In my previous video, i told you that this amc movement, even though it has a lot of speculators and opportunists, and just people looking to make quick buck. The thing is that the movement, the core movement, is actually getting the mainstream media to talk about the issues that need addressing the naked shooting the synthetic shares, and we just had fox business - have wes christian on for a prime time interview, which is something unthinkable. Just a couple weeks ago now we have bloomberg actually talking about naked shorts out in the open, and we have bob sloan, the founder of s3 partners going to town about this amc short squeeze talking about the probability of a short squeeze talking about the naked chairs And actually throwing some shade between the lines i'll show you where to look about all of this stuff. We absolutely have to talk about so there's a lot to unpack here.

Let's get started um. Let's talk first about the the the revitalized jump in these meme stocks. That we saw it was really amazing to watch last week. Was it what we saw on amc, a so-called gamma squeeze? Oh, that certainly has something to do with that.

There's so much flow derivatives happening right now, and you know the the dealers or people that sell and write these options have to hedge their positions and that definitely caused some of the price move, no question, so this clip is actually extremely important, even though it doesn't Seem like it what he says here, even though it sounds trivial to a guy like me, or anybody from the ape movement. Here's the thing, there's a lot of people, smart people saying well, there is no short squeeze. Essentially, what you have here with the amc is just a pump. People are floating to the stock because it's getting pumped everybody's talking about it, it's trendy, but there is no real short squeeze and they're trying to basically take drug and pull it underneath your legs basically saying well, there is no short squeeze now this guy, he eats Sleeps and talks data analytics about the stock market.

He knows everything you want to know about short selling and the stock market. Bob sloane is legit, you can google him and once bob sloan confirms it he could have said. I don't know he could have said it's possible, but he said i think it has a lot to do with it. Essentially, he confirms that there are short squeeze elements happening already, so the whole argument about it not being true and just being pure hype.

You have a guy from the other side, who's a professional, a respected professional in the institutional data analytics side, basically saying well, i think that this may be a short squeeze and that's really important to put on the table, so it eliminates a lot of the fun. So what are um? The stocks is amc still among the stocks that are incredibly highly shorted that you track at s3 partners yeah. So if you look at our uh squeeze risk score, it's still a 100 out of 100.. Another important statement to add ammunition against these fad arguments.

You have a guy here whose entire job is to track the short interest and evaluate short squeeze risk and he's telling you the short squeeze risk for amc is a hundred out of a hundred uh. If you look at the total size of the position, it's uh 3.6 billion dollars, the total year-to-date loss is about 3.9 billion dollars and last week alone, shorts in amc lost two billion dollars in one week you notice how he did it slowly, there's a reason he's Actually letting you know two billion dollars in one week, essentially, what he's telling you between the lines - and he can't say it on bloomberg - is that hey apes? Your thing is working. Look, these are the numbers, the numbers don't lie, you just cost them. You created a penalty of two billion dollars for the shorts in the amc squeeze.

Now those are hard numbers. You can't fake it. You can't manipulate it. Two billion dollars, unbelievable bob you and i have talked about how short investors can get these stocks.

Sometimes it's over. A hundred percent, which means that either um lenders well borrowers are re-lending the stock that they borrowed to short uh. Somehow that seems implausible or people are going short naked, and i see today on twitter, naked shorts. Naked shorting is trending, i'm not sure if that's just because people like the word naked uh, who doesn't like the word naked, come on matt.

Is that still happening? Is it still prevalent in this market? Well, first of all, you know if, if someone is doing naked shorting in a large scale, scalable systematic strategy, you know, there's john darm should come in and just take that person or our firm. You know off the field, you know it's against the law and it shouldn't be done so you know it would be um. You know, that's where we come out on it. It's just it's just not done.

The rules and regulations are very clear about uh. What should be happened to players that that do that? On the other hand, okay, this is the answer. I don't like from him and i'll explain why now this is the answer i didn't like from him. I think bob sloan actually mumbled stumbled and wasn't coherent in this, because he was afraid to answer the actual question.

The actual question was: is there naked shorts going on in the market? Even though this is illegal? You could hear him being very non-coherent very all around the place and he ended up not even answering the question, basically just stopping talking after saying. Well, it's illegal! Yes, we know it's illegal, but you should notice that this clip matt is actually waiting for an answer which never comes. That's why you have this long pause? Of course, this isn't the sort of interview where matt actually can push back and say hey, because that's not the sort of interview. This thing is because bob is never going to come back if they start pushing back and making him feel uncomfortable.

However, here's what happened here, the interviewer matt asking bob hey bob: do we have naked shorts in the market happening even though it's illegal and then bob says? Well, it's illegal. It should not be happening and that's my answer. I mean he didn't answer the question and i think by not answering you kind of get what the answer is and it's i guess it's probably legal. If you borrow the stock from somebody bob uh and sell it to me, i can turn around and lend it to someone else who who sells it short again.

