You are currently viewing THE APE REPORT: Ape Anna on the SEC report, AMC FUD, Computershare and more…

THE APE REPORT: Ape Anna on the SEC report, AMC FUD, Computershare and more…


Annoy Ken Griffin - Share This

This article is a slightly edited version of an article which was posted by crayon enthusiast Ape Anna (u/AnnaSlatz) on 24th October 2021 and is an autistic dive into the SEC report, the ongoing AMC FUD, as well as her updated thoughts on Computershare registration. KenGriffinLies.com does not guarantee the accuracy of any of this information, but we like it anyway, because, well frankly anything that both educates apes, gets the discussions going, and ultimately attempts to dispel hedgie bullshit will do for us.

The AMC Weekend Reader: on the SEC report, anti-AMC FUD, updated thoughts on ComputerShare, and more!

Hello, Ape family! Ape Anna here! How are you? It’s been a hot minute. I’ve been quite sick lately, so forgive me for my absence. Still HODLing!

There is a LOT I am going to cover today, but I will try to be as concise as I can so as not to hurt anyone’s smooth brain too much.

The TL;DR is, and will always be: Relax. Buy. Hold. Be a good ape.

But let’s jump right into the nitty gritty!

r/amcstock - The AMC Weekend Reader: on the SEC report, anti-AMC FUD, updated thoughts on ComputerShare, and more!

abra kedabra I make stonk go up!The SEC “Report”

  • I put “report” in quotation marks because it was barely that. If you read the damn thing, it was put together like a book report than an investigation into potential market manipulation.
  • Here are the biggest things to remember from the report:
    • P.29: “Staff did not find evidence of a gamma squeeze in GME in January 2021.”
    • P.25-26: “… staff observed that during some discrete periods, GME had sharp price increases concurrently with known major short sellers covering their short positions after incurring significant losses … However, it also shows that such buying was a small fraction of overall buy volume, and that GME share prices continued to be high after the direct effects of covering short positions would have waned.”
      • THIS was, obviously, the primary meat and potatoes of the report, and it has to be taken in conjunction with the SEC admitting GME’s short interest was in excess of its entire float.
      • The SEC is basically saying “oh yeah, shorts were totally covering short positions!” while also saying “but it wasn’t a short squeeze!” This is reflected even further in these very contradictory charts they included in the report:
r/amcstock - The AMC Weekend Reader: on the SEC report, anti-AMC FUD, updated thoughts on ComputerShare, and more!
r/amcstock - The AMC Weekend Reader: on the SEC report, anti-AMC FUD, updated thoughts on ComputerShare, and more!
  • .
    • .
      • These charts respectively show the short interest plummeting, and the buy volume of both retail and short seller “closing.”
      • Now, I am not a wrinkle brain ape. But I am still wrinkly enough to notice that something seems odd in these charts. Namely, the short seller buy volume is preposterously low for them to have been “closing” the positions they had, which altogether totalled in excess of the entire float.
      • GME’s float in January was approx. 65 million shares. We can see on the chart that short sale buy volume was less than the 2.5 million marker. Meanwhile, we can see total buy volume was over 10 million. Remember that for every buy there is a sell, and for every sell there is a buy. Thus, in order to have closed a short interest in excess of 100%, the float would have to have been turned over in order for those shorts to have truly bought and closed those positions. Based on the chart above alone (Figure 6), I do not see how that could have happened as the non-short seller (likely mostly retail) buy volume was outrageous.
      • Further, there was still a substantial short sold volume during the January run in GME stock. Look:
r/amcstock - The AMC Weekend Reader: on the SEC report, anti-AMC FUD, updated thoughts on ComputerShare, and more!
  • .
    • .
      • At times, 50+% of the overall volume was still being short sold. There was almost a perfect balance between shorts and longs. I do not know how such an environment, coupled with the tremendous, rapid increase in price, could ever be conducive to the conclusion that shorts by-and-large covered their positions. If anything, it looks like shorts were tossing hot potatoes of sales around to keep them all afloat — not to mention the private, under-the-table “bailouts” between short sellers to prevent the dominos from falling completely. This is why Citadel and Point 72 stuffed money in Melvin’s pocket, after all.
      • Had Melvin succumbed to their position completely, it would have taken everyone down with them right then and there. And that’s without even mentioning the manipulation from brokers!
    • Now a big, big boy I really want to talk about (and also get some wrinkle brain input on it) is footnote 75 from page 25. It reads, in full:
    • “Suppose that a stock has 100 shares outstanding and one is sold short. The stock will have a short interest ratio of 1%. If the individual who purchases the share from the short seller then lends it out, there will be two investors with a short position based on the same share. That is, there will be one share sold short twice, and so short interest will be 2%, even though 99 of the 100 shares are not being sold short. If this process occurs enough times, then short interest can exceed 100%.”
    • Read that very carefully.
    • Let me try to wrap my head around this…
      • The float of Company X is 100 shares. You want to short Company X, so you borrow a share and sell it. That is 1% of the float shorted by you. Now say your friend comes along and also wants to short Company X, but rather than borrowing a different share, he asks if he can lend your share (which you have already sold) and sell it himself. You say “sure.” You lend the already-shorted share to your friend who then shorts it again. Only 1 share has been sold short, but the short interest is now 2%.
    • What the SEC is basically saying here is that 1 single share can lead to a short interest of 100% if that 1 share is lent out enough.
    • THIS IS CALLED REHYPOTHECATION,
    • Rehypothecation is NOT naked short selling. It is the act of perpetually reusing the same shares over and over and over and over and over again (and it’s completely legal). Let me show you how this works:
      • Ape A owns 100 shares of AMC. Ape A is with a broker that lets them LEND his shares.
      • Ape A’s broker lends his shares to Short Seller X.
      • Short Seller X sells the 100 shares to Ape B.
      • Ape B’s broker lends his 100 shares out to Short Seller Y.
      • Short Seller Y sells the 100 shares to Ape C.
      • And on and on and on and on. Only 100 shares were ever actually utilised, but they were utilised infinitely. Remember this, because I will come back to it.

