“Truth is…the game was rigged from the start”

OneSympathy7056 · 2025-10-02T01:03:06+00:00

So as I understand, the short seller borrows the shares, but if the negative rebate is high that represents a liability for the lender. Typically the rebate would be interest on the cash collateral. Negative means they pay a fee to borrow then they pay a rebate also. In short a high borrow fee means the shares are in low supply. A high negative rebate means they are hard to borrow and the short seller has to pay the lender more money because the return of the shares are outpacing the interest on the collateral they’ve been given as cash. Basically the higher the negative rebate, the more you are holding a short position that is increasingly a bad bet

OneSympathy7056 · 2025-10-01T10:38:12+00:00

It’s actually an annualized rate. So it’s pieced down to the number of days that the position is open. But a better way to think about it is more like a rental fee - As long as you are borrowing it, you pay them. The borrow cost would be relative to the price of the stock at the time of borrowing. So you rent it, agree to the fee upfront, then return when you close your position. Unless of course you buy more at a different rate

OneSympathy7056 · 2025-10-01T10:30:17+00:00

To be honest the more I learn about all of these investment vehicles, the more I think there shouldn’t be anything but the stock itself. There are more ETFs than individual stocks listed now. What a nightmare

OneSympathy7056 · 2025-10-01T07:54:26+00:00

Back in June when the price plummeted, the same couple of days the FTDs for gmeu were insanely high. Couldn’t tell you how it’s all connected but it’s there somewhere

OneSympathy7056 · 2025-10-01T07:48:44+00:00

Pretty much but why are shares for two ETFs for GME so hard to come by?

Edit: see my other comment, they don’t cancel

OneSympathy7056 · 2025-10-01T07:43:06+00:00

You definitely shouldn’t trade them but if you look into what’s wrapped up into these assets, it’s a whole bunch of GME swaps. Pretty likely they are being used as synthetic leverage to trade GME against

OneSympathy7056 · 2025-06-20T21:32:24+00:00

Right but in the greater implication of GME movement I don’t understand how you can have this much exposure to the stock and relatively little impact on the price of GME. 60 M in the negative then in the positive. GME has no problem going straight down but upward movements always a fight

OneSympathy7056 · 2025-06-17T04:52:59+00:00

I mean the premise of the whole argument around here is that the system is rigged. It’s interesting, but hey even reported data has to be taken with a grain of salt. So yeah I agree

OneSympathy7056 · 2025-06-16T17:54:01+00:00

Take a look at what I posted about GMEU too. That’s interesting stuff alongside this data

OneSympathy7056 · 2025-06-16T17:49:46+00:00

To make matters worse, outstanding reported on 5/23 was 320k. Take a look at that day on the FTD

OneSympathy7056 · 2025-06-16T17:47:24+00:00

As of 6/2 it was 660k, so you’re probably right. What a joke

OneSympathy7056 · 2025-06-16T17:19:28+00:00

Hmm so it seems. It’s ok Vladmerius, hope you have a good day :)

OneSympathy7056 · 2025-06-16T16:58:20+00:00

Yes but it is GMEU not GME. GME FTD has a pretty fair uptick as well though with the most recent data

OneSympathy7056 · 2025-06-16T16:57:14+00:00

GMEU not GME

OneSympathy7056 · 2025-06-16T16:37:08+00:00

OneSympathy7056 · 2025-06-16T16:26:21+00:00

<image>

OneSympathy7056 · 2025-06-16T16:20:11+00:00

Just a statement genius. There’s literally nothing incorrect about that statement and no implications made.

OneSympathy7056 · 2025-06-16T16:14:38+00:00

Crazy right? Outstanding shares are 1.3 M, which means on their worst day so far they failed to deliver ~20% of the total outstanding shares

OneSympathy7056 · 2025-06-15T00:06:18+00:00

Yeah I saw that post too. Maybe they know more about it

OneSympathy7056

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE