What is going on mooging? I have a very important video for you i'll be going over some of the newest scc rules. Then i'll be talking about the massive amount of individual share ownership as it relates to amc and then at the end of all that i'll be going over the most up-to-date short interest numbers for both amc and gamestop, but before we hop into that just so, you Know i'm filming this after the market closed today on wednesday may 5th amc closed out the day at 9 17, which was a drop of 2.34 and gme closed out the day at 159.48, which was a drop of 0.78. So now that you know how both of these stocks are positioned, let's hop right into it. Let's start off with some of these new scc rules.

So, let's just rewind a bit back on march 18th, the nscc, which is a part of the dtcc filed for this rule 801. Remember the options. Clearing corp had a different 801, so i don't want you to get those two confused. The nscc.

This 801 refers more to basically daily and intraday checks for the sec to be able to look at these hedge funds and be like hey. It looks like that's pretty risky. We require more collateral that is going to be referred to as an sld, supplemental liquidity, deposit and basically it's just say, hey. This looks very risky.

You either have to give us more money to kind of cover that collateral or if you can't, you got to close the position, that's the best way. I could sum up 801 and remember this was filed on march 18th and then we were listening to comments. Basically, they were, there was a time period where, like all right, what are the comments and when that was happening, this actually came up on april 29th. This refers to 802, the nsc 802, and this is much more relating to lenders and members and they're, basically asking for a higher amount of credit and they're saying that they, it just provides more liquidity, and it very much seems like the nscc is kind of protecting Things just in case, like everything, hits the fan that they'll have some money to cover the overall situation.

To me, this is very similar to the options: clearing corp, the occ rule 801 and it's basically just kind of who's covering what in case everything hits the fan and what came out yesterday may 4th uh. If you go all the way to the bottom of this, and just so you know, i will link all three of these in the description below. I highly recommend that you do your own due diligence on this, because remember i'm not a financial advisor, i'm just sharing things to the best of my ability anyway. It is therefore notice, pursuant of section 806 of the clearing supervision act, that the commission does not object to advance notice of 4-801 and that the nscc is authorized to implement the proposed change.

As of the date of this notice or the date of any order by the commission, approving proposed rule change 002, whichever is later so, basically uh, they have accepted 801, which is very, very good for us and with that being said, we are just kind of like That that is the one where it's like the intraday daily check of, like hey your position's, getting out of hand, give us those supplemental liquidity deposits, or you have to close your position, so i'm very excited for this to kind of be. In effect. I honestly i was talking about this a bit ago, especially on the live stream. I'm surprised this isn't how our market already functioned.

So this is definitely definitely a positive and then kind of the same thing with o2. That's just a good way to make sure that if something does hit the fan, we have enough money to cover the overall situation. Just so you know. Obviously i covered this briefly.

There are many many other creators who go to in-depth describing all of these uh. I i highly recommend that you check those out if you want a better explanation of what's going on with these new sec rules for this video, i would like to focus much more on what unfolded yesterday. So basically, adam aaron early today amc rescheduled our annual meeting of shareholders to july 29th. Among other reasons, we did so to give our millions of current individual shareholders more time to let their voices be heard and cast their ballots on important shareholder matters.

I did post an update video on this yesterday, just to kind of share my thoughts on maybe some of the advantages of this situation. I do believe that it was pretty uh tactical of adam aaron and i think, if anything, it's neutral to bullish uh. I wouldn't in no way see them pushing off the shareholder meeting to july 29th being a bearish thing. But anyway did he say millions of shareholders.

Very very good question: yes, indeed that is right. Amc now has over 3 million individual shareholders amc's army. This came from adam aaron earlier today on may 5th. So if you kind of know the numbers of this situation, this is a big deal and i thought it would be interesting for me to run my own poll today.

Um, there's nine and a half thousand votes. If you're watching this feel free to vote yourself and we can update the stats, but this is significant for many statistical reasons - uh. Basically it's just. We have enough of a population to get kind of a fair distribution, and i just asked how many shares you own.

One to a hundred - and then i split it up in these categories - the numbers blew me away. I thought it would be more centered around 101 to 250, but instead, as you can see, the peak is actually 250 um, 251 to a thousand and then a thousand plus and whenever you're doing data like this uh. With this, the thousand plus i mean there's people ten thousand, fifty thousand a hundred thousand. So it's not going to be that bell curve data, there's gon na be a massive tail.

