GME and AMC stock action (out of main)

[Cherry Wine]

If there were an easy way to do so online then I probably would.

Actually awhile back I thought I had called Fidelity and opted out of their Fully Paid Lending Program but it looks like that didn't happen

I need to decide if it's worth the energy to call. It's only 100 shares - not going to move the needle any which way.

Can you sell calls against shares that are enrolled in the FPLP?

 

[chronoreverse]

I mean, it's only a tiny amount of shares in the big picture. Might as well just collect interest since you're holding them anyway.

 

[Cosmacelf]

I tweaked the +look+ of the output. Got The failure to deliver up to mid January 2021 for GME
Note:4.5 million from Oct 9 - Oct 14, esp 3.2 MILLION on 10/13
Note: starting December 1-2, the numbers jump way way up
Its a bit difficult as the files are zip compressed, they come in 1/2 month chunks (24/year)
I got 5 years worth but it would be a slog to stitch everything together as they are 50,000+ lines each
(I did manage to DCA 4 more shares of TSLA, perhaps I wil stitch a file back to 11/2016 or so, the Spiegel bottom)


SETTLT QTY FAILS PRICE Price x Qty
10/1/2020 380,564 $10.20 $3,881,752.80
10/2/2020 198,726 $9.77 $1,941,553.02
10/5/2020 77,344 $9.39 $726,260.16
10/6/2020 45,728 $9.46 $432,586.88
10/7/2020 2,112 $9.13 $19,282.56
10/8/2020 43,355 $9.36 $405,802.80
10/9/2020 287,410 $13.49 $3,877,160.90
10/13/2020 3,210,148 $11.80 $37,879,746.40
10/14/2020 1,020,779 $11.88 $12,126,854.52
10/15/2020 81,962 $12.25 $1,004,034.50
10/16/2020 42,481 $13.83 $587,512.23
10/19/2020 139,512 $13.31 $1,856,904.72
10/20/2020 210,863 $13.91 $2,933,104.33
10/21/2020 19,853 $13.86 $275,162.58
10/22/2020 168,358 $14.10 $2,373,847.80
10/23/2020 144,317 $14.91 $2,151,766.47
10/26/2020 221,129 $15.00 $3,316,935.00
10/27/2020 254,372 $13.45 $3,421,303.40
10/28/2020 133,541 $12.69 $1,694,635.29
10/29/2020 40,619 $11.82 $480,116.58
10/30/2020 11,780 $11.73 $138,179.40
11/2/2020 10,141 $10.47 $106,176.27
11/3/2020 8,353 $10.75 $89,794.75
11/4/2020 16,776 $11.57 $194,098.32
11/5/2020 8,661 $10.91 $94,491.51
11/6/2020 245,253 $11.45 $2,808,146.85
11/9/2020 110,340 $11.86 $1,308,632.40
11/10/2020 60,526 $11.49 $695,443.74
11/12/2020 55,047 $11.75 $646,802.25
11/13/2020 15,899 $11.13 $176,955.87
11/16/2020 94,799 $11.01 $1,043,736.99
11/17/2020 48,023 $12.06 $579,157.38
11/18/2020 19,886 $11.63 $231,274.18
11/19/2020 20,322 $11.57 $235,125.54
11/20/2020 971 $12.46 $12,098.66
11/23/2020 46,998 $12.71 $597,344.58
11/24/2020 535,217 $13.90 $7,439,516.30
11/25/2020 143,331 $13.67 $1,959,334.77
11/27/2020 163,516 $14.75 $2,411,861.00
11/30/2020 21,936 $16.08 $352,730.88
12/1/2020 91,971 $16.56 $1,523,039.76
12/2/2020 1,061,397 $15.80 $16,770,072.60
12/3/2020 1,787,191 $16.58 $29,631,626.78
12/4/2020 999,475 $16.12 $16,111,537.00
12/7/2020 1,002,379 $16.90 $16,940,205.10
12/8/2020 872,292 $16.35 $14,261,974.20
12/9/2020 721,361 $16.94 $12,219,855.34
12/10/2020 605,975 $13.66 $8,277,618.50
12/11/2020 880,063 $14.12 $12,426,489.56
12/14/2020 284,296 $13.31 $3,783,979.76
12/15/2020 170,655 $12.72 $2,170,731.60
12/16/2020 10,784 $13.85 $149,358.40
12/17/2020 500,162 $13.85 $6,927,243.70
12/18/2020 872,523 $14.83 $12,939,516.09
12/21/2020 619,404 $15.63 $9,681,284.52
12/22/2020 744,478 $15.53 $11,561,743.34
12/23/2020 700,507 $19.46 $13,631,866.22
12/24/2020 839,699 $20.57 $17,272,608.43
12/28/2020 351,316 $20.15 $7,079,017.40
12/29/2020 283,294 $20.99 $5,946,341.06
12/30/2020 648,513 $19.38 $12,568,181.94
12/31/2020 228,358 $19.26 $4,398,175.08
1/4/2021 182,269 $18.84 $3,433,947.96
1/5/2021 490,723 $17.25 $8,464,971.75
1/6/2021 772,112 $17.37 $13,411,585.44
1/7/2021 799,328 $18.36 $14,675,662.08
1/8/2021 555,658 $18.08 $10,046,296.64
1/11/2021 703,110 $17.69 $12,438,015.90
1/12/2021 287,730 $19.94 $5,737,336.20
1/13/2021 662,524 $19.95 $13,217,353.80
1/14/2021 621,483 $31.40 $19,514,566.20

27,711,978 $439,719,426.93

Wow. Seems like shady *sugar*. I'm sure Congress or a regulator will get right to the bottom of this.

 

[Boomer19]

As I understand it, volume per se was not the problem. The problem was the clearing houses (the one used by Robin Hood in particular) started demanding cash payments in advance to cover the normal T+2 day clearing time (as opposed to their normal practise of extending margin/credit ot cover the transaction).

IMO, the only way the clearing house does this is if/when they are having significant issues clearing the shares (ie: triggering high Fail-to-Deliver "FTD" rates).

This is the actual fingerprint of naked shorting, when your supplier won't extend you credit anymore because you haven't been delivering the goods.

Paging @Boomer19

i touched on that over in the broker action thread - Broker action surrounding GME etc on Jan-2021, although i realize it was a very lengthy post

In US the entities that are members of the clearing house

• NSCC is clearing house for stock,
  
• DTCC is depository for stock,
  
• OCC is basically both for options)
  
• the clearing house is a CCP (central counter party) which makes it a ton more efficient than being end-benificiary given the current system (which is why some tout blockchain, it supposedly conquers the efficiency part while remaining end-beneficiary)

• again can be the banks, regular brokers, prime brokers, certain mm's, whoever is 'self clearing' are clearing house participants
  
• the clearing house/depo DTCC NSCC are under the same corp umbrella, as they go hand in hand (clearing and settlement)
  
• to answer Elon, Vlad, and @Cosmacelf, no one person is really calling the shots. they have bylawas and procedures
• ...but much of it is really driven first by regulators, see (and try to decipher) the many FINRA and SEC rules for capital requirements, they basically apply a RegT-type risk/span margin (SPAN Margin Definition)
  
• on top of that. the risk committees and boards of these organizations have procedures for handling these types of events as well - given they may all be impacted by 1 or 2 or more 'going down' -
  
• NSCC/DTCC have separate entities and employees and operations etc, but its boards of directors mainly consist of representatives from all different parts of the industry..
• youll see from DTCC's BOD Board of Directors | DTCC - they that have representation from regulatory bodies (FINRA), exchanges (ICE), all different kinds of banks (Citi, BNP, BNY Mellon), etc, event Virtu and the Minny FED are on there.
  
