Today I Want to talk about how Finra has finally spoken on synthetic shorting? Finra has just released a notice on Mmtlp, which I think has tons of similarities to AMC and will be very important. So stay tuned and let's make some money and now dive straight in with the key information. So Finra tweet saying that Finra has received a number of questions relating to a corporate action and trading Hull in Mmtlp, they said to learn more about how Corporate actions and trading Halls are processed as well as specific information related to Mmtlp right here. But as you can see by a number of these comments, Finra haven't really done the right thing.

and if anything, they've just exposed even more fraud now. Finra have released this notice saying they did indeed halt trading in Mmtlp two days early or three days early on December 9th, 2022, when in fact, they didn't really need to hold trading until the 12th. So on the 12th of December new shares were being distributed to Mmtlp shareholders for the next Bridge hydrocarbon shares. Now, Mmtlp wasn't being deleted until two days later on December 14th.

That obviously gives them a two days t plus two time that they need to ensure that all the new shares of next Bridge hydrocarbon have been correctly distributed between December 12th and December 14th. But they agree that they in fact halted trading two or three days early on December 9th and the guys at the Mmtlp shares needed to settle before December 12th. Now here's where it gets really interesting. It says that Finra is permitted under its rules to impose a quoting and trading Hall in an OTC Equity security where Finra determines that an extraordinary event has occurred or is ongoing and that extraordinary event has a material effect on the market for the security or has caused or has the potential to cause a major disruption to the marketplace or significant uncertainty in the settlement and clearance process.

Basically, Finra is saying that if a certain event occurs or could occur that could widely disrupt the marketplace and specific trading, or cause some kind of uncertainty, they can hold trading whenever they like, and they've basically said they issued this whole under the guise of certain uncertainty regarding how transactions executed of December 8th would settle. And importantly, there's another questionnaire saying what happens if your positions in Mmtlp were not closed out before Finra halted trading. And it says that broker dealers have operational covenants in place for adjusting short positions following a corporate action. And they've said that in this instance or in this corporate action, the Shorts decided not to actually close their short positions in Mmtlp even though it was being delisted.

They're effectively just transferred these short positions in Mmtlp to Next Bridge Hydrocarbon. So that means, interestingly, these shorts are actually all still there and all of those synthetics are still there as well. And those synthetics and shorts did not get deleted. But also, it means that Finra effectively gave these short surpasses.

These Shorts didn't need to close out of their positions on an effectively deleted security. they could just transfer those shorts to a completely different stock. It's not like in an acquisition where the acquiring company acquires a smaller company and a smaller company effectively becomes the larger company. This was two entirely different companies or up to entirely different sets of shares.

And these shorts decided saying no, we're not going to cover our shorts here in this company. we're just going to transfer our shorts to a completely different company in a completely different stock. And as John Berta tweeted, he said, it's interesting there was no mention of their obligation to police that broke a deal as market makers and short hedge funds under their purview. Effectively, Finra was trying to place a hundred percent of the blame that shorts didn't close out on those broker dealers and avoided blame and tired themselves.

But Jon says that I Believe we've got broker dealer correspondence that says they would have forced the shorts to cover, but they were waiting on instructions from Finra and the Dtcc. So effectively, these broker dealers did actually want to force these shorts to close out of their short positions. But Finra either said nothing or Finra said no. We'll give these shorts a pass, so it's quite annoying and quite worrying actually, that shorts can be transferred from two entirely different companies.

shorts could be transferred from ape to AMC and back again, and maybe shorts could even be transferred from AMC to GameStop and from Gamestop to Bed Bath and Beyond and from Bed Bath and Beyond to AMC where these shorts can be freely transferred whenever and wherever or when they can only be transferred during a corporate action. I. Don't know, but it just seems that Finra is even more fishy and even more shady than they were before I Think it will be interesting to see what happens to the shorts during the conversion and reverse split of Ape. and AMC Obviously, these shorts from Ape are going to transition into additional AMC shorts on top of all of those synthetics, and it's effectively going to compound the shorts position and compound the shorts risk.

instead of being in for say, two or four billion synthetic shorts on AMC, These shorts are now going to be in for say, 4, 8, or even 10 billion synthetic shorts when all of those shorts and synthetics from Ape are transferred into AMC Yes, you can argue and say it then goes for a Tempo One reverse split and is 10 times less shorts in the number of shorts. But obviously, don't forget those shorts, then have to pay 10 times more to close that of that short position so effectively it balances and cancels off if a short is synthetically shorting 10 shares and has to close out of all 10 shorts at ten thousand dollars per share, or only has one synthetic short and has to close out of it at a hundred thousand dollars per share? Either way, it costs the shorts a hundred thousand dollars in total. And as Costa Saturday said, didn't Finra just admit they allowed unsettled short positions into a private company and he said, didn't they just publicly prove what Rosa Toil is arguing for and that it's for the last two days of trading As outlined in the SEC approved. S1 these shorts should settle all of their short positions in a fair and open market for all Mm TLP holders.

And therefore, he's urging that Finra reopened the last two days of trading for all shots to settle in a fair and open market as the SEC suggests that those shorts should be settled by. There's obviously these short positions were not settled at all because obviously the shorts were just simply transferred from Mmtlp to Nexbridge Hydrocarbon. But I also have this very, very interesting video of Janet Yellen Absolutely panicking Under Pressure because the FED has no idea what's currently going on and they have no idea what they're currently doing I Think this really just adds even more fuel to the fire. This banking crisis has not been stemmed and is likely to continue over the next few weeks and the next few months crashing the stock market.

Further, we know that back in 2008 either after bear stones have been rescued and lemon Brothers have been left out to dry, the stock market actually didn't bottom for another three or four or even five months after that. And therefore, even though the Fed Up pretending they have everything under control, they really don't. And as this video shows, if anything, it's about to get even worse. Start with some of the banking issues we're dealing with on it: Will the deposits in every Community Bank in Oklahoma regardless of their size Big Fully insured.

Now are they fully recovered every Bank every Community Bank in Oklahoma Regardless of the size of the deposit, Will they get the same treatment that Svbp just got? Or Signature Bank just got A bank Only gets that treatment if a majority of the FDIC board, a super majority, a super majority of the FED board, and I in consultation with the President determine that the failure to protect uninsured depositors would create systemic risk and significant economic and financial consequences. So what is your plan? That determination, right? So so what is your plan to keep large depositors from moving their funds out of Community Banks into the big Banks We have seen the mergers of banks over the past decade. I'm concerned you're about to accelerate that by encouraging anyone who has a large deposit in Community Bank to say we're not going to make you whole, but if you go to one of our preferred Banks we will make you whole at that point. Um, look.

I mean we're That's certainly not something that we're encouraging that is happening right now. That is happening because depositors are concerned about the bank failures that have happened and whether or not other Banks could also. uh, no, it's happening because you're fully insured no matter what the amount is. If you're in a big Bank, you're not fully insured.

If you're in a Community Bank Well, you're not fully insured and you you were at Signature and it was. It just barely met that threshold you were at Signature Will. We felt that there was a serious risk of contagion that could have brought down and triggered runs on many banks and that something Given that our judgment is that the banking system overall is safe and sound. Depositors should have confidence in the system and we took these actions.

So there's a special assessment that's been done on Community Banks in my state, in all banks across the country. Was there any discussion that that special assessment would only apply to the larger Banks Or was it always assumed a special assessment would cover every Bank including rural banks in my state. Um, I I think I I'm not certain what the rules are around that, Um, that that's for the FDIC to determine. So I Think that video really shows the FED does not have a grip on the current situation.

They're basically saying if your bank is systemically important, we absolutely will cover 100 of deposits regardless of whether they're insured or uninsured. But if your bank does not qualify as systemically important, you're going to be hung out to dry. But now, obviously the real problem here is obviously Janet Yellen The FED haven't given a specific stipulation level as to where you're systemically important or systemically not important. As far as I was aware, it was supposed to be around 200 billion dollars, and while Silicon Valley Bank had deposits over 200 billion, Signature Bank actually didn't.

So maybe that limit for systemic importance has got smaller. Maybe it's not 200 billion anymore. Maybe it's 100 billion or maybe 50 billion. But if you are a smaller, non-systemic important Bank One How do you know if you're not systemically important? And two, what do you tell your customers? Do you tell them guys, sorry we're not insured, you should probably take your money out and go to JPMorgan or somewhere else, because at least that way your money will be safe.

It's effectively a self-fulfilling prophecy, because as soon as Janet Yellen actually puts a figure on where systemic importance lies, anyone that has money in a bank that doesn't quite reach that figure should probably take their money out ASAP before the bank goes down and their money isn't covered. If anything, what the FED is actually doing at the moment is probably encouraging. Bank runs on smaller Banks and encouraging depositors to withdraw their money from smaller Banks and put it into big Banks because at least that way your money's covered regardless of how much you have in there. But guys, be sure to let me know what you think down in the comments below.

And as always, guys, be sure to ding that notification Bell because that way you'll be alerted when I Put a new video Cheers!.