OK.

I had a chance to look over the SEC paper. I got about halfway through and skimmed the rest. I did not watch the video.

I also did a little review of some things on Reddit for GME.

Let's see if I have this correct:

• The theory is that large investors are shorting XRT and MEME (maybe other funds, too) which have GME in them, and then buying all the stocks other than GME, to be "net short GME."

Is that the theory?

Let's look at MEME. It holds $1.7 million in assets. 4% of that is GME. If a fund were to short 10% of MEME (a ridiculously large amount, and very unlikely though not impossible), that would mean they would be short $170,000 of the fund. 96% of it is not GME, so they would buy up those stocks, leaving a "net short GME" of $8,500.

That would be a monumental waste of capital.

Let's look at XRT. It has around 8 million shares ("officially"). Short 10% of that (again, a really bad idea if it could even be done -- and not reporting it would also be considered a criminal act if more than 5%), then that would be somewhere around $70,000,000 short (valuation of underlying assets). Since GME is less than 1%, they would have to buy $63,000,000 and be "net short GME" of $7,000,000.

IMPORTANT POINT: This assumes that NAV and AUM are equal. They are NOT equal. In fact, this is one of the red flags the SEC paper points out -- NAV and AUM for an ETF (ETP) can be way off from each other, which leaves investors at much greater risk than they think. This also makes it very difficult (maybe impossible) to get this hedge exactly right. Something to consider.

IMPORTANT POINT #2: Even $7,000,000 is peanuts for GME shorts. These guys supposedly have A LOT of money tied up in their GME positions. GME traded $350,000,000 worth of shares yesterday alone. Even if there are 10 times the phantom shares of XRT out there, it would not make any sense to go through XRT just to short GME which could be done directly in the market. Much more efficient use of capital.

Also, excessive shares of XRT could easily be explained by large investors hedging, or even wanting to push down the market. Maybe the Federal Reserve or similar criminals are manipulating to push the market around.

Why is it GME shorts, and what evidence is there that they are shorting XRT and then buying up everything that is not GME?

Have you thought about this? If they are buying up everything other than GME, then they should be pushing those stocks higher -- either with actual shares or phantom shares. Are those stocks going UP? Hell no. The overall XRT portfolio is going DOWN, with the market. So, what evidence is there that theses excess XRT shares for due to GME shorts? It could have nothing (or very little) to do with them.

It sure seems like a convoluted theory to explain why GME is not going up like it "should" according to some people.

But ... WHY "should" GME go up? Look at the BUSINESS that the stock represents.

LOSING MONEY. BURN RATE that will eat up capital within 1 year, if not saved by a big investor like was done before.

And why would anyone want to save it? I suppose if they have $10 billion short in the stock, it might be worth it to give them $1 billion to try and save it. But that would mean they are short 100 million shares at the current prices. Maybe this idea made some sort of sense (in an evil way) a year ago, but not so much today.

The economy is in a shambles, no matter what the numbers say. Gamers are not going to suddenly have a bunch of money to go out and get games from GME. Their brick-and-mortar concept will have to go bye bye because they cannot sustain the expense. That will put them fully online, which gives them no competitive advantage. It then becomes a commodity like every other website.

I just do not see how this company pulls out of its nose dive, regardless of any short seller manipulation.

But the SEC paper was an interesting read. I already knew most of it, but it was good to be reminded of these red flags, generally, and I did not know how bad XRT was.

So, I appreciate the info. I will not be playing GME on the long or short side because I don't see a good reason to.

But if you are in, good luck to you.

Again, I appreciate that YOU (alone in this thread) had responses for me and a good discussion. For a group of people who think they are "awake," it is not good to see that most of them cannot defend their ideas on much of anything. You can, even if I might not agree completely, and I respect that.

Best of luck.

OK.

I had a chance to look over the SEC paper. I got about halfway through and skimmed the rest. I did not watch the video.

I also did a little review of some things on Reddit for GME.

Let's see if I have this correct:

• The theory is that large investors are shorting XRT and MEME (maybe other funds, too) which have GME in them, and then buying all the stocks other than GME, to be "net short GME."

Is that the theory?

Let's look at MEME. It holds $1.7 million in assets. 4% of that is GME. If a fund were to short 10% of MEME (a ridiculously large amount, and very unlikely though not impossible), that would mean they would be short $170,000 of the fund. 96% of it is not GME, so they would buy up those stocks, leaving a "net short GME" of $8,500.

That would be a monumental waste of capital.

Let's look at XRT. It has around 8 million shares ("officially"). Short 10% of that (again, a really bad idea if it could even be done -- and not reporting it would also be considered a criminal act if more than 5%), then that would be somewhere around $70,000,000 short (valuation of underlying assets). Since GME is less than 1%, they would have to buy $63,000,000 and be "net short GME" of $7,000,000.

IMPORTANT POINT: This assumes that NAV and AUM are equal. They are NOT equal. In fact, this is one of the red flags the SEC paper points out -- NAV and AUM for an ETF (ETP) can be way off from each other, which leaves investors at much greater risk than they think. This also makes it very difficult (maybe impossible) to get this hedge exactly right. Something to consider.

IMPORTANT POINT #2: Even $7,000,000 is peanuts for GME shorts. These guys supposedly have A LOT of money tied up in their GME positions. GME traded $350,000,000 worth of shares yesterday alone. Even if there are 10 times the phantom shares of XRT out there, it would not make any sense to go through XRT just to short GME which could be done directly in the market. Much more efficient use of capital.

Also, excessive shares of XRT could easily be explained by large investors hedging, or even wanting to push down the market. Maybe the Federal Reserve or similar criminals are manipulating to push the market around. Why is it GME shorts, and what evidence is there that they are shorting XRT and then buying up everything that is not GME?

It sure seems like a convoluted theory to explain why GME is not going up like it "should" according to some people.

But ... WHY "should" GME go up? Look at the BUSINESS that the stock represents.

LOSING MONEY. BURN RATE that will eat up capital within 1 year, if not saved by a big investor like was done before.

And why would anyone want to save it? I suppose if they have $10 billion short in the stock, it might be worth it to give them $1 billion to try and save it. But that would mean they are short 100 million shares at the current prices. Maybe this idea made some sort of sense (in an evil way) a year ago, but not so much today.

The economy is in a shambles, no matter what the numbers say. Gamers are not going to suddenly have a bunch of money to go out and get games from GME. Their brick-and-mortar concept will have to go bye bye because they cannot sustain the expense. That will put them fully online, which gives them no competitive advantage. It then becomes a commodity like every other website.

I just do not see how this company pulls out of its nose dive, regardless of any short seller manipulation.

But the SEC paper was an interesting read. I already knew most of it, but it was good to be reminded of these red flags, generally, and I did not know how bad XRT was.

So, I appreciate the info. I will not be playing GME on the long or short side because I don't see a good reason to.

But if you are in, good luck to you.

Again, I appreciate that YOU (alone in this thread) had responses for me and a good discussion. For a group of people who think they are "awake," it is not good to see that most of them cannot defend their ideas on much of anything. You can, even if I might not agree completely, and I respect that.

Best of luck.

OK.

I had a chance to look over the SEC paper. I got about halfway through and skimmed the rest. I did not watch the video.

I also did a little review of some things on Reddit for GME.

Let's see if I have this correct:

• The theory is that large investors are shorting XRT and MEME (maybe other funds, too) which have GME in them, and then buying all the stocks other than GME, to be "net short GME."

Is that the theory?

Let's look at MEME. It holds $1.7 million in assets. 4% of that is GME. If a fund were to short 10% of MEME (a ridiculously large amount, and very unlikely though not impossible), that would mean they would be short $170,000 of the fund. 96% of it is not GME, so they would buy up those stocks, leaving a "net short GME" of $8,500.

That would be a monumental waste of capital.

Let's look at XRT. It has around 8 million shares ("officially"). Short 10% of that (again, a really bad idea if it could even be done -- and not reporting it would also be considered a criminal act if more than 5%), then that would be somewhere around $70,000,000 short (valuation of underlying assets). Since GME is less than 1%, they would have to buy $63,000,000 and be "net short GME" of $7,000,000.

Again, $7,000,000 is peanuts for GME. GME traded $350,000,000 worth of shares yesterday alone. Even if there are 10 times the phantom shares of XRT out there, it would not make any sense to go through XRT just to short GME which could be done directly in the market. Much more efficient use of capital.

Also, excessive shares of XRT could easily be explained by large investors hedging, or even wanting to push down the market. Maybe the Federal Reserve or similar criminals are manipulating to push the market around. Why is it GME shorts, and what evidence is there that they are shorting XRT and then buying up everything that is not GME?

It sure seems like a convoluted theory to explain why GME is not going up like it "should" according to some people.

But ... WHY "should" GME go up? Look at the BUSINESS that the stock represents.

LOSING MONEY. BURN RATE that will eat up capital within 1 year, if not saved by a big investor like was done before.

And why would anyone want to save it? I suppose if they have $10 billion short in the stock, it might be worth it to give them $1 billion to try and save it. But that would mean they are short 100 million shares at the current prices. Maybe this idea made some sort of sense (in an evil way) a year ago, but not so much today.

The economy is in a shambles, no matter what the numbers say. Gamers are not going to suddenly have a bunch of money to go out and get games from GME. Their brick-and-mortar concept will have to go bye bye because they cannot sustain the expense. That will put them fully online, which gives them no competitive advantage. It then becomes a commodity like every other website.

I just do not see how this company pulls out of its nose dive, regardless of any short seller manipulation.

But the SEC paper was an interesting read. I already knew most of it, but it was good to be reminded of these red flags, generally, and I did not know how bad XRT was.

So, I appreciate the info. I will not be playing GME on the long or short side because I don't see a good reason to.

But if you are in, good luck to you.

Again, I appreciate that YOU (alone in this thread) had responses for me and a good discussion. For a group of people who think they are "awake," it is not good to see that most of them cannot defend their ideas on much of anything. You can, even if I might not agree completely, and I respect that.

Best of luck.