• youll see similar at the OCC - OCC Board of Directors
  
• also theres different committees at these organization that focus on more specific market stuff, like risk committees, reg oversight, stuff like that where all market participants potentially weigh in.

anyway, back to the original question. not so sure its to do with FTD or FTR...rewind to the process

these participants must comply with regular day to day capital requirements, on a given day,
- they post capital to float the net of their total trading activity (across all stocks)
- they also are CR/DR the actual net cash from trading activity 2 days ago

in other words, - they need enough money to float trades submitted on trade date until cash from trading activity is 'settled' on settle date
same goes for options, except options are 1 day settlement

then, on a non-regular day, like gme and basket of other stocks for example

• the risk/span margin requirement applies
• plus, now you have a bunch of extreme volatility in this basket, combined with high volume
• the rules for this type of scenario take into consideration volume, volatility (some options contracts had over 500% implied volatility lst week...yikes!) value at risk, and concentration of your portfolio in these risky stocks/options
• the cap requirement increased (accordign to CNBC for RH) about 10x
• this means they must have had a ton of volume and open interest
• this risk formula doesnt just evaporate over night. its a rolling process. so if volatility and volume remain high, you are utilizing much more capital than normal.

this is capital required on the street side.
these pool of participants share the responsibility (a side effect after 08-09) as to put a bit tighter lid on thing..kind of police each other a bit more than past. dunno if works or not...but you can see why some of the brokers got so touchy about risk/volatility and having to put up excess margin requirement, and the measure they took were viewed as overzealous

i guess the point is, this happens before the settlement has a chance to fail...meaning they make you increase this capital toi meet the margin requirement before they even know if your trades will settle or not

(...but thats not to diminish the effect of repeated FTD's (resetting the cycle) due to buy-ins, fails, buy ins , fails..it gets expensive, but if you have a lot on the line (melvin and maplelane) , it could be worth it, until it costs too much to borrow, or the stock price spikes, for example....this is probably how we got here..short, borrow, short, fail, buy-in, reset, fail, buy-in...etc etc...then price spike, shares dry up, borrow cost increase...price spike higher..aahhhh my hairs on fire.)

on another note, since were talking about it, another capital requirement is to segregate customer funds...these cannot be used to pledge to clearing houses or anywhere or anyone but the customer.
my cash balance and fully paid securities at broker are MINE. they cant pledge my cash, loan my shares, utilize for clearing and settlement, or use it to cover their investment banking or prop trading side of the business (if they had one)

 

[adiggs]

Can you sell calls against shares that are enrolled in the FPLP?

I'm pretty sure that I can, but now that you ask - I realize that I don't know!

It seems not - I just went to sell a CC against my 100 GME shares, and I get a warning that it won't be covered.

For those wondering - the premiums on GME options are a m a z I n g. $45 for the Feb 12 $350 strike for instance.


Time to trade a CC for the lent out shares

 

[Paul_SF]

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

Can you sell calls against shares that are enrolled in the FPLP?

I have an SFLP in schwab that does the same thing. When your shares are "borrowed" by schwab, they go into a different account that does not permit options trading. I imagine it would be the same deal for Fidelity. Besides, logically thinking, selling calls against it would be double-dipping by the broker, since it's already being lent out to a short, and if your call gets exercised then the broker is on the hook for looking for shares to cover your call option while they continue to lend to the short.

 

[corduroy]

View attachment 633045

Diamond hands indeed.

 

[adiggs]

I have an SFLP in schwab that does the same thing. When your shares are "borrowed" by schwab, they go into a different account that does not permit options trading. I imagine it would be the same deal for Fidelity. Besides, logically thinking, selling calls against it would be double-dipping by the broker, since it's already being lent out to a short, and if your call gets exercised then the broker is on the hook for looking for shares to cover your call option while they continue to lend to the short.

Yep - that's the way it's worked out.

At 1/6th or so premium for 2 weeks / 350 strike, I'd much rather be getting paid for a CC. Time to hit up Fidelity tomorrow.

