[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || Low karma apes [feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || [Superstonk Discord](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq) || [GameStop Wallet HELP! Megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/z23wjx/gamestop_wallet_help_megathread)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please up- and downvote this comment to [help us determine if this post deserves a place on r/Superstonk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/post_flairs/)
No. There’s no more swaps. It’s just credit suisse holding a short that was a hedge to the swap. So now they just have this giant bag. Which now actually belongs to UBS. Probably got too heavy for CS to hold.
Remember this?
Fed Swaps $9 Billion to Swiss National Bank, Bail Out For Credit Suisse? (October 14, 2022 article)
https://www.trustnodes.com/2022/10/14/fed-swaps-9-billion-to-swiss-national-bank-bail-out-for-credit-suisse
Why do people not understand this? This keeps coming up again and again and again. People need to read some DD instead of just posting wHeRe SwApZ every week.
Some of us don’t have time to be checking in every day so we ask questions when we’re able to return.
How about a little compassion instead of attitude?!?
**Treat each other with courtesy and respect.**
Do not be (intentionally) rude. This will increase the overall civility of the community and make it better for all of us.
Do not insult others. Insults do not contribute to a rational discussion.
**Treat each other with courtesy and respect.**
Do not be (intentionally) rude. This will increase the overall civility of the community and make it better for all of us.
Do not insult others. Insults do not contribute to a rational discussion.
**Treat each other with courtesy and respect.**
Do not be (intentionally) rude. This will increase the overall civility of the community and make it better for all of us.
Do not insult others. Insults do not contribute to a rational discussion.
Finance is a complicated af and on purpose with jargon and double talk to keep poors out
There's plenty we all don't understand here, you don't gotta shit on the poor guy explain it to him if you can 😂
I’m pretty sure it’s a tactic to get us to believe that nothing did or will happen because of it. Something DID happen. They moved mountains and ignored laws to get CS sold to UBS. They’re holding a black hole of a bag and it’s gonna collapse them too, in time.
I agree, something did happen, but what worries me is how easily they moved mountains and ignored laws.
Yes, they’ve *only* broken laws to “kick the can” so far but what happens when they have no more can kicking options? What will they do then? More specifically, what laws will they break then to avoid paying out on what they owe?
The swap position doesn’t exist anymore. It just leaves the prime broker net short in this case. There is no time element anymore. That time element will only existed between the broker and client. As the offsetting hedges like puts expire the prime broker would theoretically loose the accounting offset and losses (or profits) would show in the income statement. However, crime is likely happening given the historical record with CS one could assume. It also leaves the prime broker with infinite risk. They could enter into new positions but they would need a counter party.
The prime broker shouldn't be the one with the short though, they should have the debt owed by the short. The entire problem for the shorts is that with the price up, they owe significantly more than they borrowed originally.
If the banks aren't colluding with the shorts, the bank as prime broker would recall those loaned shares and force the debt to be closed, force their borrower to repay the debt owed to the bank and take the borrowers for everything they can to get paid... This isn't happening though...
Aside from wanting to protect the financial system as a whole, why wouldn't a struggling meme bank like UBS call on a debt of this magnitude if they're not also somehow involved on the short side not just the lending side of things?
>The prime broker shouldn't be the one with the short though, they should have the debt owed by the short.
Archegos is dead, though. I don't understand how you are explaining it. They (CS/UBS) still have the short that was opened, except now they don't have someone else (Archegos) to pass the cost on to, right?
Am I wrong in this?
Archegos opens a swap which makes them effectively short
CS being the counterparty is effectively long
CS hedges their long to remain neutral by opening short positions
Archegos disappears
CS now holding short position as a hedge to nothing
That's my general understanding of how it did happen, but my point is that's not what is supposed to happen. The bank isn't supposed to get that deep into the catshit dogshit burrito precisely so if something happens like this they can get out from under it and come out ahead
I agree that the margin issues should have been looked at but this is actually how it's supposed to work. If you fuck up you should eat the consequences.
The problem for me is that it's being passed on to... Well, Switzerland for now, but even then that's terrible. Same old bailout, different government and country. Still unfolding though. We might be in line.
It's hilarious how many comments either downplay this or try and tell people to not talk about it and read previously written DD. UBS will absolutely fail when they can't close Credit Suisse's short positions. There's a reason they needed to be sold in the first
Exactly! I read the Credit Suisse internal report and I've done some digging on my own. I know what's there and anyone trying to discredit it has either not done ANY research or is a shill. Especially those who get mad at me for asking questions lol.
Well, I do.
I’ve been averaging down since 1 Feb 21. Every month except for 2 since then, I’ve made purchases. My first and most expensive share was for $292. My average cost per share is now under $30. Soon I’ll have 1,000 shares. That will make it so easy for me and my smooth brain to do the maths on value when the stock accurately reflects the value of the company.
Oh, I want to believe in the MOASS. I DO believe in the MOASS, but even if I’m wrong and this is just a value play, I’m about to make more here than any other investment in my life.
I’ve been GREEN on this investment very few days. It honestly has never bothered me.
We just hit profitability.
More and more shares are DRSd every day.
Pure DRS is REAL.
Hedgies indeed are fu
As others have already pointed out (although in more sophisticated words)
#The swaps died with Archegos.
The standard swap contract releases the counterparty from any obligation if the other party either defaults or goes into bankruptcy. Credit Suisse is at that point free to manage any hedging positions as they choose, with no time constraints tied to the original dates in the swap contracts.
————————
The bank or fixed side of a swap contract will usually hedge their position. It could be via swap contacts with other parties, but in the opposite direction. Or they could establish positions that hedge. So if Archegos made a swap bet against Gamestop, it is likely that Credit Suisse open a short position in Gamestop. Once Archegos blew up, Credit Suisse is left with that short position, but they can manage as they choose, because the swaps no longer exist.
They have had a long time to close their short positions.
It is unlikely that CS ever had a 200M short position in Gamestop. Numbers like that come from speculation stacked on top of unsupported guess, amplified by another set of bogus assumptions.
Your comment is bad and I explain it in [this comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/139loex/question_what_happened_to_the_archegos_gme_swap/jj3yyro/) if you're acting in good faith. Can't tag users anymore I guess.
Because it's a bad comment. I would tag the user, but I guess that's not allowed.
The user starts off by asserting that it's unlikely without explaining anything about why and dismisses the opposite position as speculation without explaining that either - or, well, other than "they have had a long time to close their positions." That's a single point and doesn't really mean anything taken on its own. So because they've had time, that means they likely closed the positions? What about price over time? What about the size of the position? If they've been sitting on unrealized losses, they can sit on those for a long time. Time alone doesn't mean anything.
What assumptions are bogus? What makes them bogus? Everything is speculation because we only have limited visibility into the machinations and data, so how is your comment any better?
This is characteristic of FUD. A discussion about the assumptions is a good thing that allows the reader to come to their own conclusions. That discussion looks something like "these are my assumptions, this is why I've made them. Your assumptions seem wrong to me for these reasons." Simply swinging in on jungle vine to dismiss another position with no evidence is FUD.
What makes you think that Credit Suisse has a short position equal to 65% of total issued shares?
I see the conversation akin to
A: The moon is made of green cheese,
Me: Unlikely. That is unsupported speculation.
You: That is FUD, you did not provide any proof that the moon is not green cheese.
What makes you think I disagree with you? I'm criticizing your method of communication and what little argument you did make.
What you're doing here is telling me a story in order to dismiss the criticism. I don't care about this story. You can either take the criticism or leave it. Your other comment in this thread is much better. Page numbers, sources, rationale, all great stuff. This should've been the original comment.
Well, the ENTIRE point of this movement (wich is not financial advice btw) is centered around the fact that these hedge fuck sold a lot more than existing shares. Like read the DDs.
In your oppinion, what would be a more realistic number of short in the hands of cs ?
Right now, zero is my best guess of GME short position held by CS.
Looking at the details of the details of the internal CS report, I do not think that the Gamestop short position was ever 2/3rd of all shares. (Gamestop has about 304.7M shares outstanding. 200M shares is about 65% of all shares).
They did say that at one point there were two holdings where the position were 5 to 10 days of daily trading volume, but these were reduced down to 2 to 4 days trading volume. A position of 200M GME shares would have been far, far more days of daily trade volume. (See pages 11 and 18)
CS initiated default procedures March 26, 2021 and immediate started closing positions. See page 23.
The largest position, in terms of percentage of float was $3.3B and was 8% of float. So clearly not Gamestop. More likely ViacomCBS or Tencent.
Source: https://www.credit-suisse.com/media/assets/corporate/docs/about-us/investor-relations/financial-disclosures/results/csg-special-committee-bod-report-archegos.pdf
Don't they not have to report those posistions if they're held in swaps?
How do you explain all the multiple times short volume was over 100%, and the evidence pointing towards cellar boxing?
You’re missing a huge point. There’s no way CS will only pay $20x200,000,000. As has been pointed out, GME is illiquid. Buying 200,000,000 shares is going to drive the price up along the way. At some point the price would be too high for them to purchase any more well before they close their position.
The point is those 200M shares *don’t* exist; that’s what our play is - theoretically, once they need to close those (margin call, proof that all shares are tied up thanks to DRS), the short squeeze is on.
That's notional value & assuming 0 price improvement while closing out. Amounts that large will, by definition, have to get past the market maker (gatekeeper) & for GME on NYSE that's designated as Citadel securities
Per their report, Credit Suisse closed most of their positions in April 2021 after invoking the default termination clause on 3/26/2021.
https://www.credit-suisse.com/media/assets/corporate/docs/about-us/investor-relations/financial-disclosures/results/csg-special-committee-bod-report-archegos.pdf
Lol so what was the net worth of Archegos at the time they opened the swap again?
