years of following markets I have never seen this ever happen.
Thank you for boyleing down this report Patrick! :)
"Because the SEC doesn't do clickbait."
And that's why they don't get the clicks.
Kidding me that removing only the buy was fair move.
What about robbing the hood selling before they closed the buy button.
He is so ingrained in that culture he can't see it for what it is...cheating.
I appreciate your ability to explain these very complicated entities to the everyday guy 😉. Your content has been so interesting and helpful 👍. Thnx as always.. Regards, Old G 😁
hahaha the graphic of a short seller being squeezed is hilarious.
"Its actually quite a good read"
Patrick I will take your word for it lol
While I agree there were too many unfounded conspiracy theories, I also find convenient that the SEC found no wrong doing by any of the financial players involved. There were substantially more shares shorted than available and that's fact. I could go on but anybody knows the SEC is like Roger Godell of Wallstreet.
They let a HF lunatic who has been stealing antiques off the hook... when these rich crooks do crime they are not held accountable. The SEC is complicit and history proves that. Madoff alone proves that. They are all crooks and the SEC exists to cover everything up.
Please, look up synthetic shorts. They are publicly visible due to options open interest being public and they are not limited by available stock (until/unless exercised).
There wouldn't be an actual conspiracy if they got caught from time to time, name one arrest. I know plenty of people who got busted with weed, it doesn't matter if it was a mistake... hanging out with the wrong crowd etc.
What?? Michael burry wrote back in September, of last year, wrote why it was a good reason to buy and was analyzed since then and people took positions since way before dec and Jan, based off that analysis
Also why did Robinhood and citadel lie to congress. Email leaks showed they spoke prior to the halting, and they said they didn't.
Why allow to only sell but not buy, why not stop all trading. And why did other platforms outside if robinhood also stop the ability to buy?
This report is garbage. I appreciate your breakdown of it, as you didn't write it just explained what's in it
Burry also updated later with a negative sentiment on meme stocks. RH and Citadel didn't lie, Griffin specifically said they spoke. What he said was they did not instruct RH to shut down trading. It wasn't just buying that was disabled, some brokers moved to position close only which means no new positions could be opened.
The report isn't garbage, you are just misinformed.
Patrick you are the man, I wish when I was in college for finance I could have taken a class from you. Absolutely love the content.
An interesting take and well delivered but imo significantly overlooks many aspects that continues to drive the conspiracy theory. Where did the 226% short interest that Melvin built up go? It was gone overnight with no relative volume?
All evidence point to bundling into etfs and variance swaps and new CDO’s.
The etf ftd pileups in January are what is assumed to cause the January run up, not just the internalizing of ATS market orders. Combined with retail and institutional fomo into NTM or ITM call options caused massive delta hedging and contractual obligations to fulfill option exercising.
Whether or not there was a gamma ramp starting from November and ending in February is the ultimate crux of the technical side of this.
SEC had to be very particular with this report. It was months late, and as we now know, there is clear evidence pointing from a hand off from SEC to DOJ stemming from the share voting.
While we don’t have a crystal ball, the one thing the SEC was clear on, was the run up was not a true gamma squeeze or a short squeeze. Because of this, retail continues to believe the shorts have NOT closed.
They have not, they are stuck in a cycle, this is likely to pop off 1 yr after.
Thanks!
Welcome!
I'm not from the SEC but I'll still leave a comment for you Patrick
Thank you Patrick for another super educational and informative video. When I watch, I realize there is ALOT I don't know about how markets work. TY
Absolutely Love the In-depth Contents of this Channel. Please keep up the awesome research! 👍. Thank you, Patrick 💖
Here for the information stayed for the subtle witticisms
I dont quite get it. @7:42 a graph by the SEC is shown telling us that shorts cover their position. So that means that between 90 million shares and 170 million shares were purshased by shorts (130% - 240% shoet interest january and february) yet it is said that it was retailers that pushed the price up?? What?? Does the graph show the volumen/ number of shares purshased by short players?
It does... And a few millions at the most.
I'm still up on GME and holding as I don't believe it squeezed
5:30 did we read the same report? Only about 25 million short positions were closed
Where is your proof of this?
@@BraveNewWorldAH In the report? More specifically in the graphs in the report?
@@janknoblich4129 first, are you going to ignore figure 6 that shows SI plummeting to ~20%?
Second, are you referring to figure 7? Please read footnote 78. The short seller buy volume is a subset of short positions, not all of them. Furthermore, it only includes short positions accumulated after the 24th of December 2020.
@@janknoblich4129 so with that in mind, can you point me to somewhere in the report that says only 25 million shorts closed?
