2024.05.29 05:58 SnooMemesjellies5802 Negatives of my dad but no large prints
Hello, submitted by SnooMemesjellies5802 to PhotoshopRequest [link] [comments] I’d love to have this series of negatives turned into something with a high enough resolution that I could possibly enlarge and print. I don’t know if this is possible, but I appreciate anyone willing to try! My dad died in 2007, and I didn’t know of these photos before then. They were found when my mom cleaned out his office. |
2024.05.29 03:46 DEEERROOON Bhai ye accept hoga ?
submitted by DEEERROOON to CUETards [link] [comments] |
2024.05.29 03:00 wtfwafflezor (Selling) 550 Titles Planet of the Apes 1-3 iTunes 4K $9 Birds of Prey 4K $2.75 & HD $1.25
2024.05.29 02:55 electric-cowgurl Property maintenance inspector left their card in my door. Is this normal?
2024.05.29 02:53 DEEERROOON Will this work for csas ?? Ug admission or i have to get central one ? I think this is delhi one
submitted by DEEERROOON to CUETBuddy [link] [comments] |
2024.05.29 00:40 Historical-Western59 Can someone review my Spider-Man story for my media class
2024.05.29 00:22 Professional_Prune11 Human Trauma II----Section Thirty Four: Bygone Mento(Book Two End)
2024.05.28 22:46 gorgonzolamcdonalds Registered Traveller - Do not bother if you're a Hongkonger
2024.05.28 21:49 spacedebriss THE DEADPOOL THEORY
THE DEADPOOL THEORY submitted by spacedebriss to GME [link] [comments] I stayed up way too late last night and got up way too early this morning trying to put this together. I should probably edit it more, but oh well. This is what I have. I need to go do some other stuff now. NONE OF THIS IS FINANCIAL ADVICE. Probably should have waited to post until I toiled some more. I want to add to the deadpool theory. Not take away from it, just add to it. I think the Deadpool and Retail Pool go more hand in hand. I think the Deadpool is the original pool that feeds the retail pool. The key for me has always been how the naked shares are created. Over a year ago I honestly reached a point where the DD was a jumbled mess in my mind. I wanted to start from zero and see what I could find, but not really zero because I had read a lot of DD, thanks to others I knew what to start searching for, so I set out. https://preview.redd.it/1qkm2bck183d1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=700c6d2615eeb8805943faec5977200eb3414279 CITATIONS If you think I’m pulling all of this out of my ass similar to how naked shares are pulled out of asses then please go read my old DD with charts and figures, goes more in depth, and has some strong citations in my opinion. OR better yet go absorb some of those citations, especially these first four: 1. THREE ESSAYS ON NAKED SHORT SELLING AND FAILS-TO-DELIVER by John W. Welborn 2. MARRIED PUTS, REVERSE CONVERSIONS AND ABUSE OF THE OPTIONS MARKET MAKER EXCEPTION ON THE CHICAGO STOCK EXCHANGE by John W Welborn 3. ETF Short Interest and Failures-to-Deliver: Naked Short Selling or Operational Shorting? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncq35zrFCAg&t=1655s 4. Exchange-Traded Funds, Fails-to-Deliver, and Market Volatility by Thomas Stratmann and John W. Welborn https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2183251 If you’re going to only read one of these then I’d make it this one. Everybody here should read a little Welborn in my opinion. Dude is the GOAT! SOME RELEVANT SEC FILINGS:
PDF FILES: DISCLAIMER: these links will try to download a PDF from the SEC’s website 3. https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/34-50103.pdf 4. https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2012/34-67451.pdf 5. https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2007/34-56212fr.pdf 6. https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2008/34-58775fr.pdf 7. https://www.sec.gov/rules/othe2008/34-58190.pdf 8. https://www.sec.gov/rules/othe2008/34-58592.pdf 9. https://www.sec.gov/rules/othe2008/34-58572.pdf 10. https://www.sec.gov/rules/othe2008/34-58723.pdf 11. https://www.sec.gov/rules/othe2008/34-58711.pdf 12. https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2008/34-58773.pdf 13. https://www.sec.gov/about/offices/ocie/options-trading-risk-alert.pdf 14. https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2008/34-58775.pdf 15. https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2006/34-54154.pdf 16. https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nscc/2020/34-89088.pdf MORE SEC 17. https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2008/2008-143.htm 18. https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2008/2008-155.htm 19. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgadata/1159510/000137036821000064/a210729-ex992.htm PLAYING BY THE RULES? I wanted to research that old DD by looking at the rules of naked shorting. When I would look into old DD and theories, I kept ending up at the answer of fraud. They didn’t stand up to the rules, unless lots o’ fraud was involved. Until I got to ETFs…. Now again, if you want more info go read the first four citations up at the top. The first 2 citations are PhD papers covering possible naked shorting and the Options loophole. This is the old way, this Options loophole was closed by the SEC back in 2008. For the new ETF way of naked shorting you can explore citations 3 and 4. These two citations cover how ETFs could be used to still naked short today. This is why I always felt the reactions to my old DD were so strange. I’m basically saying there could be a monstrous naked shorting position out in the market and it could be operating under the rules. No fraud is needed! Why didn’t superstonk respond with more positivity to my old DD a year ago?! I still think that DD did a pretty good job of laying out how naked shorters could be operating under the rules. The rules make it clear to me that: BULLET SWAPS – Can’t be used to make naked shares of a stock. If a naked shorter points to bullet swaps as where they got the shares from then the SEC should laugh in their face. You would need a lot of SEC fraud. Bullet swaps would have other good uses, but not for the actual creation of naked shares. REHYPOTHECATION – The idea here is that the naked shorter borrows shares infinitely. The naked shorter points to the borrow and sure the SEC could let that pass, but it should still count as a borrow. Otherwise, you need more SEC fraud to explain this one. The Market should see the naked short position because it should be tagged as borrowed, and the naked shorter would also need to pay for that borrow. These are both things the naked shorter is trying to avoid – that’s why they create naked shares rather than borrow shares. Alternatively, the naked shorter could have a deal with a broker. The naked shorter does infinite borrows off of the brokers stock, but again you would need fraud from the broker and the broker would likely demand payment on the “borrows”. For rehypothecation to work you need a lot of fraud and naked shorters would likely need to pay borrow fees. Properly creating naked shares within the rules means no borrowing would be done (could be expensive) and means no fraud has to be done. OPTIONS – This is where it gets confusing. Options used to be used to naked short, I wrote a big DD on this about a year ago. It has a lot of pictures and deep dives into a lot of stuff including options. If you want to learn more about the options loophole, don’t read my old DD, scroll back up to the top and read some of Welborn’s Options work (citations 1 and 2). You would need two participants to naked short back in the day and I believe that’s how it’s still done today. One would be a Market Maker and one would typically be a Hedge Fund. The Market Maker had special privileges around options, MMs and only MMs could point to un-exercised options as a locate for shares. They create shares out of thin air and send them to a hedge fund. The hedge fund sells the MM back futures contracts and/or calls. The Market Maker uses the calls as a locates and the Market is none the wiser. Or is just apathetic. But they were technically following the rules as written. These packages of naked shares would have been built with options, futures, and naked shares all packaged together. This Options Market Maker loophole went away in 2008. Options should not be an effective loophole for creating massive amounts of naked shares anymore. Again, you would need lots of SEC fraud. ETFs – I’m not just throwing ETFs out there. There is a fucking fantastic Welborn paper (citation 4) and also a youtube video from a business professor (citation 3) on ETFs and how ETFs could possibly be used to naked short. To use ETFs you would still need a Market Maker and a Hedge Fund (the HF could be another MM or big institution). The Market Maker has special privileges. 1. They can pull shares out of ETFs. 2. They can also set future redemption/creation dates with that same Hedge Fund and not tell anybody. It seems the Options loophole to naked short was replaced with an ETF redemption/creation loophole to naked short. Here’s a footnote in an SEC filing – I think this could be a smoking gun: https://preview.redd.it/212l1xyk183d1.png?width=593&format=png&auto=webp&s=f964a0d412ba172e208b401867174531e025d5fb Page 10 from: https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nscc/2020/34-89088.pdf The new ETF loophole:
If the SEC goes back to the Hedge Fund and asks where they got the ETFs from he points to the Market Maker. SEC, “sounds good, can I leave you my resume?” If the SEC goes to the Market Maker and asks where he got the ETFs, the Market Maker would probably say, “Ha! Fuck if I know! I could buy and sell a million of that fucking ETF in a day. You want to look through our ledgers?” SEC, “Oh. I should probably take ‘em, but I’ll just look at porn instead. You guys hiring?”
These naked shares from the Market Maker to the Hedge Fund would be insured through futures and/or LEAPS. I believe they would likely insure them with one another using futures contracts instead of LEAPS, but I’m not positive. Either way, this “insurance” means that if it gets to expiration and the Hedge Fund hasn’t delivered shares, the Market Maker can use those futures contracts to force delivery. But why might we also see naked shorters holding huge amounts of options? The options could be hedging and leveraging with the wider market (not other naked shorters). So, if naked shorters are using futures to insure that they won’t be left holding the bag with one another then they would likely want to use common expiration dates for LEAPS. That lets them grab some “insurance” (Call Options) and extra leverage (Put Options) from non-naked shorters. If the naked shorters position blows up and they owe the other naked shorter shares then they can use their calls to get some shares from the market. Or if they’re position does well then they can make extra profits off of their puts. Here’s a diagram that will hopefully explain some of this better: https://preview.redd.it/b7v91mel183d1.png?width=768&format=png&auto=webp&s=fea8fab9bbd7dc881d1b08f467b80b0047fd46ca The Hedge Fund is selling the naked shares from the Deadpool through the Market Maker into retail hands. Now the hedge fund like the market maker is going to want some futures or calls to make sure the market maker sells the shares back to him. But they’ll probably do this on a shorter timeline. Maybe they built the dealpool with three year expirations. Now they’ll naked short to retail probably using 1 year expirations. I think retails average is about nine months for holding a stock. A year should be enough time to find a new share to buy in order to close/roll an old naked share. Retail naked shares would likely expire every March, June, September, December. Naked shorters are constantly closing and rolling their naked shorts with retail throughout the year. Or at least that’s the idea, usually retail sells pretty quickly and naked shorters can keep driving the price down. Here’s a diagram to visualize deadpools and retail pools together. The red is the deadpool. The deadpools are the original pools of naked shares that are created with long expirations. It would make sense to have these expire three years out so 1. they last long – don’t have to keep creating naked shares and 2. they can be hedged/leveraged with the wider market using common expiration dates. Then the yellow would be the pools of naked shares that are sold to retail. These would have shorter expirations because ideally the naked shorter would want to churn these in a year or less. The naked shorters create a big deadpool of naked shares that will expire in three years. Then, if they’re using 1 year expirations with retail, they can use those naked shares in the market up to three times. https://preview.redd.it/7fe2fwzl183d1.png?width=1366&format=png&auto=webp&s=029649336a89107a0519a9198fedee49929cc59c Now look at where expiration dates line up between red pools and yellow pools. January and June. January and June are common expiration dates for LEAPS. Again, if the naked shorters want to hedge/leverage with the wider market then these would be the expiration dates they would want to build their naked shares around. If the naked shares are built in this way then January of 2021 could have been a time where some of the Retail Pool and some of the Deadpool were expiring. Let’s say it’s a big expiration time and there are not enough shares. Maybe some DFV dude and a bunch of other retail investors are buying calls and shares. In this scenario, the Market Maker would try to find shares to close/roll the position. If unable, then the Hedge Fund would need to exercise their “insurance” and demand the shares from the MM. The Market Maker also has “insurance” though because he’s the big boy and he won’t be left holding the bag. The MM throws down his uno reverse card and screams, “No! You!” BASKET THEORY – Why do other stocks move hard with GME at certain times? Alright, let’s say naked shorters are building their positions how I’ve laid out. When naked shorters open the ETFs at the beginning of the deadpool, they are also pulling out naked shares of other companies. They could use those shares for a lot of different things. They could hold them and sell options to make money. Or they could also naked short some of those companies too. Maybe, they open an ETF and pull out naked GME and some naked shares of another company. They could also naked short the other stocks into the market. It would move differently on a shorter timescale to GME because they’re rolling the position with retail a year at a time. It might move more in line with GME on a longer time scale. When the deadpool expires they need to finish buying shares and creating ETFs. That could mean buying a bunch of different stocks at one time. Buy some the remaining GME, STOCK B, STOCK C, etc. and close/finish rolling your deadpool position by packaging those shares up into nice little ETFs. 2021 – 2024 This could all explain some of the wild stuff we’ve been seeing lately.
And you NEED 100 shares! The call insures that someone else has to find the shares for $20 each. You spend your $200 on the call option expiring June 22nd. Now you’re guaranteed to get your 100 shares for $20 each even if the price skyrockets. You spent $2200 on 100 shares. Again, no one knows who is buying these calls or why, but this could line up nicely with my theory that a chunk of the deadpool is expiring soon. I don’t want to get anyone excited for MOASS. I’ve made bad predictions in the past. In the past I thought a MOASS would probably happen in March, but that was because I hadn’t connected the deadpool to everything. Don’t get hyped, but if deadpools are built with January and June expirations then it would make sense that MOASS could happen in January or June. It would explain why naked shorters almost got fucked in January 2021. If, they were able to survive and push a huge chunk of their deadpool out three years then June 2024 could be a rough time for them. I’m not going to say it’s a guarantee of a MOASS this June/July. I will say that I really would not want to be a naked shorter trying to roll a bad bet on GME this June. Now this is all conjecture, but what if part of the deadpool needed to be rolled in January of 2021? Meaning the Hedge Fund needed to settle up with the Market Maker so they could finish closing the deadpool and keep the position rolling. Now the Deadpool was the original pool of naked shares. The Market Maker pulled these naked shares out of ETFs and sent them to the Hedge Fund. Naked shorters usually want to keep the train going until the company is bankrupt so they’d usually keep closing and rolling the deadpool until that happens. So, if you’ve followed along then January of 2021 could have been a pretty key date where a Market Maker may have needed to buy to settle a portion of the Retail Pool. These would be shares that the Hedge Fund naked shorted to retail through the Market Maker – insuring with futures and/or LEAPS. Then the Hedge Fund would have also needed to finish settling a portion of the Deadpool back to the Market Maker that’s about to expire. Again, these deadpool naked shares are the original naked shares pulled out of ETFs, probably three years ago. They’ve been using and abusing that naked share with retail for three years, probably a year or so at a time. If the position blew up, say in January of 2021 then some Hedge Funds would have also blown the fuck up. First, the market maker would go to the market and try to buy shares. No shares. The market maker turns to the hedge fund and says, “sorry, no shares.” This is why the Hedge Fund bough “insurance” or hedged with his “buddy”. The Hedge Fund uses his contracts with the Market Maker to say, “here’s the cash, where are the shares?” The Market Maker plays his reverse uno card: The original contracts he made with the Hedge Fund when the naked shares were created and says, “No! You!” Hedge Fund: Fuck! There are no shares! MM: Not my problem. Where are my shares? Market: No shares. The Market Maker has the Hedge Funds other positions liquidated until there’s enough cash to buy shares in the market. In asinine cases where this happens the market might allow the Market Maker to just turn off the buy button to save his sorry ass. This is considered by many to be complete bullshit. The deadpool is closed/rolled. Possibly three years into the future. 2021 to 2024. I think there might always be a Deadpool that then feeds the Retail Pool. My other DD adds to the Deadpool theory and rehashes some of this, but the gist is that if you can create a deadpool with your “buddy” then could you just add a ton to the deadpool three years ago through the market to drive the price down and not add it to the retail pool. In other words, more naked shares that drive the price down, but they end up in your “friends” hands. He also want to drive the price down so you can worry less. Adding to the deadpool in a really desperate time would make sense to me. Now if a bunch of shares were added to the deadpool three years ago and were split by the splividend then how does that all work? I think with a normal split, naked shares that are split in the deadpool could be settled with cash. Does the splividend change that? In other words, if there were a bunch of naked shares shat into the deadpool three years ago. Then they were split, but delivery was delayed until expiration. And now they’re finally expiring. Can they be settled with cash or do real shares need to be bought to fulfill the long overdue splividend? THE DRS POOL https://preview.redd.it/rtxz74em183d1.png?width=1366&format=png&auto=webp&s=60d875bd27f7567deeb55e34c9f0283127d973af This just tries to simplify thing. The way the naked share is likely built results in it ending up in a deadpool between the naked shorters. They then pull naked shares from the deadpool and send them out into the market to naked short. Good thing, you have recourse! Believe you’ve been sold a naked share?! Your only way to truly find out if you have a real share or not is by DRSing. Pull your shares into the DRS Pool. Now you can have peace of mind that it’s a real share. ENDGAME If I were a naked shorter facing a potential MOASS, what would I do?
HOW WOULD A MOASS START IN THIS SCENARIO? Alright, we don’t know why a MOASS would pop off. It would probably be expiration dates and/or too many DRSd shares. But we still actually do know why: naked shorting, not enough shares, buy button smashed, price goes boom! If it’s built the way I explained here, then MOASS means the Market Maker went to the market to buy some shares and there weren’t enough shares. But they like REALLY NEED SHARES. The price rises. If it gets to expiration of some of the retail naked shares and they haven’t been rolled then the position starts unraveling. MM: No shares. HF: Contract. Shares now! MM: No! You! HF: Fuck. MM: Margin Call HF: I’m dying. Let’s say this is what happened last time. The Hedge Funds blew up, if it happened again, would it now be a Market Maker and a bigger Market Maker stuck in this death loop? MM: I have assumed the position. lol MM: Fuck, you know what I meant. I absorbed the HF’s toxic naked shorts! So, if the Market Maker absorbed the naked short side of the play and is now the one who will be margin called. Who absorbed the Market Maker’s side? The one holding the “No! You!” reverse uno card this time around? If the Market Maker can’t survive like the Hedge Fund? Can the new guy survive like the MM did last time? TL;DR Some PhD papers by Welborn everyone needs to read like three years ago! Options were used to naked short in the past – Welborn explains how. ETFs likely used now – again, read Welborn. Please! I layout how ETFs are likely pulled apart and shuffled around to create naked shares or what I like to call a deadpool. Dead shares that shouldn’t even exist. Then the deadpool is pulled from to send naked shares into the market. Again, if you want to learn how I got here I have a long DD from a year ago in my history OR preferably go read Welborn’s work. The way this is all done means because of the way the naked shares are sent to market there could be weird price movement around triple-witching dates. March/April, June/July, SeptembeOctober, DecembeJanuary. Triple-witching dates are March, June, September, December, but I push them out a month because Market Makers get a little extra leeway that us common folk don’t get. Again, in my old DD I talk about why they could potentially have an extra month tacked onto their expirations. Then because of the way the shares are originally pulled out of ETFs there could be weird movement around common expirations for LEAPS. January and June. January and June could be extra special times where a batch of naked shares are expiring in the hands of retail and need to finish being rolled. While, also having a batch of naked shares originally created for the deadpool that need to finish being rolled. I know this is all confusing, but basically I believe the rules allow a loophole for naked shorting through ETFs. I believe the way those naked shares are created makes a deadpool parked with naked shorters. When they want to match a buy on the market (retail buys a share) they then pull a naked share out of the deadpool and send it to retail. Naked shares in the deadpool hangout for about three years at a time meaning they need to be closed or rolled within 3 years. Naked shares to retail would likely be done with a 1 year expiration since retail usually churns through shares fast. You’re able to create a naked share and sell it to retail and buy it back and sell it and buy it several times before the naked share needs to be renewed (rolled – a new naked share created and the old one finally closed). Using ETFs could also explain weird movements in other stocks. If you’re already pulling a bunch of different stocks out of the ETF (not just GME) then you could use some of those naked shares to naked short other stocks as well. You’d be selling to retail at different times so the price may not move in tandem around the triple-witching dates, but they could move similarly around deadpool expiration dates. Remember, to close the naked shares from the deadpool you need to buy shares and create the ETFs. January 2021 could be a time where you need to buy a bunch of different stocks to close/roll some of the deadpool. June 2024 could also be a time where naked shorters might need to buy a bunch of different stocks in order to finally create some ETFs. You might see some unrelated stocks suddenly increasing in price at the same time. In my opinion, if a stock is heavily naked shorted, then a MOASS would kick off for 1 of 2 reasons.
|
2024.05.28 21:45 spacedebriss THE DEADPOOL THEORY
THE DEADPOOL THEORY submitted by spacedebriss to DeepFuckingValue [link] [comments] I stayed up way too late last night and got up way too early this morning trying to put this together. I should probably edit it more, but oh well. This is what I have. I need to go do some other stuff now. NONE OF THIS IS FINANCIAL ADVICE. Probably should have waited to post until I toiled some more. I want to add to the deadpool theory. Not take away from it, just add to it. I think the Deadpool and Retail Pool go more hand in hand. I think the Deadpool is the original pool that feeds the retail pool. The key for me has always been how the naked shares are created. Over a year ago I honestly reached a point where the DD was a jumbled mess in my mind. I wanted to start from zero and see what I could find, but not really zero because I had read a lot of DD, thanks to others I knew what to start searching for, so I set out. https://preview.redd.it/kx9s01yz083d1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=134e135f9a393230b850ad5f96493d402a4aad14 CITATIONS If you think I’m pulling all of this out of my ass similar to how naked shares are pulled out of asses then please go read my old DD with charts and figures, goes more in depth, and has some strong citations in my opinion. OR better yet go absorb some of those citations, especially these first four: 1. THREE ESSAYS ON NAKED SHORT SELLING AND FAILS-TO-DELIVER by John W. Welborn 2. MARRIED PUTS, REVERSE CONVERSIONS AND ABUSE OF THE OPTIONS MARKET MAKER EXCEPTION ON THE CHICAGO STOCK EXCHANGE by John W Welborn 3. ETF Short Interest and Failures-to-Deliver: Naked Short Selling or Operational Shorting? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncq35zrFCAg&t=1655s 4. Exchange-Traded Funds, Fails-to-Deliver, and Market Volatility by Thomas Stratmann and John W. Welborn https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2183251 If you’re going to only read one of these then I’d make it this one. Everybody here should read a little Welborn in my opinion. Dude is the GOAT! SOME RELEVANT SEC FILINGS:
PDF FILES: DISCLAIMER: these links will try to download a PDF from the SEC’s website 3. https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/34-50103.pdf 4. https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2012/34-67451.pdf 5. https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2007/34-56212fr.pdf 6. https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2008/34-58775fr.pdf 7. https://www.sec.gov/rules/othe2008/34-58190.pdf 8. https://www.sec.gov/rules/othe2008/34-58592.pdf 9. https://www.sec.gov/rules/othe2008/34-58572.pdf 10. https://www.sec.gov/rules/othe2008/34-58723.pdf 11. https://www.sec.gov/rules/othe2008/34-58711.pdf 12. https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2008/34-58773.pdf 13. https://www.sec.gov/about/offices/ocie/options-trading-risk-alert.pdf 14. https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2008/34-58775.pdf 15. https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2006/34-54154.pdf 16. https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nscc/2020/34-89088.pdf MORE SEC 17. https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2008/2008-143.htm 18. https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2008/2008-155.htm 19. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgadata/1159510/000137036821000064/a210729-ex992.htm PLAYING BY THE RULES? I wanted to research that old DD by looking at the rules of naked shorting. When I would look into old DD and theories, I kept ending up at the answer of fraud. They didn’t stand up to the rules, unless lots o’ fraud was involved. Until I got to ETFs…. Now again, if you want more info go read the first four citations up at the top. The first 2 citations are PhD papers covering possible naked shorting and the Options loophole. This is the old way, this Options loophole was closed by the SEC back in 2008. For the new ETF way of naked shorting you can explore citations 3 and 4. These two citations cover how ETFs could be used to still naked short today. This is why I always felt the reactions to my old DD were so strange. I’m basically saying there could be a monstrous naked shorting position out in the market and it could be operating under the rules. No fraud is needed! Why didn’t superstonk respond with more positivity to my old DD a year ago?! I still think that DD did a pretty good job of laying out how naked shorters could be operating under the rules. The rules make it clear to me that: BULLET SWAPS – Can’t be used to make naked shares of a stock. If a naked shorter points to bullet swaps as where they got the shares from then the SEC should laugh in their face. You would need a lot of SEC fraud. Bullet swaps would have other good uses, but not for the actual creation of naked shares. REHYPOTHECATION – The idea here is that the naked shorter borrows shares infinitely. The naked shorter points to the borrow and sure the SEC could let that pass, but it should still count as a borrow. Otherwise, you need more SEC fraud to explain this one. The Market should see the naked short position because it should be tagged as borrowed, and the naked shorter would also need to pay for that borrow. These are both things the naked shorter is trying to avoid – that’s why they create naked shares rather than borrow shares. Alternatively, the naked shorter could have a deal with a broker. The naked shorter does infinite borrows off of the brokers stock, but again you would need fraud from the broker and the broker would likely demand payment on the “borrows”. For rehypothecation to work you need a lot of fraud and naked shorters would likely need to pay borrow fees. Properly creating naked shares within the rules means no borrowing would be done (could be expensive) and means no fraud has to be done. OPTIONS – This is where it gets confusing. Options used to be used to naked short, I wrote a big DD on this about a year ago. It has a lot of pictures and deep dives into a lot of stuff including options. If you want to learn more about the options loophole, don’t read my old DD, scroll back up to the top and read some of Welborn’s Options work (citations 1 and 2). You would need two participants to naked short back in the day and I believe that’s how it’s still done today. One would be a Market Maker and one would typically be a Hedge Fund. The Market Maker had special privileges around options, MMs and only MMs could point to un-exercised options as a locate for shares. They create shares out of thin air and send them to a hedge fund. The hedge fund sells the MM back futures contracts and/or calls. The Market Maker uses the calls as a locates and the Market is none the wiser. Or is just apathetic. But they were technically following the rules as written. These packages of naked shares would have been built with options, futures, and naked shares all packaged together. This Options Market Maker loophole went away in 2008. Options should not be an effective loophole for creating massive amounts of naked shares anymore. Again, you would need lots of SEC fraud. ETFs – I’m not just throwing ETFs out there. There is a fucking fantastic Welborn paper (citation 4) and also a youtube video from a business professor (citation 3) on ETFs and how ETFs could possibly be used to naked short. To use ETFs you would still need a Market Maker and a Hedge Fund (the HF could be another MM or big institution). The Market Maker has special privileges. 1. They can pull shares out of ETFs. 2. They can also set future redemption/creation dates with that same Hedge Fund and not tell anybody. It seems the Options loophole to naked short was replaced with an ETF redemption/creation loophole to naked short. Here’s a footnote in an SEC filing – I think this could be a smoking gun: https://preview.redd.it/7u7rs7t0183d1.png?width=593&format=png&auto=webp&s=ce911b6ef047ade8526551280a8642bc3fee6c96 Page 10 from: https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nscc/2020/34-89088.pdf The new ETF loophole:
If the SEC goes back to the Hedge Fund and asks where they got the ETFs from he points to the Market Maker. SEC, “sounds good, can I leave you my resume?” If the SEC goes to the Market Maker and asks where he got the ETFs, the Market Maker would probably say, “Ha! Fuck if I know! I could buy and sell a million of that fucking ETF in a day. You want to look through our ledgers?” SEC, “Oh. I should probably take ‘em, but I’ll just look at porn instead. You guys hiring?”
These naked shares from the Market Maker to the Hedge Fund would be insured through futures and/or LEAPS. I believe they would likely insure them with one another using futures contracts instead of LEAPS, but I’m not positive. Either way, this “insurance” means that if it gets to expiration and the Hedge Fund hasn’t delivered shares, the Market Maker can use those futures contracts to force delivery. But why might we also see naked shorters holding huge amounts of options? The options could be hedging and leveraging with the wider market (not other naked shorters). So, if naked shorters are using futures to insure that they won’t be left holding the bag with one another then they would likely want to use common expiration dates for LEAPS. That lets them grab some “insurance” (Call Options) and extra leverage (Put Options) from non-naked shorters. If the naked shorters position blows up and they owe the other naked shorter shares then they can use their calls to get some shares from the market. Or if they’re position does well then they can make extra profits off of their puts. Here’s a diagram that will hopefully explain some of this better: https://preview.redd.it/0k0k50k1183d1.png?width=768&format=png&auto=webp&s=e6834a6efc5fc4630ffcf542dd3222f5d6fd4055 The Hedge Fund is selling the naked shares from the Deadpool through the Market Maker into retail hands. Now the hedge fund like the market maker is going to want some futures or calls to make sure the market maker sells the shares back to him. But they’ll probably do this on a shorter timeline. Maybe they built the dealpool with three year expirations. Now they’ll naked short to retail probably using 1 year expirations. I think retails average is about nine months for holding a stock. A year should be enough time to find a new share to buy in order to close/roll an old naked share. Retail naked shares would likely expire every March, June, September, December. Naked shorters are constantly closing and rolling their naked shorts with retail throughout the year. Or at least that’s the idea, usually retail sells pretty quickly and naked shorters can keep driving the price down. Here’s a diagram to visualize deadpools and retail pools together. The red is the deadpool. The deadpools are the original pools of naked shares that are created with long expirations. It would make sense to have these expire three years out so 1. they last long – don’t have to keep creating naked shares and 2. they can be hedged/leveraged with the wider market using common expiration dates. Then the yellow would be the pools of naked shares that are sold to retail. These would have shorter expirations because ideally the naked shorter would want to churn these in a year or less. The naked shorters create a big deadpool of naked shares that will expire in three years. Then, if they’re using 1 year expirations with retail, they can use those naked shares in the market up to three times. https://preview.redd.it/9plf8u92183d1.png?width=1366&format=png&auto=webp&s=a29d688b91802dc2fe01416a00a5b96a014ede8f Now look at where expiration dates line up between red pools and yellow pools. January and June. January and June are common expiration dates for LEAPS. Again, if the naked shorters want to hedge/leverage with the wider market then these would be the expiration dates they would want to build their naked shares around. If the naked shares are built in this way then January of 2021 could have been a time where some of the Retail Pool and some of the Deadpool were expiring. Let’s say it’s a big expiration time and there are not enough shares. Maybe some DFV dude and a bunch of other retail investors are buying calls and shares. In this scenario, the Market Maker would try to find shares to close/roll the position. If unable, then the Hedge Fund would need to exercise their “insurance” and demand the shares from the MM. The Market Maker also has “insurance” though because he’s the big boy and he won’t be left holding the bag. The MM throws down his uno reverse card and screams, “No! You!” BASKET THEORY – Why do other stocks move hard with GME at certain times? Alright, let’s say naked shorters are building their positions how I’ve laid out. When naked shorters open the ETFs at the beginning of the deadpool, they are also pulling out naked shares of other companies. They could use those shares for a lot of different things. They could hold them and sell options to make money. Or they could also naked short some of those companies too. Maybe, they open an ETF and pull out naked GME and some naked POPCORN. They could also naked short POPCORN into the market. It would move differently on a shorter timescale to GME because they’re rolling the position with retail a year at a time. It might move more in line with GME on a longer time scale. When the deadpool expires they need to finish buying shares and creating ETFs. That could mean buying a bunch of different stocks at one time. Buy some the remaining GME, POPCORN, HEADPHONES, etc. and close/finish rolling your deadpool position by packaging those shares up into nice little ETFs. 2021 – 2024 This could all explain some of the wild stuff we’ve been seeing lately.
And you NEED 100 shares! The call insures that someone else has to find the shares for $20 each. You spend your $200 on the call option expiring June 22nd. Now you’re guaranteed to get your 100 shares for $20 each even if the price skyrockets. You spent $2200 on 100 shares. Again, no one knows who is buying these calls or why, but this could line up nicely with my theory that a chunk of the deadpool is expiring soon. I don’t want to get anyone excited for MOASS. I’ve made bad predictions in the past. In the past I thought a MOASS would probably happen in March, but that was because I hadn’t connected the deadpool to everything. Don’t get hyped, but if deadpools are built with January and June expirations then it would make sense that MOASS could happen in January or June. It would explain why naked shorters almost got fucked in January 2021. If, they were able to survive and push a huge chunk of their deadpool out three years then June 2024 could be a rough time for them. I’m not going to say it’s a guarantee of a MOASS this June/July. I will say that I really would not want to be a naked shorter trying to roll a bad bet on GME this June. Now this is all conjecture, but what if part of the deadpool needed to be rolled in January of 2021? Meaning the Hedge Fund needed to settle up with the Market Maker so they could finish closing the deadpool and keep the position rolling. Now the Deadpool was the original pool of naked shares. The Market Maker pulled these naked shares out of ETFs and sent them to the Hedge Fund. Naked shorters usually want to keep the train going until the company is bankrupt so they’d usually keep closing and rolling the deadpool until that happens. So, if you’ve followed along then January of 2021 could have been a pretty key date where a Market Maker may have needed to buy to settle a portion of the Retail Pool. These would be shares that the Hedge Fund naked shorted to retail through the Market Maker – insuring with futures and/or LEAPS. Then the Hedge Fund would have also needed to finish settling a portion of the Deadpool back to the Market Maker that’s about to expire. Again, these deadpool naked shares are the original naked shares pulled out of ETFs, probably three years ago. They’ve been using and abusing that naked share with retail for three years, probably a year or so at a time. If the position blew up, say in January of 2021 then some Hedge Funds would have also blown the fuck up. First, the market maker would go to the market and try to buy shares. No shares. The market maker turns to the hedge fund and says, “sorry, no shares.” This is why the Hedge Fund bough “insurance” or hedged with his “buddy”. The Hedge Fund uses his contracts with the Market Maker to say, “here’s the cash, where are the shares?” The Market Maker plays his reverse uno card: The original contracts he made with the Hedge Fund when the naked shares were created and says, “No! You!” Hedge Fund: Fuck! There are no shares! MM: Not my problem. Where are my shares? Market: No shares. The Market Maker has the Hedge Funds other positions liquidated until there’s enough cash to buy shares in the market. In asinine cases where this happens the market might allow the Market Maker to just turn off the buy button to save his sorry ass. This is considered by many to be complete bullshit. The deadpool is closed/rolled. Possibly three years into the future. 2021 to 2024. I think there might always be a Deadpool that then feeds the Retail Pool. My other DD adds to the Deadpool theory and rehashes some of this, but the gist is that if you can create a deadpool with your “buddy” then could you just add a ton to the deadpool three years ago through the market to drive the price down and not add it to the retail pool. In other words, more naked shares that drive the price down, but they end up in your “friends” hands. He also want to drive the price down so you can worry less. Adding to the deadpool in a really desperate time would make sense to me. Now if a bunch of shares were added to the deadpool three years ago and were split by the splividend then how does that all work? I think with a normal split, naked shares that are split in the deadpool could be settled with cash. Does the splividend change that? In other words, if there were a bunch of naked shares shat into the deadpool three years ago. Then they were split, but delivery was delayed until expiration. And now they’re finally expiring. Can they be settled with cash or do real shares need to be bought to fulfill the long overdue splividend? THE DRS POOL https://preview.redd.it/x6uj1n24183d1.png?width=1366&format=png&auto=webp&s=7887d54ea5fcaff20e6c65865826657c4b9c13cf This just tries to simplify thing. The way the naked share is likely built results in it ending up in a deadpool between the naked shorters. They then pull naked shares from the deadpool and send them out into the market to naked short. Good thing, you have recourse! Believe you’ve been sold a naked share?! Your only way to truly find out if you have a real share or not is by DRSing. Pull your shares into the DRS Pool. Now you can have peace of mind that it’s a real share. ENDGAME If I were a naked shorter facing a potential MOASS, what would I do?