 

[Paul_SF]

 

[juanmedina]

Wow GME and AMC diving AH

 

[MXWing]

Wow GME and AMC diving AH

Low volume when a significant amount of the market cannot even buy.

Happy to increase position for GME.

I wasn’t overly in it anyway (for those in later) - which should hopefully be the case for everyone.

 

[dhanson865]

GME still hasn't caused them much pain per this graphic.

from https://twitter.com/nxthompson/status/1356024759226671106

 

[MP3Mike]

GME still hasn't caused them much pain per this graphic.

from https://twitter.com/nxthompson/status/1356024759226671106

But S3 says that GME has cost the short sellers $13.38B so far this year:

$GME short interest is $8.82BN; 27.12M shs shorted; 53.15% SI % Float; 34.1% S3 SI % Float; 26% borrow fee and easing to 10%. Shs shorted have decreased by -35.2M over the last week. Shorts are down -$13.38BN in 2021, which includes up +$1.93BN on today's -22% move.
@CNBC
#s3data

Which one is correct?

 

[AudubonB]

Yes, I saw somewhere that typically 1-2 percent of transaction is what is typically needed as collateral for clearing house to process. Word on the street is that the new administration, specifically Yellen, instructed clearinghouse to require 100 percent in order to slow down the purchase of shares to give the hedge funds a break. The result was many brokerages preventing retail purchase of those stocks...so it worked. If you look into ties between Yellen, Biden administration you will see major connections to Citadel, etc.

~~~Mod: ALL are to read Moderator’s post which follows~~~~

Those words from the post that I have emphasized epitomize the kinds of inflammatory, dog-whistling, usually counterfactual statements that have polluted so much in news, posts, commentaries of all sorts over especially the last five or so years that I am urging ALL to regard any such statement as Likely False Until Proved Otherwise.
For my own part, when I see such or similar statements, I completely disregard it.
As Moderator, I will state: if you have something potentially incendiary to state, include corroborating evidence or refrain from posting.
THIS post is the sole reason the one to which it responds has not been excised for having violated the very strict No Political Commentary permitted on TMC.

 

[Boomer19]

Those words from the post that I have emphasized epitomize the kinds of inflammatory, dog-whistling, usually counter factual statements that have polluted so much in news, posts, commentaries of all sorts over especially the last five or so years that I am urging ALL to regard any such statement as Likely False Until Proved Otherwise.
For my own part, when I see such or similar statements, I completely disregard it.
As Moderator, I will state: if you have something potentially incendiary to state, include corroborating evidence or refrain from posting.
THIS post is the sole reason the one to which it responds has not been excised for having violated the very strict No Political Commentary permitted on TMC.

if that poster was insinuating that the connection is that yellen was under bernanke, and bernake is a 'senior advisor' at citadel, (Dr. Ben S. Bernanke - Citadel), than ok, what does that mean? on the surface, nothing.

i mean, its a revolving door between the govt/fed, regulatory orgs, and banking/finance world for decades. if anything, that small community will result in 'more of the same' policy making term after term, similar to bill walsh's coaching tree permeating the nfl.

but a stretch to suggest yellen is the puppet master that backstopped the shorts from those pesky wsb jackals!

 

[MXWing]

Did ANYONE buy Silver at all?

Crazy how he media is all over it but I'm trying to find one person that did. No issues but just curious if I am
1.) Wearing a tinfoil hat
2.) This is an actual conspiracy against GME.

 

[Prunesquallor]

Did ANYONE buy Silver at all?

Crazy how he media is all over it but I'm trying to find one person that did. No issues but just curious if I am
1.) Wearing a tinfoil hat
2.) This is an actual conspiracy against GME.

I never understood precious metals. I figured if fiat died, the only precious metal would be lead.

 

[JRP3]

I bought a little SLV just to try and catch the possible hype train. Didn't pan out so far.

 

[JRP3]

Wow GME and AMC diving AH

Good turn around for both of them now.