So is that how we get companies that are a hundred twenty hundred thirty percent shorted? Well, in your example, what's happened is that you've increased the flow to the company, so it's really that you have two long positions for every one short sale and that's really what confuses people? You know, there's a lot of confusion in the market. Again, don't like what he's doing here he's evading the question. The question is very, very simple: can you re-short a stock that was borrowed and shorted by re-lending the same stock? He does not answer that again, contrary to wes christian, who was very clear about it, that it happens. Contrary to the article you can read by lucy commissar from february this year.

She talks about it. In 2009, you had senator kaufman actually trying to battle this saying: hey, we need to earmark. We need to mark every single share, so we don't have a possibility of re-shorting, and in that article you can actually see the whole story how the sec and the dtcc got cock-blocked by the institutionals by the banks who are making so much money lending out. These shares for shorts that they basically never implemented this.

A very simple solution now again he's evading the question because it's a very sensitive topic, but i think his evasion and i'm going to talk about something completely different, that he was not asked about as you'll see in a second actually gives you the answer. You want to know what is an actual short sale. So, for example, a long agency sale is marked as a short sale and it's not so if a mutual fund or any investor that is long, a stock sells it and the executing broker does not have that stock in its position in its inventory and then sells That on to the marketplace, that's considered a short sale. So there's a lot of confusion of how things are marked, because there's just so much confusion with the gamma hedging going on with all these mismarking of positions with us all this talk of naked sure, okay.

So here i think, he's actually implying something important and you have to read between the lines he's not giving you the example you want, but he's telling you something very important he's actually agreeing with wes by using an example that doesn't seem so shady essentially he's saying That a couple of long positions, you can actually manipulate the way the short interest is reported. Now that's what he's saying he's trying to tell you that without saying that on national tv on bloomberg, he's basically telling you hey, the reported short interest is total bs. You can't actually rely on that because it doesn't reflect the real, the effective short interest on any stock because of all the manipulation that's going on he's, not a litigator like wes. He has to work with these people, so he has to be very gentle in how he explains this, but i actually like the answer which stocks are ripe for a gamma squeeze right and i know you've done a ton of research.

You recently came out with a white paper showing the most shortable, the most squeezable sorry stocks. Um it has. The list stayed roughly the same over the past few weeks. Bob um, you know it's, it's um somewhat the same.

You know nikola blink, some of the uh spak stocks, as they start trading, definitely have uh high squeeze interest. Amc and gma are still at 100.. Look at what he's saying here, or rather listen, amc and jamie are the prime rib. Those are the 100s.

So if you're looking for short squeeze, i think those are the targets he's trying to tell you hey. These has the best chance of actually squeezing one of the things. That's interesting about what's happening right now. Is you see? Non-Standard players do standard things.

We saw mudra capital do a secondary. Why? Oh, this was actually shade being thrown between the lines on madrid. Capital he's actually saying something very insulting here, he's basically saying well, moderate capital is essentially a distressed assets fund they buy and they hold basically waiting for recovery. They bought the shares, sold them the next day because, all of a sudden, they realize that they're overvalued.

It's basically telling you well, normal players are doing not normal things doesn't implied shade. He can't actually come out and say it, but he's letting you know that what madrid did was not normal at the very least given what's happening in the marketplace. You know these things can probably go on and on and on. If non-traditional players take the place of traditional players, you know, there's there's really no end in sight now how high these stocks can go now notice.

What he's saying here? Nobody knows how high these stocks can go and i totally agree. However, i got ta be the voice of reason here, even though a lot of you will get annoyed in the stock market. There's no guaranteed things none whatsoever, so nobody can guarantee you that this thing is gon na go up or down, it might go up. It might explode or it might go to zero and that is applicable to every single stock in the stock market.

Just ask enron: the biggest company in the world crashed into rubble within a matter of a few weeks. So just promise me you'll be careful and responsible about this whole amc show which is actually now getting better by the moment. I'm just getting my popcorn to see what happens this week, because this is fascinating. Thank you.

So much for the ape movement for actually bringing light, causing mainstream media to discuss naked shorts synthetic shares and these practices, whatever happens with amc and gamestop and the other stock. They already got the media mainstream media. Talking about it. We heard naked shorts on cnbc.

We just heard bloomberg: we had wes christian being primed on fox business, so you guys have already won by bringing this issue to the mainstream media, which is a huge win. Now, i'm just gon na be sitting back eating my popcorn and seeing how you play this out, but just be careful promise to me. You'll be careful and don't do irresponsible, like putting all your money into this thing. It's not the way to go.

Just be careful. Just be careful, be responsible, remember this is still the stock market. There's a lot of risk, be careful and, as always a huge shout out to the channel members and the patrons for making this happen. Thank you.

So much we'll see you guys. Next video.