HOW WOULD A MOASS START IN THIS SCENARIO? Alright, we don’t know why a MOASS would pop off. It would probably be expiration dates and/or too many DRSd shares. But we still actually do know why: naked shorting, not enough shares, buy button smashed, price goes boom! If it’s built the way I explained here, then MOASS means the Market Maker went to the market to buy some shares and there weren’t enough shares. But they like REALLY NEED SHARES. The price rises. If it gets to expiration of some of the retail naked shares and they haven’t been rolled then the position starts unraveling. MM: No shares. HF: Contract. Shares now! MM: No! You! HF: Fuck. MM: Margin Call HF: I’m dying. Let’s say this is what happened last time. The Hedge Funds blew up, if it happened again, would it now be a Market Maker and a bigger Market Maker stuck in this death loop? MM: I have assumed the position. lol MM: Fuck, you know what I meant. I absorbed the HF’s toxic naked shorts! So, if the Market Maker absorbed the naked short side of the play and is now the one who will be margin called. Who absorbed the Market Maker’s side? The one holding the “No! You!” reverse uno card this time around? If the Market Maker can’t survive like the Hedge Fund? Can the new guy survive like the MM did last time? TL;DR Some PhD papers by Welborn everyone needs to read like three years ago! Options were used to naked short in the past – Welborn explains how. ETFs likely used now – again, read Welborn. Please! I layout how ETFs are likely pulled apart and shuffled around to create naked shares or what I like to call a deadpool. Dead shares that shouldn’t even exist. Then the deadpool is pulled from to send naked shares into the market. Again, if you want to learn how I got here I have a long DD from a year ago in my history OR preferably go read Welborn’s work. The way this is all done means because of the way the naked shares are sent to market there could be weird price movement around triple-witching dates. March/April, June/July, SeptembeOctober, DecembeJanuary. Triple-witching dates are March, June, September, December, but I push them out a month because Market Makers get a little extra leeway that us common folk don’t get. Again, in my old DD I talk about why they could potentially have an extra month tacked onto their expirations. Then because of the way the shares are originally pulled out of ETFs there could be weird movement around common expirations for LEAPS. January and June. January and June could be extra special times where a batch of naked shares are expiring in the hands of retail and need to finish being rolled. While, also having a batch of naked shares originally created for the deadpool that need to finish being rolled. I know this is all confusing, but basically I believe the rules allow a loophole for naked shorting through ETFs. I believe the way those naked shares are created makes a deadpool parked with naked shorters. When they want to match a buy on the market (retail buys a share) they then pull a naked share out of the deadpool and send it to retail. Naked shares in the deadpool hangout for about three years at a time meaning they need to be closed or rolled within 3 years. Naked shares to retail would likely be done with a 1 year expiration since retail usually churns through shares fast. You’re able to create a naked share and sell it to retail and buy it back and sell it and buy it several times before the naked share needs to be renewed (rolled – a new naked share created and the old one finally closed). Using ETFs could also explain weird movements in other stocks. If you’re already pulling a bunch of different stocks out of the ETF (not just GME) then you could use some of those naked shares to naked short other stocks as well. You’d be selling to retail at different times so the price may not move in tandem around the triple-witching dates, but they could move similarly around deadpool expiration dates. Remember, to close the naked shares from the deadpool you need to buy shares and create the ETFs. January 2021 could be a time where you need to buy a bunch of different stocks to close/roll some of the deadpool. June 2024 could also be a time where naked shorters might need to buy a bunch of different stocks in order to finally create some ETFs. You might see some unrelated stocks suddenly increasing in price at the same time. In my opinion, if a stock is heavily naked shorted, then a MOASS would kick off for 1 of 2 reasons.
|
2024.05.28 21:33 marina7890 Always feeling like"I am getting sick" after Vyvanse wear off.
2024.05.28 21:02 Americankitsune1 [1252] The Cyrofrozen Case part 1. Murder Mystery, time period, Anthro.
2024.05.28 20:37 swingerlover THE ANCIENT HISTORY OF LOVE SPELLS #lovespell #lovespells
https://preview.redd.it/0apt40ofesj51.jpg?width=935&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8900ff69b29746913f2d020247934d364e36f7e6 submitted by swingerlover to occultspells [link] [comments] The erotic attraction spells also known as love spells, can be traced from the syncretic magic custom of Hellenistic Greece- which included the Hebraic and Egyptian features as recorded in texts like the Greek Magical Papyri and also on amulets as well as other artefacts that date up to late third century A.D. The magical rituals continued to impact on private custom among German society, in Gaul (for Celtic people) and Roman Britain. Erotic magic exhibited gender responsibilities in classical Greece and dropped the contemporary misconceptions on gender lines and sexuality. According to the University of Chicago’s Christopher Faraone- a classical professor, there was a clear distinction between magic practiced by both genders with men practicing Eros and women Philia. Indeed, the two kinds of spells can be linked to gender responsibilities in Ancient Greece. Because women depended on men, they used philia. From ancient times, women weak and utilize any means possible to maintain their spouses. At the time when men had the liberty to leave their wives as they wished, the use of philia was necessary. With that, most women chose to use it as a way to maintain their beauty and as a source of peace of mind. Make Men Faithful Women used philia magic to make their men faithful and stick to them. Elementary beliefs on sexual attitudes in Greece were rejected by the discovery of the philia love spells, rituals, and potions. Rather than applying it as a means of getting sexual pleasure, women used the spells as medicine or therapy. Women used philia spells to try to conserve their beauty and remain appealing. This can be related to general medical usage by women. In ancient Greece, most women used spells as a kind of therapy. Despite the form of spells and whether they worked or not, there was something special about them- they made the users feel more contented with their situations and have the feeling that they have some powers over the prevailing situations. In that case, magic works just like regions. In a nutshell, prayers and spells have a lot of similarities in that both bring the tranquility of mind and they both use something spiritual to command something that is presently unmanageable. https://preview.redd.it/0pk3wcelesj51.jpg?width=918&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9a686da4befcd7a4e5c0a707ab5e83679f576be4 For men and prostitutes, Eros spells were mainly used to serve an entirely different role in ancient Greece. They were mostly applied by men to introduce lust and enthusiasm into women, directing them to accomplish the men’s desires. Without some kind of powers like that exhibited by spells, women felt insecure that is why they would strive to seek the affection producing spells. While men experienced a free life where they chose what they wanted to do, women on the other hand were relatively restricted. For instance, they were required to serve only one husband and home. This prompted women who were not practicing prostitution to apply eros magic to meet their sexual demands. Women in love Magic. Malleus Maleficarum of 1487 best illustrated the view of women in the Renaissance. The introduction part of the text presents the sexuality of women with respect to the devil. In his book, Heinrich Kramer wrote, “All witchcraft originates from sexual desire, which in women is unquenchable.” At this time, men of the Renaissance fretted the sexual capability of the opposite gender. They linked it to the devil and thought of them as sexual associates to demons. The book, Kramer narrates a case where a witch got her powers by summoning the devil to get into sexual relations. By the use of her sexual powers, she acquires power, therefore, viewed as evil and a threat. To confirm this, in most of the witchcraft prosecutions submitted before the Holy Office (in Roman Inquisition), women were accused using their own sexuality to bind their lusts and sexuality. From Ancient experiences and stories, it is evident that Love Spells had a great impact on love matters. Like today, it was respected and feared by people. Also, it was used by others to fulfill their sexual needs where possible. Love spells are deeply rooted to the lives of most people. Therefore, even in the contemporary world, many people can still relate to it. Although there has been a lot of transformations in terms of lifestyle and the view of people on supernatural powers, love spells can’t be underrated. Want Izabael To Cast a Spell For You? Visit My Magick Spell Shop https://preview.redd.it/pdmeclanesj51.jpg?width=308&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=440c776541c27a9e4c6da33da46727710cb344d0 Magic Spells by Izabael DaJinn The World’s Premiere Spell-casting Genie ***Successful Spells Cast since 2007 *** originally posted at, and permission to repost from: https://izabaeldajinn.com/2020/07/the-ancient-history-of-love-spells |
2024.05.28 19:05 Boredom_of_bore Top Five Anime on MAL Per Year, 1970-2022
2024.05.28 18:32 spacedebriss Expanding on my Deadpool Theory: Does everything come from the Deadpool?
THE DEADPOOL THEORY submitted by spacedebriss to Superstonk [link] [comments] I stayed up way too late last night and got up way too early this morning trying to put this together. I should probably edit it more, but oh well. This is what I have. I need to go do some other stuff now. NONE OF THIS IS FINANCIAL ADVICE. Probably should have waited to post until I toiled some more. I want to add to the deadpool theory. Not take away from it, just add to it. I think the Deadpool and Retail Pool go more hand in hand. I think the Deadpool is the original pool that feeds the retail pool. The key for me has always been how the naked shares are created. Over a year ago I honestly reached a point where the DD was a jumbled mess in my mind. I wanted to start from zero and see what I could find, but not really zero because I had read a lot of DD, thanks to others I knew what to start searching for, so I set out. https://preview.redd.it/tnofbsia273d1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=7fbe5d58f385a92f4bbb7c4e305f59c00ea8a329 If you think I’m pulling all of this out of my ass similar to how naked shares are pulled out of asses then please go read my old DD with charts and figures, goes more in depth, and has some strong citations in my opinion. OR better yet go absorb some of those citations, especially these first four: 1. THREE ESSAYS ON NAKED SHORT SELLING AND FAILS-TO-DELIVER by John W. Welborn 2. MARRIED PUTS, REVERSE CONVERSIONS AND ABUSE OF THE OPTIONS MARKET MAKER EXCEPTION ON THE CHICAGO STOCK EXCHANGE by John W Welborn 3. ETF Short Interest and Failures-to-Deliver: Naked Short Selling or Operational Shorting? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncq35zrFCAg&t=1655s 4. Exchange-Traded Funds, Fails-to-Deliver, and Market Volatility by Thomas Stratmann and John W. Welborn https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2183251 If you’re going to only read one of these then I’d make it this one. Everybody here should read a little Welborn in my opinion. Dude is the GOAT!
PDF FILES: DISCLAIMER: these links will try to download a PDF from the SEC’s website
I wanted to research that old DD by looking at the rules of naked shorting. When I would look into old DD and theories, I kept ending up at the answer of fraud. They didn’t stand up to the rules, unless lots o’ fraud was involved. Until I got to ETFs…. Now again, if you want more info go read the first four citations up at the top. The first 2 citations are PhD papers covering possible naked shorting and the Options loophole. This is the old way, this Options loophole was closed by the SEC back in 2008. For the new ETF way of naked shorting you can explore citations 3 and 4. These two citations cover how ETFs could be used to still naked short today. This is why I always felt the reactions to my old DD were so strange. I’m basically saying there could be a monstrous naked shorting position out in the market and it could be operating under the rules. No fraud is needed! Why didn’t superstonk respond with more positivity to my old DD a year ago?! I still think that DD did a pretty good job of laying out how naked shorters could be operating under the rules. The rules make it clear to me that: BULLET SWAPS – Can’t be used to make naked shares of a stock. If a naked shorter points to bullet swaps as where they got the shares from then the SEC should laugh in their face. You would need a lot of SEC fraud. Bullet swaps would have other good uses, but not for the actual creation of naked shares. REHYPOTHECATION – The idea here is that the naked shorter borrows shares infinitely. The naked shorter points to the borrow and sure the SEC could let that pass, but it should still count as a borrow. Otherwise, you need more SEC fraud to explain this one. The Market should see the naked short position because it should be tagged as borrowed, and the naked shorter would also need to pay for that borrow. These are both things the naked shorter is trying to avoid – that’s why they create naked shares rather than borrow shares. Alternatively, the naked shorter could have a deal with a broker. The naked shorter does infinite borrows off of the brokers stock, but again you would need fraud from the broker and the broker would likely demand payment on the “borrows”. For rehypothecation to work you need a lot of fraud and naked shorters would likely need to pay borrow fees. Properly creating naked shares within the rules means no borrowing would be done (could be expensive) and means no fraud has to be done. OPTIONS – This is where it gets confusing. Options used to be used to naked short, I wrote a big DD on this about a year ago. It has a lot of pictures and deep dives into a lot of stuff including options. If you want to learn more about the options loophole, don’t read my old DD, scroll back up to the top and read some of Welborn’s Options work (citations 1 and 2). You would need two participants to naked short back in the day and I believe that’s how it’s still done today. One would be a Market Maker and one would typically be a Hedge Fund. The Market Maker had special privileges around options, MMs and only MMs could point to un-exercised options as a locate for shares. They create shares out of thin air and send them to a hedge fund. The hedge fund sells the MM back futures contracts and/or calls. The Market Maker uses the calls as a locates and the Market is none the wiser. Or is just apathetic. But they were technically following the rules as written. These packages of naked shares would have been built with options, futures, and naked shares all packaged together. This Options Market Maker loophole went away in 2008. Options should not be an effective loophole for creating massive amounts of naked shares anymore. Again, you would need lots of SEC fraud. ETFs – I’m not just throwing ETFs out there. There is a fucking fantastic Welborn paper (citation 4) and also a youtube video from a business professor (citation 3) on ETFs and how ETFs could possibly be used to naked short. To use ETFs you would still need a Market Maker and a Hedge Fund (the HF could be another MM or big institution). The Market Maker has special privileges. 1. They can pull shares out of ETFs. 2. They can also set future redemption/creation dates with that same Hedge Fund and not tell anybody. It seems the Options loophole to naked short was replaced with an ETF redemption/creation loophole to naked short. Here’s a footnote in an SEC filing – I think this could be a smoking gun: https://preview.redd.it/bfuyxsab273d1.png?width=593&format=png&auto=webp&s=24c82cbb06e78982a452617dccadfa35495df284 Page 10 from: https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nscc/2020/34-89088.pdf The new ETF loophole:
If the SEC goes back to the Hedge Fund and asks where they got the ETFs from he points to the Market Maker. SEC, “sounds good, can I leave you my resume?” If the SEC goes to the Market Maker and asks where he got the ETFs, the Market Maker would probably say, “Ha! Fuck if I know! I could buy and sell a million of that fucking ETF in a day. You want to look through our ledgers?” SEC, “Oh. I should probably take ‘em, but I’ll just look at porn instead. You guys hiring?”