@@BraveNewWorldAH they are in a cult, they won’t take on board anything you say. Even some of my real life mates are involved and it’s too cringe
You mentioned that short covering was a small percentage while more buys from retail were coming in. How can anyone cover in that scenario? Stock is already shorted over 100%, It's not making mathematical sense to me. Cheers.
Look at the daily volume. It was more than enough to cover the shorts
@@amplifyd_tv9612 The report says it was mostly retail buying. They have a graph of how small a percentage shorts covering was compared to retail buying.
Going off that graph - they’re not even close to covering 100% of the float let alone the 126%-226% that has been spouted in numerous sec documents.
@@JakeKindr when you have a daily volume of over 30m and your float is 62m it doesn't take long to cover
@@amplifyd_tv9612 Look at the graph at 7:19 in the video. Observe the fact that short covering was a very small percentage of the daily volume. The math doesn’t add up.
That's if sell sentiment was greater than buy. If retail even sits at 50% sell to 50% buys, these numbers do not add up.
Great video Par-trick. I read the entire report (probably didn't need to) but I have to say it's very informative.
pie crust almost flew out of my mouth at “they even harassed smooth jazz musician kenny g” 😂😂😂
Short Sellers didn't cover a damn thing. They rolled positions and kept themselves in terrible positions that are now 20x worse than they were back in January. That's why many AMC GME investors are already rich, while many more are going to be ridiculously rich, in my opinion.
Did you manage to get out or did you go nuts with the other ones?
You really are totally awesome with these types of pretty in dept summaries with enough sarcasm and irony they never get boring!
At the end it seems that retail investors could turn the market. That’s quite interesting based on individuals working alone.
Now that we know… what’s next 😎
It wasn't hard given daily trading volumes was many times the share float count.
The second enlightment is upon us
@@samsonsoturian6013 People sell too...
@@PapaJenkinz not near enough
Finaly some explanations. And what it means.
Thank you very much.
Patrick one day we will sit down and chuckle about this video title together
Boy am i glad to see you here!! Doomslayer!
Robert Shiller will have a field day with this one. Excellent explainer again from Patrick!
What would be good in these instances is to know the percent of stock that was held and never traded.
I’m from the sec and can confirm I subscribed
"There was no naked shorting"
Is not a conclusion in the staff report because it cannot be measured by SEC. You may want to look back at this bold conclusion in the next few quarters.
Thank you for your insight here. I find it odd though how this investigation didn't include conflict of interest
One of my complaints regarding the Gamestop fiasco was how Citadel, a market maker, had financial ties with these companies such as Melvin Capital holding short positions. It was in their interest that Melvin Capital made back their money. I can't see how that's not a conflict of interest.
Of course people were going to speculate that the difficulties surrounding the buying (but not selling) of gamestop shares had ulterior motives. Citadel as a market maker should not have financial incentives towards any one player in the market. This needs to be looked into much more thoroughly.
exactly, there is nothing new in this report... reading reddit/twitter provides these information, so funny when people using robinhood still defending it believing they own all that dogecoin of the biggest wallet.... which actually stopped buying before the last leg up...meaning they are f up even if thats a rh wallet. currently price is still 3.5X from there
lol even Patrick called the people conspiracyterrorists yet everything came out to be true so far...lot of people bought the stock because they like the company? bs they bought because f melvin and the shorters using shady ways
@@hegyesipeter5457 I see that joke flew over your head. Back at peak gme volatility, everyone would say "I like the stock."
@@templarknight7 yeah it did
Thank you. Your channel is one of the best analysis and info source that is clear and easy to understand out there. Cheers!
Well done Patrick, the channel is starting to get a lot more traction, I think the recent polls helped!
Can you explian how the short interest got down from over 100 % to 20%? According to the SEC there was little or no covering.
That's what I want to know too!
The report doesn't say that at all. It says shorts covering wasn't the main cause of the squeeze, not that there was no covering. The graph showing the long buys and short buys is a subset of data, it doesn't show all short buys. See the footnote about this graph, the CAT system was only started on Dec 2020 so it can only show short buy orders for short positions accumulated after mid Dec.
It says shares may have been used, at least in Parts, to cover short positions
Now i'm no Financial wizard but if 120% of shorts covered and this was about 1/8th of Total volume...
The float would be like what? 960%?
@@patrickbrandjes8971 I don't understand what you are saying. You know the same share can be bought and sold multiple times right?
So retail is responsible for over 100 meme stocks rising at the same time? I really doubt that it’s called manipulation, shorts never closed the report said that most of the volume for GameStop was retail not shorts covering, not to mention the new shorts opening at 300+
Yep, and they still haven't covered, they've just hidden their positions (which is probably illegal, but not like the SEC cares).
Yup, retail syncronize their buys and sells to make all Meme stocks move a pattern that makes them identical.
All planned and timed at reddit.
@@petrihaikio7002 Are you sarcastic? I hope you are.
@@Nukestarmaster lmao thumbs up for both of you one being sarcastic and one being naive.
XD
Lol lemme list em. Gme amc bb bbby nakd nok bliaq shldq. And a few of my own theories you may want to look at 1yr charts and ftds: rlay angi 1800flowers
I love that for all it's dryness, the sec report has 'meme stocks' as an official term 😂
In Summary: "Everything is fine" - SEC
So what you’re saying here is to buy more shares and DRS? Well thanks Patrick I’ll do that first thing tomorrow morning.
This is the way
He literally just got done explaining why the SEC report debunks the conspiracies churned out by the gme cult lol. But i guess people will just see what they want to see -_-
@@spartan868 SEC is in Shitadel's pocket, why should we care about what a bunch of corrupt shills say? lmao go eat grass loser.
I’ve never quite understood this attitude of a complete conspiracy between regulators, market makers, and data reporting agencies. If the conspiracy really is that big and powerful, than you are never getting your fucking money.
@@georgesmith917 For every obvious shill comment like this I will simply buy more GME shares and keep DRSing, seethe more lmao
One of the best finance channel
Market makers were exempt from research regarding naked short selling, if they didn't naked short sell why they needed to collude with brokers to disable buy button?
Underrated = Easter eggs hidden in Patrick's office
It's funny how retail investors thought they were sticking it to hedge funds when they bought GME. As it turns out, the hedge funds were right there with them when GME went to the moon.
That's what I thought! Also, most of the ideas proposed on reddit turned out to be inaccurate or straight up false. Who wouldv'e thought reddit wasn't a good place to learn about finance...
@@westboy52 It honestly used to be. There were plenty of solid subreddits around finance and investing. But this whole fiasco brought in a bunch of new investors who bought into conspiracies rather than reasonable understandings of market mechanics.
Hint : the clue is in the name.
Hedge. Fund.
They are always there, on both sides of any trade lol.
If they weren't literally called 'hedge funds' i would understand people not realsiing that lel
@@spartan868 where is the best place for this sort of information, I’m fed up of my mates telling me amc is going to the moon. I would like to be less ignorant
@@jimmysmith736 late to the party but i understand where you are coming from!!
Books written by successful investors is a good place to start.
If you want to listen to youtubers about what "good stocks to buy" are be sure they are showing you finances from the company.
I would recommend learning to go over financial reports yourself.
Its not sexy but one of the better ways to get rich/wealthy in the market is buying companies that have strong balance sheets and holding them fir 2-7 years.
Options(calls/puts) is a decent way to make some money in the market. If you youtube search options trading their is a video by a white bald guy around 3 hours long.... its a little dense and you may need to either watch it in sections or watch it multiple times(i have watched it 4 times) but its a solid educational video on options. I would also recommend paper trading options to start till you get the feel of things.
Good luck 🙏💯💯💯
Phenomenal clip. Best Financial channel on UA-cam!
You are absolutely right, We like the stock!
HAHAHAHAHAHA I got to the "the liked the stock comment" so funny. Great way to start my day.
one bald finance expert calling another out for looking like mr burns. love it
Love the stone-faced invitation to the SEC to smash the stoc... like button
yeyyyy another learning from a Great Source 😊
Saw you on coffeezilla. I’m subscribing just for the accent!😁🙃
Well, there's still many unanswered questions concerning the deep itm calls that were bought, en masse, that certainly gave the appearance of buy-to-write shenanigans happening.
I opened my position as a GME long last September, shortly after Ryan Cohen bought his stake in the company. January's run paid off pretty handsomely for me, but I kept a good portion of my shares because of my initial thesis behind my initial buy in.
I'll hold five years or more, as I do have faith in Cohen and the caliber of talent they've hired for the c-suite.
Coincidentally, they've elected to receive much of their compensation in shares, in leu of cash.
i thought people were buying deep itm calls because either they were lucky and flipping them or people were dumb and actually thinking they'd print on the "moass"
Christ i hate this financial bulletin board bullsh1t 😴
@@zakwhite5159 they were buying them to kick the can down the road covering short positions with ITM options.
@@zakwhite5159 you would buy deep otm calls if you thought the moass was imminent… why pay the premium + excercise cost when you could just buy the underlying to go long with no expiry
@@zakwhite5159 check the sec bulletin from 2013. It comes when you Google the term "buy to write". Essentially, calls are bought and exercised for illiquid securities, allowing short sellers to a) close positions without adding buying pressure to the security, and b) create further sell pressure by further diluting the float with these shares that had been created essentially out of thin air.
