Proof that HFs are lying to FINRA but that's fine cause they're "self regulated" + 900% GME SI update.
Back again with my colleagues derived SI, after it generated so much discussion last week - Even good old Ihor mentioned it.. His replies to various feedback are below the data.
I do not wish for these threads to spark "Pixel like" content on the sub - with daily retorts and updates from myself / my colleague & people posting retorts as their own thread. So we will keep the threads to a weekly, or twice weekly at most update, and address whatever feedback as we go.
Anyways
Short Volume Today (Friday 12th): 5,793,090
SV%: 58.91%
His SI%$ range: 690.8% - 1038.8%
Daily Notes: Oddly Slow day as fat call options expire as they were being boughten by the thousands minutes before market closed. Extremely low Long volume, retail just holding. Off Market trades, bull instituations still carried us possible. Sizeable Shorts were place today.
New notes for data: It's getting to the point where Short Sellers would litterally need to be 80% of all off-market and long volume trades to be under 100%.
I changed the formula for the cost of OM volume to match the lowest price of the days as the off market is mainly Darkpool trades.
New Conclusions We can conclude that the % of volume used for covering is far less than their average of 30.75% since the 15th of january as a result of a big ol' FOMO rally from retail and a bull effort from institutions hogging up that volume Therefore, it is not crazy to derive that SI% IS OVER 700%, with a cost well over 5 billion $ to do so.
IMPORTANT NOTES: What I found was a tendency for these Short Sellers to get cocky and not cover on weeks when you would have expected them to. This means some weaks with low SV% had HUGE net gains in shorts. This never worked in reverse in the data.
PROOF THAT FINRA DATA IS IMPOSSIBLE If you were to take the FINRA DATA from the 15th of january to the 24th of February, you would find that they would've needed to Cover using 30-32% of all transfers for the entire month and a half.
Proof 1: It would have been impossible for them to comprise that portion of the covering with the FOMO wave and GAMMA squeeze that was hogging the data at the time. This 30-32% is notable. There was a considerable boost in daily volume in that period. So, you are talking about a MINIMAL COST OF 34.46 BILLION DOLLARS using my formulas from my previous data. That being the bare minimum amount... just to lower it to the SI% they said it was at....
Proof 2: We have not witnessed a loss of 22.65 Billion USD or more from institutions in that time. That would have been a net loss btw, no bankruptcies were seen either I said above that I noticed that Short Sellers did not cover when the data suggested they had the opportunity. That this trend never reversed, a High weekly SV% yielded a net gain in short positions.
Proof 3: SV% has remained over 50% throughout the 15th to 24th period, which provides evidence of a net gain in shorts... not a complete dip of the SI. Lastly, if all this was the way they say it did, then...
Proof 4: The stock price would not have dropped during the period if they had covered. The data HEAVILY implies that shorts are used and held to stop upwards momentum
His Reposnce to feedback:
Short volume % of total volume can't reliably tell you how many new shorts have entered or covered that day because below:A market maker selling you a share that they haven't yet matched up with an actual seller but do a few seconds later will get counted as a short position momentarily. This apparently can and does happen and gets counted in the short volume. Meaning exactly no new short positions were taken but the short volume went up anyway. (I believe this is actually explained on FINRA's website -https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/notices/information-notice-051019) On the flip side, it does tell you the absolute highest number of short positions that could have been taken that day so new short positions could be anywhere between 0 and the high short volume amount, but due to the above as well as shorts entering and the covering in the same day means you can't really gleam anything from it reliably. Sorry
1: What you are describing would create a net neutral movement on the share price, which was not seen.
More importantly, the data I aquired clearly shows that there was a net gain of shorts when compared to the long volume (which is where they could have covered) day after day after day. It is possible, but the data says that they have been creating more shares than they can possibly cover even if they were 100% of the long volume everyday (which, as we know, is 90% algos and day traders)
I look at things from a scientific lens. All I aimed to do was to show that it is financially and numerically IMPOSSIBLE FOR SI% TO HAVE LOWERED SINCE THE 15TH OF JANUARY. It was the running assumption that everyone who believed in this had, and I provided damning evidence for it being the case.
