Replies to post #4232 on Gamestop Corporation (GME)

[Neophius]

Important Caveat:

Please note that fails-to-deliver can occur for a number of reasons on both long and short sales. Therefore, fails-to-deliver are not necessarily the result of short selling, and are not evidence of abusive short selling or “naked” short selling. For more information on short selling and fails-to-deliver, see http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/regsho.htm, http://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/mrfaqregsho1204.htm, and http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/34-50103.htm.

So, just going back a couple of months (from most recent, Jan 4):

SETTLEMENT DATE|CUSIP|SYMBOL|QUANTITY (FAILS)|DESCRIPTION|PRICE

20210104|36467W109|GME|182269|GAMESTOP CORP (HLDG CO) CL A|18.84

20201215|36467W109|GME|170655|GAMESTOP CORP (HLDG CO) CL A|12.72

20201201|36467W109|GME|91971|GAMESTOP CORP (HLDG CO) CL A|16.56

20201116|36467W109|GME|94799|GAMESTOP CORP (HLDG CO) CL A|11.01

So, that alone doesn't mean there's a substantial naked shorting issue, nor any issue with shorting in general. However, when the historical short float % is greater than 100% (often 140%+) AND the FTD share count is increasing with a rising share price, there's reason to believe there's a fundamental issue with the shares that have been borrowed.

Why is this possible? Surely institutions recognize the inherent risks of being overleveraged. And yet, hedge funds were bailed out, retail was locked out of trading by platforms that were not sufficiently prepared, and ONLY retail ultimately suffered as the inevitable sell-off recovered both short positions and new long hedges that should have been in place months ago.

The proper response ISN'T to kick retail in the teeth on top of the system essentially cheating to protect itself and its greatest profiteers.

I'm not shocked if they don't appear on the FTD list. There's plenty of liquidity now that retail has been crushed.