Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Yeah, yet not even cool enough to get its own phrase in the zeitgeist like "Drink the Kool-Aid"



Its easily dismissed as conspiracy but having read many of their supporting arguments and seeing the SI (Short Interest) being over 220% myself along with the SEC report suggesting that shorts never closed their position... I can't say I would dismiss the possibility of another short squeeze...


You should take the time to read the SEC Report

"In seeking to answer this question, staff observed that during some discrete periods, GME had sharp price increases concurrently with known major short sellers covering their short positions after incurring significant losses. During these times, short sellers covering their positions likely contributed to increases in GME’s price. For example, staff observed that particularly during the earlier rise from January 22 to 27 the price of GME rose as the short interest decreased. Staff also observed discrete periods of sharp price increases during which accounts held by firms known to the staff to be covering short interest in GME were actively buying large volumes of GME shares, in some cases accounting for very significant portions of the net buying pressure during a period. Figure 6 shows that buy volume in GME, including buy volume from participants identified as having large short positions, increased significantly beginning around January 22 and remained high for several days, corresponding to the beginning of the most dramatic phase of the run-up in GME’s price."

Meaning shorts covering causing a small increase in price and then retail FOMOd in.

See also the graph on the next page that show short interest dropping from over 100% to around 20%.


I'd like to add to this the following scenario for explaining why short interest can be high even if the original shorters have closed their positions.

1. Lots of people are short.

2. Price goes up significantly, shorters get margin calls.

3. Price goes up a lot due to buying pressure from shorters closing their positions. (ie, the squeeze itself)

4. Price is now extremely high and fairly disconnected from fundamentals.

5. People notice the price is very high compared to earnings and open new short positions.

After step 5, there can be a ton of shorters in the stock yet there is not a very big chance of a new squeeze since the price at which the new short positions were opened is so high. Imagine how much the price of GME would need to rise to squeeze out the shorters who opened their position in the 300-400 USD price range.


It is kinda hard to believe the drop in Short Interest with corresponding volume on those days. Something doesn't add up, but I don't know what.


Where do you see a short interest of 220%? Checking yahoo finance now it's listed at around 20%.


Here is a archine from Jan 14, 2020 showing 101% of float SI. https://web.archive.org/web/20200114081942/https://www.marke...

The 220% was in Feb.


The site you linked shows the short interest is currently at 14%.



They've changed the way the calculate SI now.

Before; SI = [Number of Shares Short] / [Float]

Now; SI = [Number of Share Short] + [Float] / [Float]

Ask yourself, why...


> They've changed the way the calculate SI now

This is nonsense. Who is “they”?

FINRA and the SEC require brokers to report short interest data twice a month [1]. These are share aggregates. FINRA then provides those data for U.S.-listed companies to the exchanges, who publish it. None of those exchanges have changed their publishing methodologies in years.

[1] https://www.finra.org/investors/insights/short-interest


"They" are the data aggregation websites that post shares SI.

FINRA and the SEC have nothing to do with the actual calculation of SI that various websites report.

Read; https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/lbydkz/s3_p...

S3 SI% of Float = Shares Sold Short/(Float + Shares Sold Short)


> Before; SI = [Number of Shares Short] / [Float]

> Now; SI = [Number of Share Short] + [Float] / [Float]

So you're saying that SI is always reported as higher than 100% now? Since that's not the cause, are you saying there's negative number of short shares now?

Maybe think for 2 seconds about your 2nd formula?


Read; http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttps...

S3 SI% of Float = Shares Sold Short/(Float + Shares Sold Short)


Sorry; Now; SI = [Number of Shares Short] / [Float] + [Number of Shares Short]




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: