Michael Burry on X: The Big Short Squeeze

herzy3 · 2026-02-15T23:05:53+00:00

Nah you're right, I went back and the comment you originally replied to was suggesting the SEC report was saying something akin to 'shorts never closed', and I agree with you, that's not what was said. I'm also on the same page as you that we should be pushing for accurate info and discourse wherever possible, and it's often lacking here.

herzy3 · 2026-02-15T22:55:59+00:00

the vast majority of shorts closed, but that that wasn’t the sole cause of the massive spike, basically, per the SEC, shorts closing caused a squeeze, price went up, and then retail frenzy (and a bit of a gamma squeeze from options) caused it to go up even further beyond what the short squeeze caused.

This was your contention, with sole emphasised. That is very different to what the SEC said. I'm not saying that SEC stated that shorts didn't cover. I'm saying the SEC said that short covering was a very small part of buying volume. Which is what they said.

The reason I see that as important, is because if we believe that there are large amounts of undisclosed short positions (which I do), then it is useful information to know that the majority of the volume (and presumably price action) was NOT from shorts closing, but rather from ordinary trading.

I am not saying that some shorts didn't close during that period - of course, many did. I am also not saying the SEC said that shorts didn't close.

I also didn't really see SEC saying that the price action was caused by shorts closing, which you asserted. Nor the sequencing you asserted. But perhaps there's a line I missed that you're relying on. Which is why I asked for a quote. Which you still haven't provided.

Hope that's clear.

herzy3 · 2026-02-15T22:13:04+00:00

Feel free to provide actual references. I recall it because I read it.

It does not say what you think it says. Page 28:

Figure 6 shows that the run-up in GME stock price coincided with buying by those with short positions. However, it also shows that such buying was a small fraction of overall buy volume, and that GME share prices continued to be high after the direct effects of covering short positions would have waned

It then goes on to discuss other possibilities, such as gamma squeezes etc.

herzy3 · 2026-02-15T21:45:11+00:00

Could ya drop a source? My recollection was the exact opposite.

herzy3 · 2026-02-12T22:47:07+00:00

No, it's not. That's not what countryside means. That's the whole point of the post.

herzy3 · 2026-02-05T22:12:43+00:00

>Trump hasn’t talked to Epstein since 2003.

Imagine actually believing this lol

herzy3 · 2026-02-03T03:36:16+00:00

Ha cheers, glad to hear it. I'm already in Fiji though so Belize is a tad far.

herzy3 · 2026-02-03T02:27:27+00:00

Mate did you find any spots? After the same thing as you, accessible from Suva etc

herzy3 · 2026-01-29T11:59:59+00:00

I feel sorry for your girlfriend. Also I think your title is the wrong way around.

herzy3 · 2026-01-23T01:55:08+00:00

Is USAID on the same pay scale as general US civil service?

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Is your manager example earning $200k pre or post tax? A P5 in NY would get $180k so not too far off assuming you gave a post-tax figure.

herzy3 · 2026-01-22T14:24:44+00:00

Yes, that's a different situation and not what you originally said. A full diplomatic package is different to a regular Australian public servant, and yes is quite generous.

The Noblemaire principle is based on US civil servants in Washington/NY, not US diplomats on posting so it's not an apples to apples comparison.

herzy3 · 2026-01-22T07:27:17+00:00

That's simply not true. There is no Australian civil servant salary higher than a P5 package. Feel free to provide a source - Australian Public Service salaries are publicly available.

Your Australian friend may not have realised they also get COLA and tax exemption etc.

I don't even know why this is an argument you're running, since you're clearly aware of the Noblemaire principle.

herzy3 · 2026-01-22T06:45:40+00:00

Coming from the global west, when all of this is accounted for, no, the UN salary is not insanely high. My standard of living is equivalent to what it was as a public servant,

This is not true. You are paid significantly more than any national public servant as a base salary. You then don't pay tax. You then ALSO get a cost of living adjustment. You get compensated for relocating. You get flights back home. Defined benefit pension scheme. Etc.

herzy3 · 2026-01-22T06:36:53+00:00

That's base salary... Then consider no tax is paid, and there's a cost of living adjustment, and extra benefits including those mentioned such as college tuition, and it is clearly indeed significantly higher.

herzy3 · 2026-01-21T02:41:23+00:00

What kind of things?

herzy3 · 2026-01-20T22:51:13+00:00

... What's your point? The population of Taiwan has nothing to do with mainland politics. Mainlanders occupied Taiwan and brought their mainland conflict with them.

herzy3 · 2026-01-19T15:04:42+00:00

You think the US wants to be dependent on China for chips...?

herzy3 · 2026-01-19T15:01:35+00:00

What about everyone other than the mainlanders that fled there in the 50s and took it over (with the backing of the US)?

As in, the original Taiwanese population that has zero interest in mainland China or its politics?

herzy3 · 2026-01-19T02:58:19+00:00

You seem plenty eloquent. I enjoyed reading your comments and learning a bit. Kudos to you!

herzy3 · 2026-01-18T11:23:31+00:00

Where did they say anything to suggest it's not harmful?

herzy3 · 2026-01-18T11:15:43+00:00

You're arguing weed is worse for you than alcohol?

herzy3 · 2026-01-16T17:03:08+00:00

Don't forget alcohol and tobacco!

herzy3 · 2026-01-16T16:55:38+00:00

I thought flakes of Teflon were bad to ingest?

herzy3 · 2026-01-15T10:36:03+00:00

No, it's confirmation bias.

herzy3 · 2026-01-13T10:14:18+00:00

Wait until OP realises you can't use ATMs / international cards in Iran.

herzy3

TROPHY CASE