These naked shares from the Market Maker to the Hedge Fund would be insured through futures and/or LEAPS. I believe they would likely insure them with one another using futures contracts instead of LEAPS, but I’m not positive. Either way, this “insurance” means that if it gets to expiration and the Hedge Fund hasn’t delivered shares, the Market Maker can use those futures contracts to force delivery. But why might we also see naked shorters holding huge amounts of options? The options could be hedging and leveraging with the wider market (not other naked shorters). So, if naked shorters are using futures to insure that they won’t be left holding the bag with one another then they would likely want to use common expiration dates for LEAPS. That lets them grab some “insurance” (Call Options) and extra leverage (Put Options) from non-naked shorters. If the naked shorters position blows up and they owe the other naked shorter shares then they can use their calls to get some shares from the market. Or if they’re position does well then they can make extra profits off of their puts. Here’s a diagram that will hopefully explain some of this better: https://preview.redd.it/hfdjls4e273d1.png?width=768&format=png&auto=webp&s=0389d73d3c2129deda4ed4c5966e2f3026acd4a1 The Hedge Fund is selling the naked shares from the Deadpool through the Market Maker into retail hands. Now the hedge fund like the market maker is going to want some futures or calls to make sure the market maker sells the shares back to him. But they’ll probably do this on a shorter timeline. Maybe they built the dealpool with three year expirations. Now they’ll naked short to retail probably using 1 year expirations. I think retails average is about nine months for holding a stock. A year should be enough time to find a new share to buy in order to close/roll an old naked share. Retail naked shares would likely expire every March, June, September, December. Naked shorters are constantly closing and rolling their naked shorts with retail throughout the year. Or at least that’s the idea, usually retail sells pretty quickly and naked shorters can keep driving the price down. Here’s a diagram to visualize deadpools and retail pools together. The red is the deadpool. The deadpools are the original pools of naked shares that are created with long expirations. It would make sense to have these expire three years out so 1. they last long – don’t have to keep creating naked shares and 2. they can be hedged/leveraged with the wider market using common expiration dates. Then the yellow would be the pools of naked shares that are sold to retail. These would have shorter expirations because ideally the naked shorter would want to churn these in a year or less. The naked shorters create a big deadpool of naked shares that will expire in three years. Then, if they’re using 1 year expirations with retail, they can use those naked shares in the market up to three times. https://preview.redd.it/klzrhfph273d1.png?width=1366&format=png&auto=webp&s=61f058077781d655d9fb4b028fe95c46ecfde0f4 Now look at where expiration dates line up between red pools and yellow pools. January and June. January and June are common expiration dates for LEAPS. Again, if the naked shorters want to hedge/leverage with the wider market then these would be the expiration dates they would want to build their naked shares around. If the naked shares are built in this way then January of 2021 could have been a time where some of the Retail Pool and some of the Deadpool were expiring. Let’s say it’s a big expiration time and there are not enough shares. Maybe some DFV dude and a bunch of other retail investors are buying calls and shares. In this scenario, the Market Maker would try to find shares to close/roll the position. If unable, then the Hedge Fund would need to exercise their “insurance” and demand the shares from the MM. The Market Maker also has “insurance” though because he’s the big boy and he won’t be left holding the bag. The MM throws down his uno reverse card and screams, “No! You!” Alright, let’s say naked shorters are building their positions how I’ve laid out. When naked shorters open the ETFs at the beginning of the deadpool, they are also pulling out naked shares of other companies. They could use those shares for a lot of different things. They could hold them and sell options to make money. Or they could also naked short some of those companies too. Maybe, they open an ETF and pull out naked GME and some naked POPCORN. They could also naked short POPCORN into the market. It would move differently on a shorter timescale to GME because they’re rolling the position with retail a year at a time. It might move more in line with GME on a longer time scale. When the deadpool expires they need to finish buying shares and creating ETFs. That could mean buying a bunch of different stocks at one time. Buy some the remaining GME, POPCORN, HEADPHONES, etc. and close/finish rolling your deadpool position by packaging those shares up into nice little ETFs. This could all explain some of the wild stuff we’ve been seeing lately.
And you NEED 100 shares! The call insures that someone else has to find the shares for $20 each. You spend your $200 on the call option expiring June 22nd. Now you’re guaranteed to get your 100 shares for $20 each even if the price skyrockets. You spent $2200 on 100 shares. Again, no one knows who is buying these calls or why, but this could line up nicely with my theory that a chunk of the deadpool is expiring soon. I don’t want to get anyone excited for MOASS. I’ve made bad predictions in the past. In the past I thought a MOASS would probably happen in March, but that was because I hadn’t connected the deadpool to everything. Don’t get hyped, but if deadpools are built with January and June expirations then it would make sense that MOASS could happen in January or June. It would explain why naked shorters almost got fucked in January 2021. If, they were able to survive and push a huge chunk of their deadpool out three years then June 2024 could be a rough time for them. I’m not going to say it’s a guarantee of a MOASS this June/July. I will say that I really would not want to be a naked shorter trying to roll a bad bet on GME this June. Now this is all conjecture, but what if part of the deadpool needed to be rolled in January of 2021? Meaning the Hedge Fund needed to settle up with the Market Maker so they could finish closing the deadpool and keep the position rolling. Now the Deadpool was the original pool of naked shares. The Market Maker pulled these naked shares out of ETFs and sent them to the Hedge Fund. Naked shorters usually want to keep the train going until the company is bankrupt so they’d usually keep closing and rolling the deadpool until that happens. So, if you’ve followed along then January of 2021 could have been a pretty key date where a Market Maker may have needed to buy to settle a portion of the Retail Pool. These would be shares that the Hedge Fund naked shorted to retail through the Market Maker – insuring with futures and/or LEAPS. Then the Hedge Fund would have also needed to finish settling a portion of the Deadpool back to the Market Maker that’s about to expire. Again, these deadpool naked shares are the original naked shares pulled out of ETFs, probably three years ago. They’ve been using and abusing that naked share with retail for three years, probably a year or so at a time. If the position blew up, say in January of 2021 then some Hedge Funds would have also blown the fuck up. First, the market maker would go to the market and try to buy shares. No shares. The market maker turns to the hedge fund and says, “sorry, no shares.” This is why the Hedge Fund bough “insurance” or hedged with his “buddy”. The Hedge Fund uses his contracts with the Market Maker to say, “here’s the cash, where are the shares?” The Market Maker plays his reverse uno card: The original contracts he made with the Hedge Fund when the naked shares were created and says, “No! You!” Hedge Fund: Fuck! There are no shares! MM: Not my problem. Where are my shares? Market: No shares. The Market Maker has the Hedge Funds other positions liquidated until there’s enough cash to buy shares in the market. In asinine cases where this happens the market might allow the Market Maker to just turn off the buy button to save his sorry ass. This is considered by many to be complete bullshit. The deadpool is closed/rolled. Possibly three years into the future. 2021 to 2024. I think there might always be a Deadpool that then feeds the Retail Pool. My other DD adds to the Deadpool theory and rehashes some of this, but the gist is that if you can create a deadpool with your “buddy” then could you just add a ton to the deadpool three years ago through the market to drive the price down and not add it to the retail pool. In other words, more naked shares that drive the price down, but they end up in your “friends” hands. He also want to drive the price down so you can worry less. Adding to the deadpool in a really desperate time would make sense to me. Now if a bunch of shares were added to the deadpool three years ago and were split by the splividend then how does that all work? I think with a normal split, naked shares that are split in the deadpool could be settled with cash. Does the splividend change that? In other words, if there were a bunch of naked shares shat into the deadpool three years ago. Then they were split, but delivery was delayed until expiration. And now they’re finally expiring. Can they be settled with cash or do real shares need to be bought to fulfill the long overdue splividend? https://preview.redd.it/ms98f80j273d1.png?width=1366&format=png&auto=webp&s=958b2ec20c2b21ca40347d8ee64fdb1b442b653b This just tries to simplify thing. The way the naked share is likely built results in it ending up in a deadpool between the naked shorters. They then pull naked shares from the deadpool and send them out into the market to naked short. Good thing, you have recourse! Believe you’ve been sold a naked share?! Your only way to truly find out if you have a real share or not is by DRSing. Pull your shares into the DRS Pool. Now you can have peace of mind that it’s a real share. If I were a naked shorter facing a potential MOASS, what would I do?
Alright, we don’t know why a MOASS would pop off. It would probably be expiration dates and/or too many DRSd shares. But we still actually do know why: naked shorting, not enough shares, buy button smashed, price goes boom! If it’s built the way I explained here, then MOASS means the Market Maker went to the market to buy some shares and there weren’t enough shares. But they like REALLY NEED SHARES. The price rises. If it gets to expiration of some of the retail naked shares and they haven’t been rolled then the position starts unraveling. MM: No shares. HF: Contract. Shares now! MM: No! You! HF: Fuck. MM: Margin Call HF: I’m dying. Let’s say this is what happened last time. The Hedge Funds blew up, if it happened again, would it now be a Market Maker and a bigger Market Maker stuck in this death loop? MM: I have assumed the position. lol MM: Fuck, you know what I meant. I absorbed the HF’s toxic naked shorts! So, if the Market Maker absorbed the naked short side of the play and is now the one who will be margin called. Who absorbed the Market Maker’s side? The one holding the “No! You!” reverse uno card this time around? If the Market Maker can’t survive like the Hedge Fund? Can the new guy survive like the MM did last time? Some PhD papers by Welborn everyone needs to read like three years ago! Options were used to naked short in the past – Welborn explains how. ETFs likely used now – again, read Welborn. Please! I layout how ETFs are likely pulled apart and shuffled around to create naked shares or what I like to call a deadpool. Dead shares that shouldn’t even exist. Then the deadpool is pulled from to send naked shares into the market. Again, if you want to learn how I got here I have a long DD from a year ago in my history OR preferably go read Welborn’s work. The way this is all done means because of the way the naked shares are sent to market there could be weird price movement around triple-witching dates. March/April, June/July, SeptembeOctober, DecembeJanuary. Triple-witching dates are March, June, September, December, but I push them out a month because Market Makers get a little extra leeway that us common folk don’t get. Again, in my old DD I talk about why they could potentially have an extra month tacked onto their expirations. Then because of the way the shares are originally pulled out of ETFs there could be weird movement around common expirations for LEAPS. January and June. January and June could be extra special times where a batch of naked shares are expiring in the hands of retail and need to finish being rolled. While, also having a batch of naked shares originally created for the deadpool that need to finish being rolled. I know this is all confusing, but basically I believe the rules allow a loophole for naked shorting through ETFs. I believe the way those naked shares are created makes a deadpool parked with naked shorters. When they want to match a buy on the market (retail buys a share) they then pull a naked share out of the deadpool and send it to retail. Naked shares in the deadpool hangout for about three years at a time meaning they need to be closed or rolled within 3 years. Naked shares to retail would likely be done with a 1 year expiration since retail usually churns through shares fast. You’re able to create a naked share and sell it to retail and buy it back and sell it and buy it several times before the naked share needs to be renewed (rolled – a new naked share created and the old one finally closed). Using ETFs could also explain weird movements in other stocks. If you’re already pulling a bunch of different stocks out of the ETF (not just GME) then you could use some of those naked shares to naked short other stocks as well. You’d be selling to retail at different times so the price may not move in tandem around the triple-witching dates, but they could move similarly around deadpool expiration dates. Remember, to close the naked shares from the deadpool you need to buy shares and create the ETFs. January 2021 could be a time where you need to buy a bunch of different stocks to close/roll some of the deadpool. June 2024 could also be a time where naked shorters might need to buy a bunch of different stocks in order to finally create some ETFs. You might see some unrelated stocks suddenly increasing in price at the same time. In my opinion, if a stock is heavily naked shorted, then a MOASS would kick off for 1 of 2 reasons.
|
2024.05.28 18:32 spacedebriss Expanding on my Deadpool Theory: Does everything comes from the Deadpool?
THE DEADPOOL THEORY submitted by spacedebriss to u/spacedebriss [link] [comments] I stayed up way too late last night and got up way too early this morning trying to put this together. I should probably edit it more, but oh well. This is what I have. I need to go do some other stuff now. NONE OF THIS IS FINANCIAL ADVICE. Probably should have waited to post until I toiled some more. I want to add to the deadpool theory. Not take away from it, just add to it. I think the Deadpool and Retail Pool go more hand in hand. I think the Deadpool is the original pool that feeds the retail pool. The key for me has always been how the naked shares are created. Over a year ago I honestly reached a point where the DD was a jumbled mess in my mind. I wanted to start from zero and see what I could find, but not really zero because I had read a lot of DD, thanks to others I knew what to start searching for, so I set out. https://preview.redd.it/1iagyg39273d1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=0b7b06f16f46956a06e00f5b3de49133e6227c53 If you think I’m pulling all of this out of my ass similar to how naked shares are pulled out of asses then please go read my old DD with charts and figures, goes more in depth, and has some strong citations in my opinion. OR better yet go absorb some of those citations, especially these first four: 1. THREE ESSAYS ON NAKED SHORT SELLING AND FAILS-TO-DELIVER by John W. Welborn 2. MARRIED PUTS, REVERSE CONVERSIONS AND ABUSE OF THE OPTIONS MARKET MAKER EXCEPTION ON THE CHICAGO STOCK EXCHANGE by John W Welborn 3. ETF Short Interest and Failures-to-Deliver: Naked Short Selling or Operational Shorting? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncq35zrFCAg&t=1655s 4. Exchange-Traded Funds, Fails-to-Deliver, and Market Volatility by Thomas Stratmann and John W. Welborn https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2183251 If you’re going to only read one of these then I’d make it this one. Everybody here should read a little Welborn in my opinion. Dude is the GOAT!
PDF FILES: DISCLAIMER: these links will try to download a PDF from the SEC’s website
I wanted to research that old DD by looking at the rules of naked shorting. When I would look into old DD and theories, I kept ending up at the answer of fraud. They didn’t stand up to the rules, unless lots o’ fraud was involved. Until I got to ETFs…. Now again, if you want more info go read the first four citations up at the top. The first 2 citations are PhD papers covering possible naked shorting and the Options loophole. This is the old way, this Options loophole was closed by the SEC back in 2008. For the new ETF way of naked shorting you can explore citations 3 and 4. These two citations cover how ETFs could be used to still naked short today. This is why I always felt the reactions to my old DD were so strange. I’m basically saying there could be a monstrous naked shorting position out in the market and it could be operating under the rules. No fraud is needed! Why didn’t superstonk respond with more positivity to my old DD a year ago?! I still think that DD did a pretty good job of laying out how naked shorters could be operating under the rules. The rules make it clear to me that: BULLET SWAPS – Can’t be used to make naked shares of a stock. If a naked shorter points to bullet swaps as where they got the shares from then the SEC should laugh in their face. You would need a lot of SEC fraud. Bullet swaps would have other good uses, but not for the actual creation of naked shares. REHYPOTHECATION – The idea here is that the naked shorter borrows shares infinitely. The naked shorter points to the borrow and sure the SEC could let that pass, but it should still count as a borrow. Otherwise, you need more SEC fraud to explain this one. The Market should see the naked short position because it should be tagged as borrowed, and the naked shorter would also need to pay for that borrow. These are both things the naked shorter is trying to avoid – that’s why they create naked shares rather than borrow shares. Alternatively, the naked shorter could have a deal with a broker. The naked shorter does infinite borrows off of the brokers stock, but again you would need fraud from the broker and the broker would likely demand payment on the “borrows”. For rehypothecation to work you need a lot of fraud and naked shorters would likely need to pay borrow fees. Properly creating naked shares within the rules means no borrowing would be done (could be expensive) and means no fraud has to be done. OPTIONS – This is where it gets confusing. Options used to be used to naked short, I wrote a big DD on this about a year ago. It has a lot of pictures and deep dives into a lot of stuff including options. If you want to learn more about the options loophole, don’t read my old DD, scroll back up to the top and read some of Welborn’s Options work (citations 1 and 2). You would need two participants to naked short back in the day and I believe that’s how it’s still done today. One would be a Market Maker and one would typically be a Hedge Fund. The Market Maker had special privileges around options, MMs and only MMs could point to un-exercised options as a locate for shares. They create shares out of thin air and send them to a hedge fund. The hedge fund sells the MM back futures contracts and/or calls. The Market Maker uses the calls as a locates and the Market is none the wiser. Or is just apathetic. But they were technically following the rules as written. These packages of naked shares would have been built with options, futures, and naked shares all packaged together. This Options Market Maker loophole went away in 2008. Options should not be an effective loophole for creating massive amounts of naked shares anymore. Again, you would need lots of SEC fraud. ETFs – I’m not just throwing ETFs out there. There is a fucking fantastic Welborn paper (citation 4) and also a youtube video from a business professor (citation 3) on ETFs and how ETFs could possibly be used to naked short. To use ETFs you would still need a Market Maker and a Hedge Fund (the HF could be another MM or big institution). The Market Maker has special privileges. 1. They can pull shares out of ETFs. 2. They can also set future redemption/creation dates with that same Hedge Fund and not tell anybody. It seems the Options loophole to naked short was replaced with an ETF redemption/creation loophole to naked short. Here’s a footnote in an SEC filing – I think this could be a smoking gun: https://preview.redd.it/wl18r6p7273d1.png?width=593&format=png&auto=webp&s=2072c332bad9ba42c108ed477fbb0d27d4e983b8 Page 10 from: https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nscc/2020/34-89088.pdf The new ETF loophole:
If the SEC goes back to the Hedge Fund and asks where they got the ETFs from he points to the Market Maker. SEC, “sounds good, can I leave you my resume?” If the SEC goes to the Market Maker and asks where he got the ETFs, the Market Maker would probably say, “Ha! Fuck if I know! I could buy and sell a million of that fucking ETF in a day. You want to look through our ledgers?” SEC, “Oh. I should probably take ‘em, but I’ll just look at porn instead. You guys hiring?”
These naked shares from the Market Maker to the Hedge Fund would be insured through futures and/or LEAPS. I believe they would likely insure them with one another using futures contracts instead of LEAPS, but I’m not positive. Either way, this “insurance” means that if it gets to expiration and the Hedge Fund hasn’t delivered shares, the Market Maker can use those futures contracts to force delivery. But why might we also see naked shorters holding huge amounts of options? The options could be hedging and leveraging with the wider market (not other naked shorters). So, if naked shorters are using futures to insure that they won’t be left holding the bag with one another then they would likely want to use common expiration dates for LEAPS. That lets them grab some “insurance” (Call Options) and extra leverage (Put Options) from non-naked shorters. If the naked shorters position blows up and they owe the other naked shorter shares then they can use their calls to get some shares from the market. Or if they’re position does well then they can make extra profits off of their puts. Here’s a diagram that will hopefully explain some of this better: https://preview.redd.it/bfupzl3f273d1.png?width=768&format=png&auto=webp&s=6cb63fd2f137a5f0b71d304663d91b16fdcd6ac4 The Hedge Fund is selling the naked shares from the Deadpool through the Market Maker into retail hands. Now the hedge fund like the market maker is going to want some futures or calls to make sure the market maker sells the shares back to him. But they’ll probably do this on a shorter timeline. Maybe they built the dealpool with three year expirations. Now they’ll naked short to retail probably using 1 year expirations. I think retails average is about nine months for holding a stock. A year should be enough time to find a new share to buy in order to close/roll an old naked share. Retail naked shares would likely expire every March, June, September, December. Naked shorters are constantly closing and rolling their naked shorts with retail throughout the year. Or at least that’s the idea, usually retail sells pretty quickly and naked shorters can keep driving the price down. Here’s a diagram to visualize deadpools and retail pools together. The red is the deadpool. The deadpools are the original pools of naked shares that are created with long expirations. It would make sense to have these expire three years out so 1. they last long – don’t have to keep creating naked shares and 2. they can be hedged/leveraged with the wider market using common expiration dates. Then the yellow would be the pools of naked shares that are sold to retail. These would have shorter expirations because ideally the naked shorter would want to churn these in a year or less. The naked shorters create a big deadpool of naked shares that will expire in three years. Then, if they’re using 1 year expirations with retail, they can use those naked shares in the market up to three times. https://preview.redd.it/55ganyyg273d1.png?width=1366&format=png&auto=webp&s=2eff4244c5d67337a077df6025a879b192ad7553 Now look at where expiration dates line up between red pools and yellow pools. January and June. January and June are common expiration dates for LEAPS. Again, if the naked shorters want to hedge/leverage with the wider market then these would be the expiration dates they would want to build their naked shares around. If the naked shares are built in this way then January of 2021 could have been a time where some of the Retail Pool and some of the Deadpool were expiring. Let’s say it’s a big expiration time and there are not enough shares. Maybe some DFV dude and a bunch of other retail investors are buying calls and shares. In this scenario, the Market Maker would try to find shares to close/roll the position. If unable, then the Hedge Fund would need to exercise their “insurance” and demand the shares from the MM. The Market Maker also has “insurance” though because he’s the big boy and he won’t be left holding the bag. The MM throws down his uno reverse card and screams, “No! You!” Alright, let’s say naked shorters are building their positions how I’ve laid out. When naked shorters open the ETFs at the beginning of the deadpool, they are also pulling out naked shares of other companies. They could use those shares for a lot of different things. They could hold them and sell options to make money. Or they could also naked short some of those companies too. Maybe, they open an ETF and pull out naked GME and some naked POPCORN. They could also naked short POPCORN into the market. It would move differently on a shorter timescale to GME because they’re rolling the position with retail a year at a time. It might move more in line with GME on a longer time scale. When the deadpool expires they need to finish buying shares and creating ETFs. That could mean buying a bunch of different stocks at one time. Buy some the remaining GME, POPCORN, HEADPHONES, etc. and close/finish rolling your deadpool position by packaging those shares up into nice little ETFs. This could all explain some of the wild stuff we’ve been seeing lately.