But what about AMC?

  • The sentiment from this report regarding AMC was extremely perplexing to me.
  • If anything, I considered this report good for GME, but ultimately neutral for everything else.
  • GMElitists who jumped on the P.25 note that AMC’s short interest was allegedly only 11.4% are being disingenuous for a few reason. Why? Let me explain.
  1. The short interest for GME reported in this SEC document is decidedly lower than the short interest revealed by the recent lawsuit filings. 122% in the report vs. 226% in the Robinhood/Citadel class action lawsuit. If GME folks are going to claim the AMC SI stated by the SEC in this report is accurate, they also have to accept the SI for GME is accurate… which blows many of the theories they have had about the float being shorted multiple times over out of the water. However, I do not believe those numbers for GME are accurate, nor do they. I believe the lawsuit’s stated SI is far closer to what the reality was in January. AMC’s stated short interest in those court documents is 38%, by the way.
  • 2) Let’s say AMC’s short interest really was that low… AMC still ran almost 1000% based on “sympathy sentiment” alone. AMC and GME are now coupled in this way in the retail investor perception. Thus, if GME runs, AMC will run again regardless of short interest just from FOMO alone. And that is dismissing the possibility of any and all short positions. As it stands, AMC’s short interest is extremely high on the books. We are constantly sat hovering around 20%.
  • 3) Further, AMC seems to get stronger and create new higher lows every single day. Retail sentiment in AMC is extremely strong, and AMC corporate has confirmed retail owns the float (which is not something GME corporate has done for GME holders).
  • 4) All of this bickering about the SI requires a wilful ignorance about the amount of manipulation AMC holders have logged consistently for months now — including dark pool abuse, options madness, spoofing, dozens of “glitches,” and more!
  • And that brings me to my next point of discussion…