The timing of these calls being purchased, as well as the sheer volume of them, is suspicious to say the least.
I don't work for the SEC but I'm leaving this comment, liked and already subscribed
Snuck in that we like the stock at the end there. I see you
Patrick, you might want to look through the sources used to write the report. Several lead to marketwatch articles that were fluffspeculation pieces that that the report then uses as fact despite being PR bs.
Has anyone seen Patrick and the meme stonks guy in the same room? Just sayin.
I was watching the video and in 3:04 I though "wow, this is how the world looks with RTX off"
😁STONKS!
SHORTS NEVER COVERED.
MOASS STILL COMING.
I wish you added to the insightful breakdown a comment on why they didn't just halt all trading of the meme stonks, rather than allowing Robinhood and other, to limit buying.
Exactly.
There was no problem with the stocks, but some brokers were undercapitalized.
Because only Robinhood was facing liquidity issues.
Why not halt all trading then? Isn’t that’s what’s done with rapid rises?
@@troysweeney8432 Why would they screw over all their users when only a couple of stocks with asymmetrical demand were the entire problem? If you weren't interested in GME or AMD, you'd be pissed that you couldn't trade for no good reason.
Or do you mean that they allowed people to close their positions? There would be no reason to stop that concidering it wouldn't need any more capital.
I absolutely love your trading and market commentary. 👍
If the sec is reported a si of just over 100% back in Jan/feb, why did rhs official statement/deposition say that gme short interest was over 200% in February? We’re they wrong? Why are so many individuals telling people to sell sell sell if there is no concern for a run up due to si?
1:55 that’s a quite high flying bird 😂
So if no naked shorting, no shorts covering, no gamma squeezing, no nothing. Then wtf is going on?
I've been trading options for 40 years. Options can be hedged with other options for relatively little capital. The gamma squeezes people keep claiming on stocks like TSLA make no sense and are repeatedly shown to be nonsense.
Congratulations. So what are you trying to say? Gamma squeezes are rare? Gamma squeezes don't exist? What about gamma squeezes and GameStop and this report?
There was no gamma squeeze because Bruce banner was not involved !
Excellent summary and it saved me a lot of time in reading the report, continue with the good work. Obviously the small individual speculator were ble to manipulate the price because it was an insignificant company with low liquidity and worse fundamentals
The fundamentals weren't nearly as bad as they were painted out to be, at the time the company was FCF+, had restructured their debt, and had substantially cut it's operating expenses. There's a reason Dr Burry and a few other securities analysts took contrarian long positions well before the explosion in January.
"That's just because the SEC don't do clickbait" 🤣🤣🤣
Also, if they're saying the price spikes weren't only due to shorts covering, then what was the sudden increase on 2/24/2021 from when it went from around $37 to nearly $200 before it got halted for over 15 minutes right before closing?
Or the huge swings in both direction from $267 to $348, down to $172 and right back up to around $267, closing green on the day (3/10/21)?
Volume and volatility doesn't seem to be retail. What's that from? Not to mention the other days with these kinds of crazy moves you almost never see in any other stock.
Highly manipulated!
FTD covering by market makers?
SEC doesn’t do clickbait haha
You are the best 😄
8:20 would what the SEC said be considered longs trapping shorts or at least a version of it? I understand the shorts didn’t get trapped in but did they get trapped out? If that makes sense.
Considering AMC and GME SI% is around the same as it was prior to those gamma squeezes, they did get trapped in, doubled down and expect to ride the wave. Institutional buyer just purchased 12.5k OTM $60 calls for December.
They're getting ready to cover and they're hedging their shorts with options.
@@jacobc4582 what SI% are you looking at? For example, the numbers reported by Ortex are calculated differently now than the numbers reported by Ortex in January. The formula has changed. And the number of married puts that hide short interest is high.
@@martinucristi I'm aware. Reported SI% is still the same, is my point. This video is FUD and the dude is trying to explain it with fundamental crap when there's nothing fundamental about it
@@martinucristi btw, he deleted my comment explaining thoroughly why his video is wrong lmao
@@jacobc4582 okay cult member
@ 1:43 . I am not sure how Patrick's chart is reading at 185.42. The Chart I have here from G reads that it never traded above 81.25 on the date of January 29 of 2021. Y charts says same thing. Yet MW charts says it never traded above $53 on the day of 6-1-2021? Is G charts broken?
Gotta factor in the div split they did however long ago(but well after the squeeze)
Most charts do not include extended hours trading, and his chart specifically shows "after hours"
I’m sensing sarcasm in this video…
Great video!
the SEC identifies GME as a meme stock xDDD
Meme is no longer a slang word simply because that's the word actual securities lawyers are referring to stocks with high retail interest.