Welcome back to the channel everyone today, i want to talk about whether mark hodes is really on our side or whether he's got some kind of ulterior motive. I also want to talk about a new sec ruling. That's just been proposed, so stay tuned and let's make some money, and now i want to dive straight in with the key information. So i want to start by giving a brief recap or an overview of who mark hodes really is so obviously mark.

Hodes is a wall street bigwig best known for his history, of exposing fraud and corruption at various different companies. In many ways he is, or was an activist short seller hitting back at bad companies. He believes are ripping off investors or have bad practices that harm the market. Now, back in february, he first came out and slammed the gamestop shorters.

The use of leverage by these punks who have more money than brains is the problem. It's not the robin hood guys. It's not the reddit guys, it's the excessive leverage by hedge funds that have caused significant problems for others and for the system, and obviously this month he came out and announced that he was long on amc in a very big way. Picking up 60 000 amc shares and obviously he's been very vocal about amc following in overstock's footsteps and issuing an nft dividend or more specifically, an nft sto or security token offering now.

That would obviously help resolve once and for all, just how many naked or synthetic shorts there really are out there in the market at this very time. Obviously, the sto or security token offering would be issued on the t0 platform, so does mark, have any involvement with t0 or any financial interest with t0 or any other ulterior motive. That would be beneficial for him for amc to issue their sto on t0, and, if he does, is this a problem. Moomoo's biggest ever.

Promotion currently gives you five free stocks, valued up to 3 500 each and an additional share of neo with a value of around 40 dollars. I wanted to break down how you can get every single one of these shares when you open your moomoo account. You get your first free share, valued up to three thousand five hundred dollars. If you make any deposit, you also get.

The second free share, also valued up to three thousand five hundred dollars. If you deposit a hundred dollars, then you also get that free share of neo valued around forty dollars and if you deposit, two thousand dollars, then you get. The final three shares also all valued up to three thousand five hundred dollars. So that's effectively.

Five free shares of amazon that you could potentially get just for signing up with moomoo, using the link in the description below and making your first deposit now so t0 is pretty straightforward. They're owned 40 by overstock and 40 to 45 owned by a venture capital fund of which overstock owns 99 of it and then obviously the remainder of the shares are held by insiders and former employees. So t 0 is held around 80 to 85 percent by overstock. Now, mark hodes has also been very, very vocal and voicing his investment in overstock.

Mark hodes does own shares in overstock and may even own shares directly in t zero as well, and therefore obviously mark cody's has some kind of financial incentive to get amc to issue their sto through t0. But is that a problem, and does that mean that it won't work? Now? I wanted to show you this very, very well known clip from the big shore i mean how come you don't hate this guy he's everything you taught us not to trust. I can't hate him, he is so transparent and self-interested. I kind of respect him.

Would i buy a car from him? No, is he right about the mortgage market? Let's find out, let's find out, look it's two very simple questions. Is there a housing bubble and if there is how exposed are the banks - and i think this is very, very applicable in our situation as well? Mark hodes has been very, very honest and transparent with his self-interest in overstock and t-zero, but does that make mark codes wrong? Does amc issuing an nft not cause the squeeze? Well, i guess we'll just have to find out the thought process of amc. Issuing an nft to squeeze the shorts has been around for a lot longer than mark. Hodes has been active in the space.

All mark coders is actually doing is just giving us the ability to actually create that amc nft that we've wanted for the past nearly 11 months or so so what actually happened when overstock issued their nft or sto security? Token, offering a famous example we hear about in the ape community is that of overstock special crypto dividend, but not a lot of people have the background on this. So let me explain: overstock was headed by an eccentric character named patrick byron, who, just before resigning from overstock's board, established a blockchain based dividend. He hoped would force shorts out of his company. The dividend was going to be issued as an obscure cryptocurrency on t0, a trading platform overstock owned, with the stipulation that the tokens could not be traded for six months after issuance, the plan was revealed in july of 2019, while overstock experienced an initial bump.

As a result of the release of that plan, it wasn't until the next year that things went parabolic and why? Because bigger shorts immediately moved to take over stock to core, specifically due to the lock-up period, that six-month period, which would make short selling the stock effectively impossible. Overstock was trading for around three dollars in march of 2020 when it had completed the dividend issuance in may. The stock began and up would climb a short scramble to unwind their positions prior to being on the hook for the dividend, and by august overstock hit a peak of 121 dollars per share, an incredible 3933 gain. So why do shorts have to cover during a dividend when a share is shorted? It's borrowed from a lender and then sold on the open market.

The short seller makes their money when the stock price declines, and then they buy their shares back to close out of their short position. Shorts, obviously don't own the share they sold, they've borrowed them and whoever they borrowed them from is still technically the owner of the shares. If a company issues a dividend, the owner of the shares is entitled to that dividend, but if that share owner has had their share borrowed and sold, then whoever's bought. Those shares from the shore on the open market is getting the dividend and not the rightful owner, and therefore the short is the person that needs to compensate the lender for the dividend.

They are the ones responsible for making that equivalent payment to the lender. They borrow the shares from, and this is why shorts have a tendency to unwind their positions once a dividend comes into play, because the short doesn't want to be the one that has to compensate the lender. Obviously it's just an extra cost for them to incur. In addition to any fees or unrealised losses, the more complicated the dividend is say: crypto or nft dividend the harder it is for shorts to actually make good on their dividend.

Responsibility because, obviously the short can't create the same crypto to give to the rightful owner of the shares. So what's next well ape anna. The original author of this post believes that mark codes is to amc. What michael brewery was to gamestop and apana is extremely excited about the developments in mark's participation in the amc community.

Amc obviously has the capability and the knowledge to make this happen, and they've also expressed the desire to issue an nft as well, and therefore it is likely that the partnership between amc or adam aaron and mark codes will go ahead and amc will likely issue an Nft, i do personally think that mark codes is on the side of us amc apes. I do think he's been very transparent in his self-interest for t0 and overstock, and i don't think that makes him wrong. I think that just makes him honest at the end of the day, we knew that an amc, nft was the way to go mark. Hoda's is simply linking amc and their desire to create an nft with t0, which is a platform that does create nfts, and i also wanted to talk about the sec.

Putting hedge funds in their crosshairs with a stock lending disclosure push. The sec is moving to bring greater transparency to the securities lending market, where short selling hedge funds borrow shares to bet against companies stocks. A new rule proposed by the sec on the 18th of november would require firms that lend securities to report data on each loan. To an oversight body such as finra within 15 minutes of making the loan and data on the loans would also be made public, and therefore we are going to know when institutions loan shares who they're lending them to for how long and what the fee is and Therefore, it should be much more transparent when synthetic shorts are created and when they're appropriately closed out and satisfied and therefore there should effectively be no more failure delivers.

You would hope. Obviously, at the moment there is currently little public information about volumes and rates in the securities lending market, though private vendors collect and sell some lending data, and this is the actual rule that was proposed from the fcc website. Sec proposes rule to provide transparency in the securities lending market. Now i haven't yet dove through every single page of exchange act - rule 10c, 1.

But when i have i'll be sure to let you know the finer details, although suzanne on twitter says it sounds like the sec is not interested in brokers, keeping accurate ownership records or eliminating failure to deliver. Instead, they want to enable and perpetrate ongoing systematic problems. Suzanne says show me where it says: number one: the public will know who lent what not just how many of what stock was. Len number two retail investors will know when their shares are len and a don't get to vote and b, don't get taxed qualified dividends or maybe three investors get a share of lending revenue and she says, even if you find all of that, where does it save For the shares cannot be lent on or five the loan has a due date other than infinity.

So, therefore, even though there's going to be more disclosure around stock lending, investors may still not get a share of lending revenue, and also those shares could potentially still be lent out multiple multiple times. Obviously, this is one of the main problems. If one share can be lent 10 to 15 different times, it's not really one share anymore. I do think this is something that should be factored into.

The sec's proposed rule change and hopefully, as it goes through its comment period, we can make that change. Guys be sure to, let me know down in the comments below what you think about mark cody's. Is he really on the side of the amc apes, or do you think he's not and also while you're down there? Let me know what you think of the new sec proposed rule change and, if you haven't already be sure, to sign up to moomoo to get those five free stocks valued up for 3 500 each and as always guys. If you enjoyed this video be sure to check out some of my others, alternatively subscribe to the channel and in that notification bell, because that way, you'll be alerted.

When i upload a new video cheers.