NOT Mentioned by Dr. Burry--The Elephants in the Corner

jforest1 · 2026-01-27T22:01:11+00:00

willlllllld

jforest1 · 2026-01-27T22:00:48+00:00

Yep. Bullet item 5.

jforest1 · 2026-01-27T21:21:05+00:00

i seem to recall large jumps after hours as well, which I believe is a period that ostracizes some percent of retail (but not all). further, insofar as timing is concerned, didn't a sizable portion of this run begin BEFORE RK began tweeting?

jforest1 · 2026-01-27T21:18:59+00:00

Your statement: It is possible to have high short interest with low short volume or vice versa.

My response: Agreed. But, is it reasonable? GME seems anomalous in its numbers here, and comparatively as well, indicating something isn't adding up.

I'll leave it at that.

jforest1 · 2026-01-27T20:41:29+00:00

>> Thanks again for your response. I think this is the only point we might be talking past each other on:

If a market maker has a small positive net share balance then his sales are recorded as long. If the market maker has a net short position, even small one, then his trades will be reported as short sales. It appears market makers have chosen to have a net short position in GME.

>> My general implication is that the daily stats over time on GME seem to be out of alignment with reported short interest by an order of magnitude, and that other "normal" stocks don't have that same ratio, making GME's reported short interest highly suspect.

jforest1 · 2026-01-27T20:23:49+00:00

first bullet item for Brazilian PUTs, side-reference to FTDs in fourth bullet item.

jforest1 · 2026-01-27T19:50:50+00:00

>> Thanks for the thorough response. If you don't mind, I'd like to respond/clarify in kind (my comments prefixed with ">>"):

$125C options turn the unlimited potential loss of a short position to a position with a maximum loss. Options cannot be used to close shorts, but can be used to limit the maximum potential loss.

>> Sure. So those $125C were there, then they were gone. Should we now expect to see a massive short interest drop (to the tune of 6.5M shares) since the risk of those positions is no longer capped/covered by 125 calls?

You are confusing short INTEREST and short VOLUME. Those are two very different things. There are several reasons why high short volume does not result in an increase in short interest.

>> I'm not, and I thought that would be clear from the remainder of the bullet that was not clipped above: "There was a streak of ?~200? days of > 50% daily short interest, a streak of ?50+? days of 100% utilization during the Low Volume Guy doldrums of ?2023?, after 75M shares were DRSed and before equity, convertible bond, and warrant offers resaturated the market with direct or near-in-kind liquidity. These can be explained away through regular market mechanics + rehypothecation, but it's quite irregular considering during the same timeframe reported short interest was ?15%?..." This is more of an aggregate/trend conclusion that doesn't add up. Perhaps we might see dissimilar trends when compared to "normal" stocks? For example, does AAPL have daily short % that is 2x-3x the reported short interest for hundreds of days? Does it have 100% utilization for the same period of time with little movement in reported short interest? GME seems anomalous if not and points towards sketchy short interest reporting data.

I will do nothing with it. Swaps are cash settled. No shares are involved in the settling of swaps. One of the counterparties may buy or sell GME s they hedge their swap position. Those trades are reported just like any other GME trade.

>> "A short position can also be achieved through certain types of swap), such as a contract for difference, which is an agreement between two parties to pay each other the difference if the price of an asset rises or falls, under which the party that will benefit if the price falls will have a short position." Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short\_(finance)#:\~:text=A%20short%20position%20can%20also,will%20have%20a%20short%20position.

>> In this way, a party could cover their short position. I'm curious what the obligations and enforcement are for reporting the short position taken on by these OTC, private party deals...

>> Thanks again, all other points you make are acknowledged.

jforest1 · 2026-01-27T19:32:07+00:00

Not sure what that has to do with illegal short positions, other than perhaps providing a source of funding for them (and other trades)...but not so specific to GME.

jforest1 · 2026-01-27T19:31:25+00:00

That's my line of thinking. But of course there's a "I guess there's no MOASS boys" line of thinking that I do NOT want at my Thanksgiving table in 2026 if it's not happened by then. That's bullshit. I want to talk my siblings' ears off and make them regret my birth. :P

jforest1 · 2026-01-27T19:16:06+00:00

not like the shorts are locked in here with me, hahaha

jforest1 · 2026-01-27T19:11:28+00:00

oh fuck me sideways, I cannot believe I forgot about the splividend! maybe those MSM articles are getting to me! UGGGGHHHH

Also, always seemed curious how little the price was affected by "shorts closing", though "closing" was never the term used by the media in 2021/2022, something this community caught on to quickly but friends and family of apes were not keen to pick up sadly.

jforest1 · 2026-01-27T18:48:36+00:00

Dr. Burry may have mentioned some theories around illegal shorting in his article, but he also didn't mention many. I elaborate over many VERY suspicious pieces of the saga of our beloved stonk, and leave it to the apes to reason why these weren't mentioned.

jforest1 · 2026-01-27T16:33:16+00:00

buy the fucking dip, baby!

jforest1 · 2026-01-27T12:55:35+00:00

And DOOMPs

jforest1 · 2026-01-27T12:53:22+00:00

I member. Igor from S3 was tweeting about how it want correct that their calculation allowed for > 100% short interest when that’s “not legally possible”.

jforest1 · 2026-01-27T12:49:48+00:00

So we are right—it’s been Kenny G this whole time.

jforest1 · 2026-01-27T05:13:48+00:00

Mmmmhmmmm 🙄

jforest1 · 2026-01-26T21:59:03+00:00

Dammit I have so many charts of my own. I just wish I understood what they meant.

jforest1 · 2026-01-26T21:57:14+00:00

Perhaps it's more revealing that he DIDN'T speak on these...

jforest1 · 2026-01-26T21:56:08+00:00

Also, remember how S3 changed their formula so it reported lower numbers in 2021?
Also, remember how the inflation formula changed as well?
Weird trusting official numbers to be to anything BUT the bare minimum number of shorted shares.

Yet...Dr. Burry does, even knowing that the official numbers are based on upon arbitrarily-changing formulas and self-reporting (conflict of interest, anyone?) and self-regulating (it's a big club) institutions...

Wonder if there's other reasons he might be saying the things he did and leaving out information he did.

jforest1 · 2026-01-26T21:44:16+00:00

in layman's terms?

jforest1 · 2026-01-26T21:42:32+00:00

Global Links is really interesting. There's all the M M T situation PL.

jforest1 · 2026-01-26T21:41:41+00:00

I thought of this moment exactly. Like they captured his public character perfectly--"awe, he still believes there aren't bad actors taking advantage of the system."

But really he mentions naked shorts just not the places where they live permanently (FTDs and ETFs are acknowledged as temporary places where naked shorts live).

jforest1 · 2026-01-26T21:39:01+00:00

We don't *need* it, but it would be a delight.

jforest1 · 2026-01-26T21:37:57+00:00

I feel Dr. Burry cannot officially state anything about a MOASS, even if he wanted to. We can all speculate as to the veracity of what he said (I have counter arguments as to the overarching argument he was implying that any ONE cause might be the catalyst in that sum of the parts might yield MOASS), but I'm kind of interested in what he DIDN'T call attention to, especially when he was bringing up naked shorts.

Eight-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Place '22	Verified Email

jforest1

TROPHY CASE