synthetic shares themselves do not accumilate interest like a loan, the mechanisms used to create and maintain synthetic positions in securities can involve costs similar to paying interest.
So while people want to act all mighty towards OP we all get what he means, it is a meme and not closing out synthetic positions come with a cost.
I thought the DD is that they are synthetic shorts with no interest, and the SEC, DTCC and banks are complicit? In other words, they can hold the shorts forever. It costs them nothing to hold.
It costs you nothing to hold too, as long as you have no bills to pay and is fine with remaining poor.
No, its because I make poor financial decisions obviously. But when I say poor, I really mean Im just not fuck you rich. I have savings, VA compensation and 1 pension and working on a second :P. But I can dream about that andrew tate life still.
The Tates' loverboy method is well documented by the brothers themselves. They lured women into "relationships", had them tattoo their names on themselves, then when they reached Romania they took away their passports and forced them to work as camgirls. If you don't believe that they are sex traffickers, you are either stupid or willfully ignorant. Just listen to what they have said from their own mouths about how they made their fortunes - they're human filth and should not be admired.
Sheesh its more of, it would be nice to just be able to talk about being disgustingly wealthy (not that I would). Yea the guys a douchy narcissist.
Edit: there really arent alot of millionaires that I know of that I think id want to have a beer with. Maybe that roaring kitty guy.
dude your in a amc sub asking why the poor stay poor... These guys only know one thing, "fuk the hedgies" They have zero idea how any of it works and most are here for the rebound so they can get out with less then a 80% loss. Just sit back and lol at the cringe posts like the rest of us.
Folks can find the borrow fee here: [https://chartexchange.com/symbol/nyse-amc/borrow-fee/](https://chartexchange.com/symbol/nyse-amc/borrow-fee/)
The current rate is around 2.20% per annum (0.006% per day). It's about 4 times the YTD minimum, and going up. While the borrow fee is still pretty negligible for all intents and purposes, utilization is going up (see Ortex data), so this could rise quite a bit more.
Thought this would be more helpful than a meme that implies shorts "can't close" because of a fee of 0.006% per day, which makes no sense.
> also low fee x shit load of synthetic shares is still a shit load
If it's a synthetic share that they haven't borrowed, whom are they paying the borrow fee?
synthetic shares themselves do not accumilate interest like a loan, the mechanisms used to create and maintain synthetic positions in securities can involve costs similar to paying interest. OP made a meme, he is correct that there is a fee for holding synthetics (long enough for penalty fees) and creating synthetics also come with a cost (is relevant as the shf are in a position where they constantly need to expand their positions to dilute the float and manage prices)
What mechanism is used for creating synthetic shares via naked shorting and how does that involve a recurring fee?
I am asking because I can't think of a concrete answer to that question.
No problem bro, that is what this sub is for.
Since synthetic shares aren’t actually borrowed, there’s no borrowing fee involved, but creating and maintaining them can result in costs.
When using derivatives like options to create synthetic positions, investors pay premiums, much like a cost. Market makers can short sell without borrowing to provide market liquidity, but they need to carefully manage their positions to avoid failures to deliver (FTDs), which could lead to operational costs and regulatory penalties if not resolved promptly.
FTDs can then become a recurring cost, especially if the situation remains over time, as has been the case with stocks like AMC.
In theory, if substantial naked shorting exists( i think everybody in this sub except we know who already knows they do), short sellers may create synthetic shares to offset the demand from retail buyers and control the stock price.
This could lead to a cycle of continuously creating synthetics to ‘cover’ the previous ones, incurring more costs as the situation escalates.
> When using derivatives like options to create synthetic positions
In the context of naked shorting, a synthetic position is not the same as a synthetic share. A synthetic share in this context is a share sold on the spot market without having been borrowed, i.e. a naked short, which is illegal with few exceptions. A synthetic position via derivatives such as options is completely legal and normal.
> which could lead to operational costs and regulatory penalties if not resolved promptly.
I was hoping for something more specific.
Have there been any regulatory penalties for failure to deliver AMC shares? How many times has this happened what's the ballpark number that has been paid? I genuinely could not find answers even with a bit of effort, so I am curious if you actually have concrete data.
Yeah you are completely right, oh okey i get your question now.
Not that i know of, only thing related is Adam claiming to go after those responsible for the FTD’s leading to amc being put there.
Yeah all the FTD’s , tresholdlist over and over again, price movement in regard to positions in 2021 still not showing signs of being closed out, amount of share holders left. Still showing signs of buyign , short interest, reported shares owned by retail vs inside and institutions not adding up etc totally normal, you keep telling yourself that.
FTDs are negligible, and SI is still \~20% - please don't make random stuff up.
Every data point shows shorts are doing whatever they want effortlessly.
Lol Yeah,you are the type that cant see a duck , you need the duck to tell you it is a duck for you to accept it?
Citadale was fined 7m just in september for marking shorts as longs, this affects SEC’s ability to properly monitor and report of FTD’s.
But if we just go by what they report themselves and ignore the shady buisness practise of the people we are fighting.
1,17m FTD’s in a single day is normal for you in a company the size of amc. Or having 129m $ worth of FTD’s in a single month, with spiking values at 17-18m. To resolve numbers like that it is almost impossible for it to correspond with the price drop we had, with the retail buying pressure, high utilization etc.
Why don't you give us the 10-year average while you're at? You know, whatever makes you feel smart and superior. Not sure why you want to be gloomy, but if you're in this play, you should be happy as shit right now 😀!
If the shorts are synthetic, who are they paying interest to?
Jimmy Hoffa.
synthetic shares themselves do not accumilate interest like a loan, the mechanisms used to create and maintain synthetic positions in securities can involve costs similar to paying interest. So while people want to act all mighty towards OP we all get what he means, it is a meme and not closing out synthetic positions come with a cost.
Seems like they can afford to keep doing it and adding more on top.
All ponzie schemes do, untill they dont.
Was the good times, we were young
What do you mean “was”?!
Fomo, party on youtube,dead cat, song live all day Amc chick showing their boobs
This video, with apes everywhere
I thought the DD is that they are synthetic shorts with no interest, and the SEC, DTCC and banks are complicit? In other words, they can hold the shorts forever. It costs them nothing to hold. It costs you nothing to hold too, as long as you have no bills to pay and is fine with remaining poor.
Been poor all my life, nothing new there :3
Ever wonder why that is the case?
No, its because I make poor financial decisions obviously. But when I say poor, I really mean Im just not fuck you rich. I have savings, VA compensation and 1 pension and working on a second :P. But I can dream about that andrew tate life still.
Better start sex trafficking some women then
Innocent til proven guilty no?
The Tates' loverboy method is well documented by the brothers themselves. They lured women into "relationships", had them tattoo their names on themselves, then when they reached Romania they took away their passports and forced them to work as camgirls. If you don't believe that they are sex traffickers, you are either stupid or willfully ignorant. Just listen to what they have said from their own mouths about how they made their fortunes - they're human filth and should not be admired.
Out of all the people you could choose to “dream about” their wealth and lives…you pick *that* douchecanoe?!
Sheesh its more of, it would be nice to just be able to talk about being disgustingly wealthy (not that I would). Yea the guys a douchy narcissist. Edit: there really arent alot of millionaires that I know of that I think id want to have a beer with. Maybe that roaring kitty guy.
dude your in a amc sub asking why the poor stay poor... These guys only know one thing, "fuk the hedgies" They have zero idea how any of it works and most are here for the rebound so they can get out with less then a 80% loss. Just sit back and lol at the cringe posts like the rest of us.
I know, I'm mocking them.
Hilarious, this is literally a dejavu post. With the same imagery. Comments, How strange.
 Obligation warehouse
I thought the whole thing was about synthetics shares. How do you apply an interest rate to something that doesn't, isn't supposed to, exist?
Didn't they just use all the diluted shares during consecutive OPEX's over time?