So if anything, this data is actually understating the situation of what's going on um. If anything, the way i try to do all this is be as conservative as i can and just prove the data. So anyway, shout out to this. This is one of my discord.

Members. All the props goes to him kind of figuring this mouth out, but basically, if he was taking the average of it, the number the vote, the minimum. Let's look at the minimum. Of course, you can look at the average and the maximum, but i'm saying it for the sake of this video, this discussion, if we're taking the minimum, we know everything else is better because this is like kind of a worst case scenario situation.

So if you do the minimum based on the number of votes and the shares that they would possibly have in those different tranches, that brings us up to 1.2 billion shares. Very very, very interesting, and obviously this is all just based on the average shares held per person and like where it possibly comes out to be based on these percentages that everyone voted so at a minimum if we're talking about 1.2 billion shares. Why is that so? Impactful well, as you can see here, the float for amc um - and this is also validated by these uh - this data from amc, the outstanding shares 450 million. If you look at the free throw we're around 418 million, that's exactly where you got this data.

That is three as in 3x, the possible float for amc. How is that possible matt? What does that mean? How can there be 300 of ownership? You can't own three more times three times more than something that's like in existence like i get it, our brains are all firing. How does this possibly happen and remember this is the minimum case average and max get even higher. So here's what i want to explain to you.

Let's say that person, a owns 1 million shares right a lends to b b shorts. Those 1 million shares to c c now owns 1 million shares and then continues this chain out c lens to d and just picture this continuing out as far as you want it so basically a owns, they lend it because why not lend it you get. You get paid that interest, it's a way to make extra money b's like hey. I want to short it.

I think it's going down, so they loan it from a then they short it because they short it. Someone has to buy it in this case, it's c. So this one million shares got cycled from a to b to c to d. You could see it just ping-ponging back and forth and in the end it's the same.

One million shares couple important things to discuss here. A and c are both legitimate owners. They both own a million shares yeah, it's the same million shares, and this is why i'm getting back to that 300. It's the same 1 million shares and they're both legitimate owners and this entire scenario.

I guess i should start with this. Everything i just explained here is completely legal. This is how our system works. This is how the stock market works right now, if you don't think that shorting should be allowed at all like.

Basically, these two steps right here, um, that's a completely different discussion. I'd be willing to have that, but in the end, what i just explained is completely legal and that's exactly how ownership and short interest exceed 100. It's because of this daisy chain effect. It is very, very important to understand, so what i just said is legal: how does it get illegal? Well, it becomes illegal when right here, a lends to b, if we just got rid of this, and for this would happen where uh basically b would call up a prime broker.

This hedge fund b would call up the prime broker and be like hey man. I want to short uh a million shares of whatever stock uh. Let me do it and they're like okay, yeah cool, you do it take that position and if that prime broker does not accurately locate those shares like if, if they were never properly borrowed, that, then, is when we're talking about naked shorts, um. So right here b, did it without those shares ever properly being borrowed.

Those shares were lent to c c thinks that they're the owner of legitimate shares, but in this situation they would be synthetic shares because they were never properly borrowed and you can see that this daisy chain continues. So here's the situation that we're dealing with let's go back to this minimum case of 1.2 billion shares the issue right now is we don't know like you, don't know how big these different daisy chains get? How far does a legitimate one go? How far does the naked short one go? They can split off. It's almost uh, statistically mathematically impossible to really track down, because even in that situation of the naked short those people beyond that, they might have thought they had actual shares, so they own it. They lend it and then that next guy shorting it he thinks that we don't know that the original cause like we don't know where the root of this tree system really starts.

So we don't know how to break it down. Are there naked shorts going on? Yes, are there legitimate shorts going on? Yes, the issue that we've gotten to is like and how we've gotten these huge ownership is like in the end. We don't know whatever one you want to take once again. I just keep referencing this minimum case because why not be as conservative as possible if we're talking about the 1.2 billion shares, we're at this moment in time, not really sure when like how to really track down? What's going on here, because even in this situation that a prime broker is loaning out the shares and um they never located them, and then a hedge fund took that short.