This is not how it works Not saying that GME short interest is X or Y. But literally this is not how it works you really can’t use short volume to determine short interest. INTERPRETING DAILY FINRA SHORT SALE REPORTS Mods please don’t delete 📷 I’ve seen a lot of posts about FINRA daily short sale reports and what it means. Importantly it doesn’t mean what you think. This isn’t FUD it’s just how market making works. TL;DR a lot of the short volume is market makers shorting to facilitate buy orders and they immediately cover with the next trade. -High short volume in the FINRA report actually often reflects net BUYING. This is why trying to interpret these reports is pretty much useless. -That sounds crazy but that’s how market making works. -FINRA report is only for off exchange trades (dark pools). It’s a myth that dark pools are all institutional, your retail broker is sending trades to dark pools like Citadel, Virtu, etc.[14:02]-A MM makes money on the spread between buying and selling (obviously). What happens is - your order to buy 100 shares of GME at market gets sent to a dark pool. The MM (a computer) SHORTS you those shares at $108.793 and then BUYS those shares back at $108.791. A short of 100 shares is recorded. This also explains how you see ridiculous volumes and ridiculous # of shorts every day for a stock that has a 50M float. The MM isn’t “going short” GME. They short it for a millisecond then buy a fraction of a penny lower a millisecond later. -So high short volume in the FINRA report (which is ONLY reflecting off exchange trades (dark pools) does NOT necessarily reflect high levels of actual shorting. It often reflects high levels of buying! Um. Like we just saw this week. Repeat that It does also does NOT reflect exchange trades. You don’t have to believe me you can read this super interesting piece here. Generally speaking, the idea that large short volume in the report is good news for holders seems true! It’s just not for the reasons you think.
I didnt assume you were FUD, but it's a little sus when you open like that hahahahh same as my answer for the last one, my data clearly shows that financially and data wise, there are more shorts being taken on most days, where the only way for them to even be below what they were on the 15th would be for them to litterally bankrupt themselves in the process. What you describe there would have a net neutral effect on the share price. Share price plummetted as Short Volume exceeded long volume. That is the fact. The data disagrees with your rebuttal.
No, this post is misinformation. You cannot gauge short interest from short volume. Because a majority of short volume is closed in seconds. I keep telling people this. You should really make a wiki or sidebar notice about short volume. So much misinformation and misplaced hype because of short volume. High short volume does NOT mean high short interest. To be clear, i believe short interest is super high for GME, but not due to short volume. There has been lots of legit DD done on this. But focusing on short volume is straight misinformation propagated by people who don't know what they're talking about.
- Same as the top two. Maybe try and actually take the time to read my the data I took hours transcribing and making palletable before waving it off and calling me "Fake News" K? In conclusion: the data proves that SI% has gone up. The only argument Ive heard is the "they cover instantly" one which isnt whats shown in the data at all (its litterally the entire point of me showing Short Volume Overflow, to show how many more shorts there are compared to longs daily). If it were true, we'd have risen consistently as this theory would have 0 effect on the share price. What actually happened is they shorted it to 40$.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally, as in u/moonski 's opinion, the feedback from you all is excellent and whilst I am still sceptical of the high %s, and the total accuracy of the derived info, I still think it is very valuable in at least showing that reported SI is essentially, total horseshit.
All we really have is S3 & FINRA delayed self reported data telling us SI is constantly dropping yet price action does not suppport such a low liquidity stock being covered from over 200% SI in January... Also very weirdly the data goblin himself Ihor of S3 aka the iHorse (hes @ ihors3 on twitter ffs) tweeted yesterday that GME is a 10/10 on his new squeeze score aka the "squeezeometer." How this is derived is "a secret." So it's 10/10 squeeze potential yet SI is plumetting, at a mere 15% according to himself... mhm
Thus I am still totally convinced that SI is >100%, and this data shows that there is no way it is what is being report by the likes of S3 or FINRA is accurate. What we are doing here, if not proving to you what the magical SI number definitely is, is showing that SI is substantially higher than what reports are claiming.
I am also certain GME has a significant issue with synthetic shares due to the volume of trading being a significant % of the total free float size of 50m (more like 24m in reality). AMC, a popular meme stock trades at 30% float, and most non meme popular stocks trade far, far, far lower than this in terms of volume / float.
Interestingly I did come across this - SI was at 132% on Feb 8th, according to S&Pglobal (you know, the guys whos name is in the S&P500) in an article posted on Feb 18 - https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/short-interest-in-us-stocks-declines-in-aftermath-of-gamestop-saga-data-shows-62699063. They later claimed on March 2nd that SI had dropped to 24% "in mid february" which makes absolutely no sense given price action - 132% to 24% as the stock hoves around $40. Ok then.
So yeah, enjoy your saturday evening paper since theres to ticker for us to stare at.
Posted Mar 13, 2021, 6:26 PM UTC · edited