And you NEED 100 shares! The call insures that someone else has to find the shares for $20 each. You spend your $200 on the call option expiring June 22nd. Now you’re guaranteed to get your 100 shares for $20 each even if the price skyrockets. You spent $2200 on 100 shares. Again, no one knows who is buying these calls or why, but this could line up nicely with my theory that a chunk of the deadpool is expiring soon. I don’t want to get anyone excited for MOASS. I’ve made bad predictions in the past. In the past I thought a MOASS would probably happen in March, but that was because I hadn’t connected the deadpool to everything. Don’t get hyped, but if deadpools are built with January and June expirations then it would make sense that MOASS could happen in January or June. It would explain why naked shorters almost got fucked in January 2021. If, they were able to survive and push a huge chunk of their deadpool out three years then June 2024 could be a rough time for them. I’m not going to say it’s a guarantee of a MOASS this June/July. I will say that I really would not want to be a naked shorter trying to roll a bad bet on GME this June. Now this is all conjecture, but what if part of the deadpool needed to be rolled in January of 2021? Meaning the Hedge Fund needed to settle up with the Market Maker so they could finish closing the deadpool and keep the position rolling. Now the Deadpool was the original pool of naked shares. The Market Maker pulled these naked shares out of ETFs and sent them to the Hedge Fund. Naked shorters usually want to keep the train going until the company is bankrupt so they’d usually keep closing and rolling the deadpool until that happens. So, if you’ve followed along then January of 2021 could have been a pretty key date where a Market Maker may have needed to buy to settle a portion of the Retail Pool. These would be shares that the Hedge Fund naked shorted to retail through the Market Maker – insuring with futures and/or LEAPS. Then the Hedge Fund would have also needed to finish settling a portion of the Deadpool back to the Market Maker that’s about to expire. Again, these deadpool naked shares are the original naked shares pulled out of ETFs, probably three years ago. They’ve been using and abusing that naked share with retail for three years, probably a year or so at a time. If the position blew up, say in January of 2021 then some Hedge Funds would have also blown the fuck up. First, the market maker would go to the market and try to buy shares. No shares. The market maker turns to the hedge fund and says, “sorry, no shares.” This is why the Hedge Fund bough “insurance” or hedged with his “buddy”. The Hedge Fund uses his contracts with the Market Maker to say, “here’s the cash, where are the shares?” The Market Maker plays his reverse uno card: The original contracts he made with the Hedge Fund when the naked shares were created and says, “No! You!” Hedge Fund: Fuck! There are no shares! MM: Not my problem. Where are my shares? Market: No shares. The Market Maker has the Hedge Funds other positions liquidated until there’s enough cash to buy shares in the market. In asinine cases where this happens the market might allow the Market Maker to just turn off the buy button to save his sorry ass. This is considered by many to be complete bullshit. The deadpool is closed/rolled. Possibly three years into the future. 2021 to 2024. I think there might always be a Deadpool that then feeds the Retail Pool. My other DD adds to the Deadpool theory and rehashes some of this, but the gist is that if you can create a deadpool with your “buddy” then could you just add a ton to the deadpool three years ago through the market to drive the price down and not add it to the retail pool. In other words, more naked shares that drive the price down, but they end up in your “friends” hands. He also want to drive the price down so you can worry less. Adding to the deadpool in a really desperate time would make sense to me. Now if a bunch of shares were added to the deadpool three years ago and were split by the splividend then how does that all work? I think with a normal split, naked shares that are split in the deadpool could be settled with cash. Does the splividend change that? In other words, if there were a bunch of naked shares shat into the deadpool three years ago. Then they were split, but delivery was delayed until expiration. And now they’re finally expiring. Can they be settled with cash or do real shares need to be bought to fulfill the long overdue splividend? https://preview.redd.it/2yv2husj273d1.png?width=1366&format=png&auto=webp&s=21dd192a3f928710978067ddd41ef445d74b50bc This just tries to simplify thing. The way the naked share is likely built results in it ending up in a deadpool between the naked shorters. They then pull naked shares from the deadpool and send them out into the market to naked short. Good thing, you have recourse! Believe you’ve been sold a naked share?! Your only way to truly find out if you have a real share or not is by DRSing. Pull your shares into the DRS Pool. Now you can have peace of mind that it’s a real share. If I were a naked shorter facing a potential MOASS, what would I do?
Alright, we don’t know why a MOASS would pop off. It would probably be expiration dates and/or too many DRSd shares. But we still actually do know why: naked shorting, not enough shares, buy button smashed, price goes boom! If it’s built the way I explained here, then MOASS means the Market Maker went to the market to buy some shares and there weren’t enough shares. But they like REALLY NEED SHARES. The price rises. If it gets to expiration of some of the retail naked shares and they haven’t been rolled then the position starts unraveling. MM: No shares. HF: Contract. Shares now! MM: No! You! HF: Fuck. MM: Margin Call HF: I’m dying. Let’s say this is what happened last time. The Hedge Funds blew up, if it happened again, would it now be a Market Maker and a bigger Market Maker stuck in this death loop? MM: I have assumed the position. lol MM: Fuck, you know what I meant. I absorbed the HF’s toxic naked shorts! So, if the Market Maker absorbed the naked short side of the play and is now the one who will be margin called. Who absorbed the Market Maker’s side? The one holding the “No! You!” reverse uno card this time around? If the Market Maker can’t survive like the Hedge Fund? Can the new guy survive like the MM did last time? Some PhD papers by Welborn everyone needs to read like three years ago! Options were used to naked short in the past – Welborn explains how. ETFs likely used now – again, read Welborn. Please! I layout how ETFs are likely pulled apart and shuffled around to create naked shares or what I like to call a deadpool. Dead shares that shouldn’t even exist. Then the deadpool is pulled from to send naked shares into the market. Again, if you want to learn how I got here I have a long DD from a year ago in my history OR preferably go read Welborn’s work. The way this is all done means because of the way the naked shares are sent to market there could be weird price movement around triple-witching dates. March/April, June/July, SeptembeOctober, DecembeJanuary. Triple-witching dates are March, June, September, December, but I push them out a month because Market Makers get a little extra leeway that us common folk don’t get. Again, in my old DD I talk about why they could potentially have an extra month tacked onto their expirations. Then because of the way the shares are originally pulled out of ETFs there could be weird movement around common expirations for LEAPS. January and June. January and June could be extra special times where a batch of naked shares are expiring in the hands of retail and need to finish being rolled. While, also having a batch of naked shares originally created for the deadpool that need to finish being rolled. I know this is all confusing, but basically I believe the rules allow a loophole for naked shorting through ETFs. I believe the way those naked shares are created makes a deadpool parked with naked shorters. When they want to match a buy on the market (retail buys a share) they then pull a naked share out of the deadpool and send it to retail. Naked shares in the deadpool hangout for about three years at a time meaning they need to be closed or rolled within 3 years. Naked shares to retail would likely be done with a 1 year expiration since retail usually churns through shares fast. You’re able to create a naked share and sell it to retail and buy it back and sell it and buy it several times before the naked share needs to be renewed (rolled – a new naked share created and the old one finally closed). Using ETFs could also explain weird movements in other stocks. If you’re already pulling a bunch of different stocks out of the ETF (not just GME) then you could use some of those naked shares to naked short other stocks as well. You’d be selling to retail at different times so the price may not move in tandem around the triple-witching dates, but they could move similarly around deadpool expiration dates. Remember, to close the naked shares from the deadpool you need to buy shares and create the ETFs. January 2021 could be a time where you need to buy a bunch of different stocks to close/roll some of the deadpool. June 2024 could also be a time where naked shorters might need to buy a bunch of different stocks in order to finally create some ETFs. You might see some unrelated stocks suddenly increasing in price at the same time. In my opinion, if a stock is heavily naked shorted, then a MOASS would kick off for 1 of 2 reasons.
|
2024.05.28 18:19 trippingWetwNoTowel CMV: Elon Musk is just simply a walking, talking, and tweeting example of the Monopoly Experiments
2024.05.28 18:17 DEEERROOON Will this work for csas ?? Ug admission or i have to get central one ? I think this is delhi one
submitted by DEEERROOON to delhiuniversity [link] [comments] |
2024.05.28 18:17 lfg1985wb [WTS] Tuesday Mixed Sale! Book fillers, little silver, little gold
2024.05.28 17:11 weepingdragons Unsure if I should sue after car accident.
2024.05.28 15:39 kksingh11 Role of IMF in Impoverishing Countries
The Communists communist party of great britain (marxist-leninist) Argentina Role of the IMF in impoverishing countries – the case of Argentina How the imperialists use the debt trap to loot the wealth of and enforce their hegemony over oppressed nations. submitted by kksingh11 to SocialisGlobe [link] [comments] Imposed by executives in sharp suits and air conditioned offices, the conditions attached to IMF ‘loans’ (funds that very rarely reach the people of an indebted country) amount to a brutal war on the poor and a demand that all the resources of their country should be funnelled to the corporate bloodsuckers in the imperialist heartlands. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) was founded at the Bretton Woods conference in July 1944. This financial agency presents an image of itself as a democratic organisation that works “to achieve sustainable growth and prosperity for all of its 190 member countries … by supporting economic policies that promote financial stability and monetary cooperation”. Nothing could be further from reality, however. Not only is the IMF not a democratic organisation but, as this article will show, the policies that it promotes favour only a handful of countries. The decisions of the IMF are related to the ownership of SDRs (special drawing rights), known as the ‘quota’, which by reflecting the relative position of a country in the world economy, determines its voting power. Thanks to this self-perpetuating formula, the United States commands 16.5 percent of IMF votes, while the G7 countries combined (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, United States) command 41.25 percent. In a nutshell, the imperialist countries collectively, and in practice the dominant US imperialists, decide IMF policies, while the 171 non-imperialist countries that together hold less than half of the votes, have to obey them. The cure-all panacea of the IMF for any economy has always been ‘austerity’. In bourgeoise economic lingo, this is euphemistically referred to as ‘fiscal consolidation’ – a process aimed at ‘closing the gap’ between public income and public expenditure. In plain language, this inevitably means slashing pensions, healthcare and education services; cutting the salaries of doctors, teachers and other public servants; selling off publicly owned companies to international investors; cutting taxes to the benefit of corporations and banks; and implementing a raft of macroeconomic policies that will favour international finance capital. To implement these policies, the IMF relies on a so-called ‘surveillance process’, defined as “monitoring the economic and financial policies of member countries and providing them with policy advice … by recommending appropriate policy adjustments”. This in turn must be facilitated by a suitably servile comprador bourgeoise, whose members are willing to assist in this process of looting in return for a few tasty morsels from the imperialist banqueting table, all while the masses are being reduced to destitution. In his powerful The Open Veins of Latin America, Eduardo Galeano pointed out: “With the magical incantation of ‘monetary stabilisation’, the IMF – which not disinterestedly confuses the fever with the disease, inflation with the crisis of existing structures – has imposed on Latin America a policy that accentuates imbalances instead of easing them … liberalises trade by banning direct exchanges … forces the contraction of internal credits … freezes wages, discourages state activity. To this programme it adds sharp monetary devaluations.” (1971, p220) The people of Latin America, Africa and Asia have been suffering from IMF-imposed austerity for decades. For Argentina, the story of deception via its external debt started earlier. In 1824, Buenos Aires negotiated a loan with Britain’s Baring Brothers & Co bank. From the £1m agreed, the country received only £570,000 – not in gold as had been agreed but in paper notes agreeing the sale of British commodities at a price of their choosing! The interest on this extremely one-sided loan soaked up most of the country’s revenues for several decades. After successive rounds of refinancing the, ‘loan’ had been inflated to £4m, and was finally paid off 124 years after it was taken out by the government of Juan Perón in 1947. At the time of writing, yet another debt crisis is creating the conditions for the complete collapse of Argentina’s economy. As has happened at other times of harsh neoliberal austerity regimes (1976-83, 1989-99 and 2015-19), Argentina looks as though it is heading for bankruptcy. The military junta and Argentina’s first neoliberal experiment The military coup of March 1976 provided the opportunity to implement neoliberal policies for the first time in Argentina. During the junta’s rule (1976-83), the country’s industrial base was destroyed, 20,000 manufacturing businesses were closed, and the value added by Argentinean industry, including construction, as a percentage of GDP dropped from 50.89 in 1976 to 41.55 percent in 1983. As a result, the once strong and organised proletariat, which had fought fiercely against dictatorships earlier in the century, disappeared and many workers’ rights were eliminated. As the country moved from production to financial profiteering, the masses were impoverished as the country’s wealth was hoovered up by big corporations and international financial institutions. Before being kidnaped and murdered, Argentine writer Rodolfo Walsh wrote to the military junta: “The economic policies of this junta – which follow the formula of the International Monetary Fund that has been applied indiscriminately to Zaire and Chile, to Uruguay and Indonesia – recognise only the following as beneficiaries: the old ranchers’ oligarchy; the new speculating oligarchy; and a select group of international monopolies headed by ITT, Esso, the automobile industry, US Steel, and Siemens, which Minister Martinez de Hoz and his entire cabinet have personal ties to.” (24 March 1977) During this process, thousands of Argentineans were detained, tortured and killed, and people around the globe learned a new word: “desaparecidos” (the disappeared). Thanks to the good will of the IMF, Argentina’s external debt grew from $7.9bn in 1976 to $46bn in 1983. As one of its last acts in government, the junta nationalised