He will claim they closed their shorts. He did in the past. But with the 4-1 split as a dividend and the fuckery that is occurring now, he will lose his argument, as there is direct evidence of synthetic shares and naked shorting.
He also trusts the SI% that is reported. He doesn't understand they can hide their shorts through swaps.
Yes, and no matter what he or the brokers do, the SEC is directly responsible for allowing the shorts to exist, this puts the onus on the FED to pay it out.
He will claim they closed their shorts. He did in the past. But with the 4-1 split as a dividend and the fuckery that is occurring now, he will lose his argument, as there is direct evidence of synthetic shares and naked shorting.
He also trusts the SI% that is reported. He doesn't understand they can hide their shorts through swaps.
Yes, and no matter what he or the brokers do, the SEC is directly responsible for allowing the shorts to exist, this puts the onus on the FED to pay it out.
If for some reason the fed doesn't pay out, we're still invested in a company that is transforming into something that will be HUGE.
Agreed. Part of that growth will be derived from short sellers trying to cut their losses by buying "cheap" while they still can.