But first… go to the lobby and get yourself a snack! You’ve read a lot!The Recent Surge of Anti-AMC FUD

  • Some GMElitists have run hog wild with this report, but I think I addressed most of what I wanted to say about that in the above section. Ultimately, it is cherry-picking, disingenuous, and ignored multiple other factors.
  • As I stated, I think many biases were confirmed in this report, and it definitely gave me the bravado I needed to dump quite a bit more money into GME. As of right now, my GME $-value has far surpassed my AMC $-value for the first time. Meaning… technically… I am a GME ape now! 😮 (dun dun dunnnnn)
  • But no matter what, I love my AMC family and I believe in AMC’s potential to improve our lives immensely. So, as a result, let me do a quick speed run of AMC-related FUD!
    • AMC is a distraction!
      • There is not a single piece of convincing evidence I have seen that demonstrates AMC is (or even could be) used as a “distraction” from GME.
      • 80% of AMC and GME’s largest short sellers overlap. Seems a rather silly way to “hedge,” seeing as shorts would be losing money on both sides of the equation simultaneously.
      • Some of the largest and most reliable GME wrinkle brains have endorsed the “short basket” theory of meme stocks, which placed multiple different highly-indebted/failing companies in a TRS derivative.
      • Reminder that AMC and GME follow each other stupidly closely, and none of the overemotional rants followed by “ItS a DisTraCtIoN” have accounted for that in any meaningful way.
    • AMC CEO is in bed with Citadel!
      • Again, no evidence to demonstrate this.
      • Adam Aron explained, quite concisely, that he has no relationship with Citadel and knows nobody from Citadel. Informing shareholders of this is legally binding. If we were to find out he was lying, and that would be very easy to do, he could be sued into oblivion.
      • Further, Adam Aron actually called out Citadel and implied they could potentially be the source of this nonsense narrative. That is pretty significant, and not something I ever see GMElitists acknowledging. We all know if Ryan Cohen ever said a single negative word about Citadel, Superstonk would literally shit its pants from the force of its own collective orgasm. And yet AMC holders aren’t allowed to believe their CEO (when he’s given them no reason not to thus far?). Come on.
      • Reminder, Citadel is the DMM for almost all SPACs out there. Their footprint is tremendous in general, but especially with SPACs.
      • Adam Aron was also very transparent with shareholders, and provided an exact timeline of when he would no longer have his seat on that SPAC’s board, and followed through to the moment.
    • Citadel is long AMC!
    • AMC diluted!
      • Yes it did. So did GME. This was done to raise capital to keep these businesses going.
      • Certainly, AMC diluted significantly more, and that absolutely could have fucked with its short interest. But, I have already gone into why I am not tremendously concerned about that. Further, retail investors have eaten the float at its current weight. I have absolutely no reason to believe they didn’t eat the dilution then, just like they are eating the float now. u/Criand (who does not like me, but that’s okay I still think he is a good egg) recently noted this in a comment quite concisely.
      • I want to be clear that I do not support any further dilution of the stock. I feel any further dilution of AMC would be absolutely detrimental to its price.
    • GME will MOASS higher!!
      • Yes. It will. I believe that, and I have been quite open about that perspective, as have many other folks within the AMC community. I don’t think a single AMC ape believes AMC could surpass GME in terms of squeeze price.
      • But that’s okay! I often ask GME holders what their targets are, and those are pretty big numbers. What’s funny is that the hardcore GME folks who are spreading anti-AMC FUD like this are the ones who think GME will reach those astronomical numbers, so smugly decrying another stock as not even being worth half or a quarter of those obscene numbers seems quite silly lmfao
      • GME isn’t the only shorted stock in the world. Hell, neither is AMC. There are many shorted stocks, and all of those stocks will spike once MOASS kicks off as it is a matter of those common shorters getting blown out of of the water on these bad bets.
      • The thing that makes AMC and GME unique, in my opinion, is the amount of retail holders who aren’t fucking leaving. Buying sentiment makes all of the difference in a squeeze play. You could have a stock shorted 500%, but with no buying or holding pressure to offset that, it makes not a single ounce of difference and you are battling against the wind. Which is why it is a bad idea to chase short squeezes where there is no sentiment to back it up (please don’t ever do that please).
    • GME has Ryan Cohen and DFV!!
      • This is honestly the worst one I see in terms of FUD, because my only answer can be: Who fucking cares? Are you in a cult or an investment? Are you trying to suck some dick or make some money?
      • Ryan Cohen seems like a really great businessman, and I am happy to hear he is lending his talents to GameStop! But Adam Aron is also a good businessman. In fact, he has a pretty awesome track record of pulling companies from the verge of bankruptcy.
      • Between AMC and GME’s corporate approaches to their retail investors, I think I personally appreciate AMC’s a bit more. Why? Because there has been more engagement and transparency. AMC corporate has provided clear updates on sentiment, ownership, institutional movement, and direction. GME corporate has provided memes, mysteries, poems, and random goose chases which force their retail investors to read into potential “hidden messages.” While I understand that could really be a cool way of communicating with investors where there might be legal barriers to doing so directly, some of the information they have chosen not to provide would absolutely not be restricted by any legal actions that might be going or or threatened.
    • But the FuNdAmEnTalS!
      • Why are you talking about fundamentals in a squeeze play?
      • Every time I hear GME holders discuss corporate fundamentals, I can’t help but read it as cope and consolation for “IF” the squeeze doesn’t happen. Why so scared? o_o
      • The one and only “fundamental factor” which matters in a squeeze play is the risk of bankruptcy, as in the event the shorted company goes bankrupt, short positions never have to be closed and the position was pure profit.
      • Neither AMC nor GME are at risk of bankruptcy at the moment. In AMC’s case, corporate has confirmed they have enough cash on hand (raised by dilution, mind) to last them a few years.
    • AMC said there were no naked shorts!
      • I thought this was really funny, because Superstonk Book Shiller Susane Trimbath whining that AMC *could have* confirmed the existence of manipulation also implied GME could confirm the existence of manipulation (and has not) — but that one just went over many GMElitists heads.
      • Further, Adam Aron’s tweet was worded very specifically, let’s look at it:
r/amcstock - The AMC Weekend Reader: on the SEC report, anti-AMC FUD, updated thoughts on ComputerShare, and more!
  • .
    • .
      • If there is one thing I can tell you, it’s that had this tweet come from any GME-affiliated corporate head… Superstonk would probably be cumming and shitting and pissing themselves simultaneously with the sheer excitement pulsating through their bodies.
      • WE HAVE KNOWN there is no such thing as a “fake” share. No share is “fake.” Thus, saying there are no fake shares is not a big deal.
      • WE HAVE KNOWN corporations cannot just up and come out to accuse a market maker of ILLEGAL ACTIVITY. Naked short selling is ILLEGAL. Accusing market makers, brokers, or other market participants of naked short selling would result in an immediate lawsuit (one that would be very difficult to win considering naked short selling as it stands is very difficult to prove) and possibly being delisted, as what happened with Bebiba Corp and others when the SEC accused them of trying to facilitate a short squeeze.
      • And, most importantly, WE HAVE KNOWN that short manipulation can be, and often is, hidden in derivatives. My god — that’s been Superstonk’s harp for AGES, that millions upon millions of shorts are hidden in far OTM puts. So Adam Aron making a vague, cryptic statement about unusual derivative activity in AMC should be a resounding cry of “GO LOOK AT THE FUCKING DERIVATIVES.”
      • And what do we know about the derivatives for AMC? That there are potentially billions of FTDs being shuffled in them. They are indeed… UNUSUAL. Thus, Adam Aron literally gave retail investors the green light that they know something fucky is happening in their options chain. Again, don’t tell me Superstonk wouldn’t be literally coated in their own piss if Ryan Cohen tweeted anything similar.
      • Further, there may not even be any naked short selling. All of our issues could come from rehypothecation, which is not the same thing. It’s also not illegal (but still very, very bad and something we need to stop).
  • I want to wrap up this section by saying: Invest in whatever you want. You are an individual investor. You can choose where to make your financial moves. But bullying other people invested in something else isn’t okay, and it does nothing but make you look like you’re in a cult. This is only emphasised when your bullying is based on nothing but poorly-researched, over-emotional garbage.