It was a naked short produced. A synthetic share it is, the onus is on that prime broker to buy them off the market, which is cool, but my argument is the damage is already done because, let's say the prime broker allowed this situation to happen without ever locating the shorts right and then It could prompt this situation where now person c thinks that they own a million shares. They lend it out to d, and the daisy chain continues so a couple days later, because it's t plus two potentially t t plus six and really there's other ways to do it once again, a whole standalone, video prime broker comes in and be like. Oh sorry, i messed that one up they buy a million shares off the market.

Well, they didn't stop the damage being done c, already led to d which led to e, which led to f, which led to g. So, even if they came in and did what they were supposed to, oh sorry, we made our mistake, then buying the shares by back off the market and letting them disappear into the ether does not solve our problem. Folks, because, like we don't know what entire like root system was really built off of these illegitimate shares, that's the situation we're dealing with. Is we just don't know? What's good, what's bad, we don't know the proportions of either and like it could be a bad bad situation.

Mathematically. Is it possible that 1.2 billion shares is a completely legitimate thing? Yes, mathematically it. It is in reality, though, is a decent portion of this probably naked shorts. Yes, uh, there's a point where i can say here: mathematically: yes, it could be a hundred percent, it could be zero percent, but in the end we also live in reality.

Where we know it's not a hundred percent, we know it's not zero and we just don't know how out of hand these naked shorts got um. So i just want to explain that yeah, the 1.2 billion mathematically theoretically functionally could those all be legitimate. Yes, is that probably reality, i highly highly doubt it. In fact, i'd bet any amount of money that some considerable portion is um naked synthetic shares, whatever you want to call them illegitimate shares that got out of hand.

That's just my own opinion. Um, obviously make sure you do your own due diligence on it, but that is how i'm interpreting this situation. So if you have any questions about that and how this daisy chaining happens, uh drop it on a live stream. Leave a comment below i'll do my best to respond to all of you, so with all that out of the way, let's get into the numbers specific to amc uh.

Today there was a net increase of 2.6 million shares, so that means that our shares on loan are probably just under 150 million. This is how we started today off just under 147.. So with that increase, i bet we're close to 150 once again um the utilization started today off at 99.75. After today, i bet we're either at or very, very close to 100 and the estimated short interest is 23.14.

Just so, you know the days to cover based on the two week: training average trading volume we're at 3.4 days and the cost to borrow is slightly down and we are at 13.73 once again. That is all for amc and in terms of gme, the borrow change. Uh pretty much net neutral, not much of a change. The estimated short interest is 23.56 percent utilization.

Fifty nine point one eight percent and the as of now the days to cover on that two week. Average is two point three eight days and i just i like to illustrate that difference in the cost of borrow gmes is way way, lower one point, six, three percent, and that's just because the shares are much much easier to find um with the utilization having 40 Percent more to go. That means that they're easy to track down. Hence the cost to borrow is 1.63, while, on the other hand, this pie is almost completely filled, we are almost at a hundred percent.

Hence why the cost to borrow now is almost 14 previously was up to 25. Amc is pretty much the definition of hard to borrow and they're just tough for the brokers to locate when they're tough to locate the fees go higher. And this is the point where i stray a little bit more away from the data and just pitching my own theories. I it makes sense to me that in scenarios where your utilization is very high, i would assume that's when you see the spikes in failures to deliver and the spikes in naked shorts, because right there, it is very, very tough for brokers to locate shares.

That can be borrowed and when they're tough to locate if they're still allowing shorts. Well, i would assume this is the environment where we see naked shorts. Once again, i don't necessarily have the data to support it, but in my mind, that theory makes a lot of sense that you would see a spike in failures to deliver and naked shorts when your utilization is this close to 100 percent um. That's my going theory right now: i'd love to know your thoughts on that in a comment below.

In fact, i would love to know your thoughts on this entire thing of what's going on amc and jimmy in a comment below if you enjoyed this video and you think it has some value to the rest of the community, i would appreciate it if you could Drop a like leave a comment and hit that subscribe button, because that type of engagement really does help with promoting this video to other people uh through the youtube algorithm. I appreciate you spending the time to check this out. I'd love to know your thoughts below and until i catch you next time from me and chair best of luck in the markets, you.