Today I Want to talk about how Ken Griffin somehow justifies a legal shorting as if he's doing a good deed, as if what he's doing is somehow good for the overall. Market I Also want to talk about how UBS is having an absolute nightmare with their Credit Suisse acquisition losses. Maybe they've got tons of toxic liabilities they need to deal with, so stay tuned and let's make some money. And I'll drive straight in with the key information.

So Nazim tweet is saying, one of the guests at Yale School of Management asks Ken Griffin from Citadel Securities if high frequency trading and liquidity creation is moral, his answer is absolutely moral profits and how they are made in high frequency trading. I Don't know what to think of it. Um, I get that it's legal, but is it moral? So it's absolutely moral because the trading activity that we do in the market increases liquidity and by increasing liquidity, you bring down the cost of capital for Corporate America I'll give you a very simple thing to think about mutual fund managers, institutional money managers. When they think about how big of a position to own in a company, they think about days of traded volume I'll own three days of traded volume I'll own five days of trade Divine It's used as a proxy a shorthand for how difficult it is to get into or out of a position and everybody thinks about liquidity and values liquidity.

So today, Ken Griffin is trying to justify what he does by creating fake liquidity as good for the markets because it means that hedge funds can get in and out of positions easier. But effectively, Ken Griffin is just facilitating manipulation and synthetic short setting. Obviously, by Ken Griffin creating this fake liquidity, he's allowing these hedge funds to take a larger short position than they'd usually be able to. Usually, a hedge fund may be able to short, say, 10 million shares of a stock, But obviously, with Ken Griffin's fake liquidity and his fake shares, they can now show up, say, a hundred million shares of stock.

It's still only taking them, say, three days to get in and out of a trade, as they're still only shorting three layers of volume. But the only difference is that now they're shorting tons of Ken Griffin's fake shares. It's effectively an infinite feedback loop for synthetic shorts. So hedge fund wants to take a short position, but they can only take a three-day short position, which may only be 5 million shares.

Ken Griffin comes in to create some fake liquidity, and this hedge fund abuses it by shorting every single share they possibly can. To remedy that, Ken Griffin goes and creates even more fake shares to satisfy that liquidity requirement. and the hedge fund once again abuses it by shorting even more of Ken Griffin's fake shares. That way, they still may only be shorting three or five days of liquidity.

But now, all of a sudden, that liquidity and that total short position is even bigger than the company's flow. What started as an idea to make trading easier has been very quickly manipulated into destroying American companies. obviously. Ken Griffin tries to see this as a good thing by saying he's making trading easier for these hedge funds which overall I think is a really deluded view because he knows that it is being abused, but he just simply doesn't care because he's making tons and tons of money.

But someone that isn't making tons of money is UBS and their nightmare acquisition of Credit Suisse Genevieve tweeted saying UBS is taking a 17 billion dollar hit on its acquisition of Credit Suisse but how can that be possible because they only spent 3.4 billion to acquire credit? Suites The math doesn't work. This article from CNBC says obviously that UBS expects a 17 billion dollar hit from the Credit Suisse rescue and flags some Hasty due diligence. Clearly, they've paid 3.4 billion dollars for Credit Suisse which must have significantly larger toxic liabilities. Obviously, something around the region of 20 billion dollars.

Clearly, UBS are expecting some kind of 20 billion dollar payment to obviously pay out these toxic liabilities and toxic short positions. While that's obviously bad for Credit Suisse to take a giant 17 billion dollar hit, that's Obviously good. But whoever holds these toxic liabilities that's going to receive 20 billion dollars in return. And again, if those toxic liabilities are the suspected GameStop and AMC short positions or Total return swaps, that's brilliant news for us.

And speaking of giant squeezers and shorts being screwed, could you imagine the stench that would come as a result of this happening in the S P 500? Obviously, we know the S P 500 was moving downwards all the way through 2022, but has seen somewhat of a recovery through 2023 so far. But could you imagine a stench and the amount out of hedge funds going bankrupt? If over the space of only a few short weeks, the S P 500 took an absolute nosedive. We'd surely see hedge funds being liquidated and going bankrupt, not just in their tens, not just in their hundreds, but in their thousands. This would obviously cause tons of hedge funds to have to bail out of their long positions.

dumping the market further and closing out of all of their short positions too. I Think in this scenario, you'd see an AMC and GameStop squeeze pretty much guaranteed pretty much instantaneously. And it's actually scary enough is something that could indeed happen if the US does not increase the debt ceiling and ends up defaulting on its debt now. I Also wanted to quickly recap two recent reverse splits both in Xcla and in Mallon as well.

Now, Xcla performed the reverse split back here on Monday the 15th, but yesterday alone saw over a 150 percent gain in One Singular trading Day post split. The stock ran from around 2.96 or from around 3 dollars all the way to its peak at nearly eight dollars per share. Now that's actually a fairly decent post reverse split game. again.

Now looking at Milan we can also see the cost of borrow feed per month has been absolutely skyrocketing since they're ever split pre-split back here on the 8th of May the fee was only around 7.2 percent to borrow money shares, but since the reverse split, that cost to worry if B has now skyrocketed to 324, the cost to buy a maximum at its highest hit 399. If post reverse split, the AMC cost to borrow rate jumps by 50 times, which is the increase from around seven percent up to around 350 percent. That would be a huge huge deal for AMC Shorts. The cost to borrow fee for AMC already ranges between 100 close to a thousand percent, but could you imagine if that jumped to its highest at around 50 000? Fifty thousand percent is the same as the Shorts paying 500 times they their total short position just in annual borrowing fees.

That is obviously something the Shorts would not be able to handle on a fairly small one billion dollar short position. That's 500 billion dollars in annual shorting fees. If that did happen, these Shorts would pretty much have to instantaneously close out of their short positions as they would not be able to afford the borrowing fees now. Finally, I Just wanted to touch on those people that are against the reverse split and explain how their logic doesn't really make sense.

Now we know that Amy is against the reverse split, but it's also tweeted saying that she's a retail investor and someone that does not get mixed up into squeeze. Place Therefore, she's obviously against the reverse split and also does not believe that AMC will squeeze. She said there was a time to trade rubbish stock Source squeezable stocks and that time was in 2020 and 2021. she said do I think the system is perfect.

Nope. However, I think fraudulent social media furus that spread misinformation are far more dangerous. So therefore clearly Amy's against the reverse split and also does not think that AMC will squeeze and she said the time for trading AMC was back in 2020 or 2021. As Henley's tweeted, he said imagine saying that you believe in the mother of all short squeezes and that the shorts are trapped, but then also turning around and saying that when fundamentals go positive, the shorts will just leave at low low prices And he had it by saying but how can they leave at low low prices if the mother of all short squeezes had them trapped It really confuses me how people are against a reverse split and say the reverse split is bad for the squeeze but then in the next sentence say they don't believe in the squeeze, that the squeeze will never happen and the shorts will just simply cover on the chip And that is why I Still believe that those people that are against the reverse split are just chills trying to convince you to sell your shares.

And that's why as I explained in my previous video, the reverse split is not inherently bad. It's actually good for the squeeze as it reduces the flow. The only thing that would be bad for the squeeze is if Adam Aaron decides to issue 400 million new AMC shares which supposedly he said he's not going to do. 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'll put a new video. Cheers!.