0:000:15

Personally, I think it is inaccurate to say that AMC has no fundamental value but that analysis is for another time.Finally, some updated thoughts on Computershare:

  • I took a lot of heat for being a bit critical of Computershare!
  • I want to say, some of my criticisms still stand. I do not see any evidence Computershare is making a legitimate difference in GME dark pool activity (it isn’t), and I think Thursday and Friday’s price action can do away with any fantasies that Computershare is making a tangible difference in SHF ability to beat the shit out of the stock at the moment.
  • THAT BEING SAID…
  • After much research and meditation on the issue of rehypothecation, I feel Computershare WOULD be beneficial for those Apes who live in a country which does not possess a broker that has absolutely no capacity for share lending whatsoever.
  • I am a CanadaApe, and I know for a fact that WealthSimple, for example, quite literally cannot lend out shares. Not just due to legal obligations (which we all know brokers like to shaft) but because they simply can’t do that. They have no ability to. Their systems aren’t set up for it. Hooray! 😀
  • That being said, this might not be the case for the vast majority of brokers in the United States and UK, which, even if you have a cash account or turn “share lending” features off, may continue to lend those shares (as we have seen in the past).
  • Thus, I will endorse Computershare with the following conditions to keep in mind:
    • I acknowledge direct registration may be a potentially useful way to stop the persistent abuse of rehypothecation by moving shares into a transfer agent which has no capacity for share lending.
    • I have always believed broker diversification was the way, and any apes who have shares concentrated in one broker should seriously consider transferring some shares to CS, or opening a CS for future purchases of shares.
    • I still believe shares transferred to or bought through CS should be considered “for the play” — ie: to never likely be sold (let alone for the best price).
      • Note: I am still concerned about the amount of nonchalance at which the narrative on SELLING from CS has gone from “consider those shares locked up” to “oh yeah, no problem” when all evidence points to the fact being that that selling shares during a period of high volatility from CS is not going to be as simple as some now claim.
    • I will retain some skepticism and confusion as to why an AMC mass DRS is necessary considering the fact we all know GME must squeeze before AMC does, and once GME squeezes AMC (and other shorted stocks) are soon to follow. Thus, I feel it makes far more sense for a push to be towards dual holders of AMC and GME to either DRS some of their GME shares, or to encourage dual holders to open a CS for the purposes of direct purchasing their future GME shares. I feel this is far more logical, and would benefit AMC immensely by extension of speeding up the process by which GME shares can no longer be massively rehypothecated.
    • Despite the fact my GME shares are largely in WealthSimple, I am currently exploring the best possible method for me to open a Computershare account to house or purchase a few shares of GME (it is a bit more complicated for us CanadaApes than USApes). I see it as yet another broker to diversify into (I am currently in 3)!

OKAY! I think I covered just about everything I wanted to cover…

I will leave you with a few extra notes:

I love you all!

Ape Anna

PS: Regarding Computershare — I am CONSTANTLY doing more research into it, and as my opinions change and become more informed, I will absolutely update my Ape Family. These views are just those I am willing to share right now with my current level of understanding and confidence.


This article was originally posted on Reddit. You can see the original here. KenGriffinLies.com takes no credit whatsoever for this post, and thanks Ape Anna for her diligent crayon eating work.


Annoy Ken Griffin - Share This