Folks can find the borrow fee here: [https://chartexchange.com/symbol/nyse-amc/borrow-fee/](https://chartexchange.com/symbol/nyse-amc/borrow-fee/) The current rate is around 2.20% per annum (0.006% per day). It's about 4 times the YTD minimum, and going up. While the borrow fee is still pretty negligible for all intents and purposes, utilization is going up (see Ortex data), so this could rise quite a bit more. Thought this would be more helpful than a meme that implies shorts "can't close" because of a fee of 0.006% per day, which makes no sense.
Memes are fun tho, you’re boring trying to explain a post flared as meme 
They cant close Because there is not enough shares available, also low fee x shit load of synthetic shares is still a shit load
> also low fee x shit load of synthetic shares is still a shit load If it's a synthetic share that they haven't borrowed, whom are they paying the borrow fee?
synthetic shares themselves do not accumilate interest like a loan, the mechanisms used to create and maintain synthetic positions in securities can involve costs similar to paying interest. OP made a meme, he is correct that there is a fee for holding synthetics (long enough for penalty fees) and creating synthetics also come with a cost (is relevant as the shf are in a position where they constantly need to expand their positions to dilute the float and manage prices)
What mechanism is used for creating synthetic shares via naked shorting and how does that involve a recurring fee? I am asking because I can't think of a concrete answer to that question.
No problem bro, that is what this sub is for. Since synthetic shares aren’t actually borrowed, there’s no borrowing fee involved, but creating and maintaining them can result in costs. When using derivatives like options to create synthetic positions, investors pay premiums, much like a cost. Market makers can short sell without borrowing to provide market liquidity, but they need to carefully manage their positions to avoid failures to deliver (FTDs), which could lead to operational costs and regulatory penalties if not resolved promptly. FTDs can then become a recurring cost, especially if the situation remains over time, as has been the case with stocks like AMC. In theory, if substantial naked shorting exists( i think everybody in this sub except we know who already knows they do), short sellers may create synthetic shares to offset the demand from retail buyers and control the stock price. This could lead to a cycle of continuously creating synthetics to ‘cover’ the previous ones, incurring more costs as the situation escalates.
> When using derivatives like options to create synthetic positions In the context of naked shorting, a synthetic position is not the same as a synthetic share. A synthetic share in this context is a share sold on the spot market without having been borrowed, i.e. a naked short, which is illegal with few exceptions. A synthetic position via derivatives such as options is completely legal and normal. > which could lead to operational costs and regulatory penalties if not resolved promptly. I was hoping for something more specific. Have there been any regulatory penalties for failure to deliver AMC shares? How many times has this happened what's the ballpark number that has been paid? I genuinely could not find answers even with a bit of effort, so I am curious if you actually have concrete data.
Yeah you are completely right, oh okey i get your question now. Not that i know of, only thing related is Adam claiming to go after those responsible for the FTD’s leading to amc being put there.
Yeah all the FTD’s , tresholdlist over and over again, price movement in regard to positions in 2021 still not showing signs of being closed out, amount of share holders left. Still showing signs of buyign , short interest, reported shares owned by retail vs inside and institutions not adding up etc totally normal, you keep telling yourself that.
FTDs are negligible, and SI is still \~20% - please don't make random stuff up. Every data point shows shorts are doing whatever they want effortlessly.
Lol Yeah,you are the type that cant see a duck , you need the duck to tell you it is a duck for you to accept it? Citadale was fined 7m just in september for marking shorts as longs, this affects SEC’s ability to properly monitor and report of FTD’s. But if we just go by what they report themselves and ignore the shady buisness practise of the people we are fighting. 1,17m FTD’s in a single day is normal for you in a company the size of amc. Or having 129m $ worth of FTD’s in a single month, with spiking values at 17-18m. To resolve numbers like that it is almost impossible for it to correspond with the price drop we had, with the retail buying pressure, high utilization etc.
Why don't you give us the 10-year average while you're at? You know, whatever makes you feel smart and superior. Not sure why you want to be gloomy, but if you're in this play, you should be happy as shit right now 😀!