all private debt, making the people of the country responsible for loans taken out by bankers and landowners. Unable to pay this huge debt, Argentina has never been in a ‘normal’ state since; its ‘external debt’ became an ‘eternal debt’, dictating every aspect of economic and social life. Democracy returns but the eternal debt remains In 1983, the first democratically elected government following the junta decided not to reject the external debt inherited dictatorship but to honour it. Thus the government of Raúl Alfonsín, which had incarcerated the junta criminals for their human rights abuses continued the junta’s policy of surrendering control of the economy to the IMF and its monitoring missions. As Fidel Castro correctly pointed out in 1985: “How can a government and a country that has to go every month to discuss with the International Monetary Fund what it is able to do at home be called independent? It is a fiction of independence, and we see this as a national-liberation struggle, which can truly bring together, and for the first time in the history of our hemisphere, all social strata in a struggle to achieve true independence.” Between 1984-88, IMF-imposed policies continued to be enacted, to the benefit of imperialist corporations and financiers. The result was that, despite some success in curbing inflation for a short period in 1985-86, the economy never recovered. In 1989, the Alfonsín government’s last year in office, the IMF withdrew financial support to Argentina in response to missed interest payments, pushing the country into a crisis. Inflation became hyperinflation (reaching a high of more than 3,000 percent annually) and elections were called six months early. In the end, thanks to the recommended policies of the IMF, the debt continued to grow from the $46bn that had been inherited in 1983 to $65bn in 1989. Everything was ready for a second neoliberal experiment. How a popular leader become a neoliberal After the failure of the Alfonsín government, the new president was elected on a platform of social justice, promising to defend jobs, salaries and publicly-owned companies, and to improve the life of millions in the tradition of Peronism. Having been installed in office, however, he changed sides and become the president of the landowners, big corporations and banks. With the support of the IMF, Carlos Menem (1989-99) implemented the recommendations of the ‘Washington consensus’ and applied the mantra of neoliberalism: privatisations, cuts to social expenditure, and further opening of the economy. The first step was to sell off all the publicly-owned companies that had been created through the efforts of several generations of Argentinians. Gas, oil, electricity, telephone, water, airlines and railroads all disappeared as public assets, their wealth being transferred so as to make foreign corporations and corrupt politicians richer at the expense, once again, of the Argentine people. This was followed by a cut in public social expenditure via reductions in spending on education, healthcare and social security, and via the privatisation of state-held pensions assets. Finally, the import duties were slashed, to the benefit of overseas monopoly corporations, allowing foreign goods to flood Argentina’s internal market. The consequent destruction of Argentinean industry, as initiated by the military junta, was now complete. To sustain these policies, the government set a one-to-one exchange rate between the US dollar and the local currency (known as the convertibility law), allowing foreign investors to exchange dollars for pesos, invest the pesos at an interest rate higher than the global IRR (internal rate of return) and then, months later, convert the pesos back to dollars. This operation, known as carry-trade, favoured big investors from around the world to the further detriment of the country’s finances, and was supported by the IMF, which continued lending money to Argentina. In the final years of the Menem government, the country’s economy deteriorated rapidly, poverty and inflation increased, and the country fell into a deep recession in 1998. Corruption was rampant, and anti-government resistance through the first organised cacerolazos (people making noise by banging pots or pans to protest) was on the rise. The IMF had done its job well. During this period, Argentina’s external debt grew to 133 percent of GDP, from $65bn in 1989 to $152bn ten years later. The second neoliberal experiment was reaching its end. Elections and the 2001 collapse The next government arrived promising to resolve the economic crises and fight corruption. Under the direction of the IMF, however, it continued to apply all the same policies that had failed the country before. In August 2001, as foreign deposits were leaving the country, Argentina was unable to pay the interest on its debt and requested an extension of the arrangement. IMF managing director Horst Köhler demanded the substitution of the local currency by the US dollar, and while the government hesitated, the IMF withdrew support. As the economy plummeted, money withdrawals increased, and the government decided to freeze all bank deposits (a measure known as the corralito). Popular protest increased and, incapable of resolving the crisis, the government announced a state of siege. During the ensuing December riots, 36 people were killed by police in the streets. President Fernando de la Rua (1989-2001) resigned on 20 December, and the crisis-hit country had five presidents during the two weeks that followed. Under the slogan “All of them must go!” (Que se vayan todos!), millions of people participated in neighbourhood assemblies, occupying unused land and implementing workers’ self-management in hundreds of factories. In the end, Argentina defaulted on its public debt (at that time $152bn), abandoned the fixed exchange rate by devaluing the peso (40 percent in January to around 300 percent at the end of the first semester of 2002), with the result that production collapsed and high levels of unemployment and poverty become the norm. IMF out of Argentina After the 2001 default, the new government of Nestor Kirchner (2003-07) developed a strategy for undermining the neoliberal agenda that had been responsible for the country’s economic collapse. His government worked to eliminate the permanent interference, recommendations and pressure from the IMF. In 2005, to the dismay of the financial centres, the President Hugo Chávez strengthened Venezuela’s relationship with Argentina. The Bolivarian government bought $2.4bn of Argentina’s debt, providing a welcome boost to the central bank reserves and helping the country to break its dependency on the IMF for debt refinancing. By repaying in full the $9.81bn owed to the IMF, Argentina gained financial independence from the institution’s endless negotiations and recommendations, all of which were unfailingly unfavourable in social and economic terms to Argenina’s people. The repayment followed a similar move by President Lula da Silva of Brazil, whose Workers party government had paid off its IMF debt in full two days earlier. For the first time, Latin America’s two largest economies were in a position to develop social policies that would improve the life of their people. As President Kirchner pointed out: “With this payment, we bury an ignominious past of eternal, infinite indebtedness.” The volume of the inherited external debt didn’t change with the payment to the IMF, but it did allow the government to pursue more independent policies. During the 12-year Kirchner period (Nestor Kirchner’s presidency [2003-07] was followed by two terms of office for his wife Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner [2007-11 and 2011-15]), Argentina implemented economic measures outside the neoliberal toolbox and built a political consensus through a discourse of social justice, economic independence and national autonomy. The economy improved, with GDP up by 62 percent and the value of exports by 81 percent. Unemployment and poverty were significantly reduced, and the government renationalised some of the key sectors that had been privatised during the neoliberal years, the most relevant being Argentina’s national oil company (YPF). The Kirchner government also restructured 93 percent of the country’s foreign debt, on it had defaulted in 2001. A small group of ‘vulture funds’ had acquired credit default swaps (CDS) against Argentinean bonds and $1.3bn of the bonds’ total value for cents, and they pursued the country via various courts in an unceasing quest for full payment. Much to the imperialists’ chagrin, the Kirchner governments never gave in to the vulture funds’ rapacity. Return of the IMF In 2015, the Peronist movement went to the elections divided into different factions, and the election was won by Mauricio Macri (2015-19) supported by a right-wing neoliberal coalition. A third neoliberal experiment was begun in Argentina. During the first 60 days of his government, President Macri paid off the vulture funds, reversed most of the social policies implemented during the Kirchner period, and reintroduced the carry-trade policies that had failed the country in the past – all to the benefit of international finance capital. To fund this massive transfer of wealth, the government increased its external debt once more, from $153bn at the end of 2014 to $280bn in 2019 – an increase of 83 percent in only four years! In June 2018, the Macri government asked the IMF for help, reaching an agreement on a 36-month stand-by arrangement (SBA) amounting to US$50bn (equivalent to about 1,110 percent of Argentina’s quota in the IMF), what has become known as the biggest loan ever in the history of the IMF. IMF managing director Christine Lagarde congratulated the Argentine authorities on reaching this agreement, stating: “The plan owned and designed by the Argentine government is aimed at strengthening the economy for the benefit of all Argentines.” The speed with which the agreement was reached led many to speculate that the intervention of US president Donald Trump in support of the loan was aimed at helping Macri to win the upcoming 2019 elections, giving him some leeway to make investments in social infrastructure. Nothing was further from reality, however: none of the promised schools, hospitals or roads were ever built. The money disappeared in capital flight, in paying dividends to overseas corporations, and in boosting the profit margins of financial institutions. As even the IMF’s own ex-post facto evaluation report admitted: “The programme did not deliver on its objectives … mounting redemptions, along with capital flight by residents, put considerable pressure on the exchange rate.” The result was that “the exchange rate continued to depreciate, increasing inflation and the peso value of public debt, weakening real incomes, especially of the poor”. In 2019, the Peronist ‘Frente de Todos’ (Alberto Fernandez and Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner) coalition won the elections for the period 2019-23, and millions hoped for the reversal of Macri’s policies. Sadly, it was not to be. Failure of the Fernandez government Right at the outset, the new government committed a cardinal sin. Instead of repudiating Macri’s IMF agreement, it accepted this vast inherited debt. The ideological limitations of Peronism were clearly revealed, and became a major obstacle to country’s development and to the welfare of millions of Argentinean people. Accepting the IMF agreement, and without any investigation into how this vast sum had been used, the government accepted IMF monitoring missions and found itself forced to limit its plans to implement progressive macroeconomic policies, conduct an independent foreign policy and invest in social services. Recognition of the IMF debt put the government into a trap, as had happened so many times in the past, and Argentine once again became a slave to impossible repayment commitments. The clock for the next economic crisis was ticking again. According to the government, the main causes of the economic debacle were the three consecutive years of drought that affected agricultural production, the mandatory lockdown and social distancing measures for the Covid pandemic, and to a lesser extent the war in Europe. But government and bourgeois politicians of all stripes failed to acknowledge the core of the problem: the IMF and the external debt that had been taken on by the previous government. Neoliberal policies return to Argentina with a vengeance With the victory of Javier Milei (2023), Argentina is returning once again to the bad old days, beginning its fourth neoliberal experiment. During the first days of the Milei government, the local currency was devaluated by 100 percent, public investment in infrastructure was suspended, barriers to the import of goods and services were removed with no consideration to the impact on jobs, energy prices were raised, subsidies for the poorest were reduced, and thousands of public employees were made redundant. At the same time, a complete alliance was declared with the USA, and now Israel, the country’s planned entry into the Brics group was cancelled, and a vociferous discourse was mounted against every progressive government in the region. The IMF was delighted. As director of communications Julie Kozack stated in December 2023: “IMF staff welcome the measures announced earlier today by Argentina’s new economy minister Luis Caputo. These bold initial actions aim to significantly improve public finances in a manner that protects the most vulnerable in society and strengthens the foreign exchange regime. Their decisive implementation will help stabilise the economy and set the basis for more sustainable and private sector-led growth.” In reality, of course, these measures are resulting in mass impoverishment, as reported by the Social Debt Observatory of the UCA (Catholic University of Argentina), which has declared poverty to be at a 20-year high (57.4 percent). This means that 27 million people are now considered poor in Argentina, while extreme poverty is affecting 15 percent of the population. Through a 664-clause bill, President Milei is pushing for further reforms that will destroy the existing social and economic structure of the country in favour of landowners, international corporations and finance capital. The bill will erase worker’s rights that have taken decades to achieve, while also curtailing the right to protest – with penalties of up to six years in prison for participants and organisers of demonstrations. By declaring a state of emergency, Milei is demanding absolute power to govern without the involvement of Congress, following in the steps of Adolf Hitler, who in 1933 pushed the Nazis’ Enabling Act through the Reichstag, granting himself absolute power to make and enforce laws without further parliamentary involvement. Right-wing backbenchers support the bill, while other sections of Argentina’s bourgeois political parties are testing the waters, sometimes mildly confronting the bill or requesting minor changes. Although the majority of backbenchers for UxP (Union por la Patria) are opposed to the bill, changing sides is not an unknown feature of bourgeois political life. Unable to trust backbenchers, Argentina’s main CGT (General Confederation of Workers) trade union has appealed successfully to the National Labour Court, challenging the constitutionality of the labour legislation contained in the proposed law. Since President Milei is refusing to accept any change to the proposed bill, even his supporters are rethinking their position in each of the bill’s clauses. In the latest developments, after some defeats the bill was sent back for further study, constituting a temporary defeat for the government. But this is a war against the people and there is no place or time for complacency. Without a clear political direction, the masses of Argentina are marching again, as in the economic crisis of 2001, to defend their basic rights. Within two months of the installation of a new government, cacerolazos and demonstrations had become the new normality. Those progressive forces who are debating whether or not the time is ripe to confront the government, would do well to remember the apt observation of Juan Perón: “People will march with their leaders at the head or with the heads of the leaders.” |
2024.05.28 15:34 bethesda13 [WTS] Post Office Run - Vortex Viper PST Gen II 1-6x24 (MOA) with Extras - $410 total