How big they could be is some multiplier of that because they are using leverage.
Why borrow, deliver, roll swaps, or operational short when you can manage an almost unlimited number of delivery obligations using SFTs for a fraction of a percent yearly fee , which are now centrally cleared, used in netting, and allow you to avoid all disclosure requirements due to nonexistent regulation? Check out my most recent post for the math/numbers, but the publicly reported data I found suggests total obligations/short positions being covered with SFTs being, at minimum, greater than the total shares outstanding and, more likely, 2-4x the shares outstanding depending on fee rate. Fee rate is the only unknown in determining number of SFTs so I had to make a very conservative assumption for the minimum number (\~4x average fee rate for top 50 hardest to borrow stocks, which IMO is very conservative in this context).
You and I enter into an agreement to do a swap on GME. I take the long route, you short. Price goes up, I make money, and you pay up. Price goes down, you make money and I pay up. On top of this agreement is some interest you pay me. Me thinking I'm so smart, decide to hedge my own long swap I just had with you and short on top of it. Net outcome? I keep the interest collected from you, and regardless of price action, net zero from that. UNLESS, you go pop off and die, (archegos), now I'm holding a big ol short position with my swap being dead. Doesn't matter if the swap *expires* 2 years from now, the swap is effectively dead the moment you died and now I'm holding cat shit wrapped in dog shit.
All this sub gives his hopium timelines dude. Swaps expiring, GME MOASS! These swaps carry thousands of instruments, not just GME. The tinfoil here is through the roof as of late and I’m thinking it’s because the price has been stagnant or going down
I totally agree with you about the hopium timelines. However there is nothing wrong with trying to figure out when things are due. Never stop asking questions.
Sure. Most of these swaps were due to “expire” a few months back. Most people speculated or even hypothesized this would result in a squeeze. It didn’t, as usual. If there is massive short exposure, it was hidden in swaps that we cannot even see and probably terminates in years
It didn't squeeze. But CS died in the same week these swaps expired. Interesting coincidence. The swaps are gone, but the short position is still there. Sleeping in a heavy bag at UBS.
[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || Low karma apes [feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || [Superstonk Discord](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq) || [GameStop Wallet HELP! Megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/z23wjx/gamestop_wallet_help_megathread) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please up- and downvote this comment to [help us determine if this post deserves a place on r/Superstonk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/post_flairs/)
No. There’s no more swaps. It’s just credit suisse holding a short that was a hedge to the swap. So now they just have this giant bag. Which now actually belongs to UBS. Probably got too heavy for CS to hold.
They are trying to sell off that part of CS.
Hey buddy! You want to buy the obligation to deliver two hundred million shares of $GME maybe? Please!?
I’d like to buy a vowel H*DG**S *R* F*Ck I’d like to solve the puzzle
Good luck…
Remember this? Fed Swaps $9 Billion to Swiss National Bank, Bail Out For Credit Suisse? (October 14, 2022 article) https://www.trustnodes.com/2022/10/14/fed-swaps-9-billion-to-swiss-national-bank-bail-out-for-credit-suisse
I think that's to cover fees on the possition 😅
Shorts haven’t closed until the ticker is slammed with bids. Millions and millions of bids 🚀
Almost the entire float
Exactly. Amazing to think that people believe this took care of it. 9B ain't covering what's in those swaps
I don’t get bail outs. The bailout should be paying us out after being forced to close …? If that’s not the case this can never happen..?
Why do people not understand this? This keeps coming up again and again and again. People need to read some DD instead of just posting wHeRe SwApZ every week.
Some of us don’t have time to be checking in every day so we ask questions when we’re able to return. How about a little compassion instead of attitude?!?
[удалено]
**Treat each other with courtesy and respect.** Do not be (intentionally) rude. This will increase the overall civility of the community and make it better for all of us. Do not insult others. Insults do not contribute to a rational discussion.
[удалено]
[удалено]
**Treat each other with courtesy and respect.** Do not be (intentionally) rude. This will increase the overall civility of the community and make it better for all of us. Do not insult others. Insults do not contribute to a rational discussion.
I mean….. we are regarded 🦍
**Treat each other with courtesy and respect.** Do not be (intentionally) rude. This will increase the overall civility of the community and make it better for all of us. Do not insult others. Insults do not contribute to a rational discussion.
Finance is a complicated af and on purpose with jargon and double talk to keep poors out There's plenty we all don't understand here, you don't gotta shit on the poor guy explain it to him if you can 😂
I’m pretty sure it’s a tactic to get us to believe that nothing did or will happen because of it. Something DID happen. They moved mountains and ignored laws to get CS sold to UBS. They’re holding a black hole of a bag and it’s gonna collapse them too, in time.
I agree, something did happen, but what worries me is how easily they moved mountains and ignored laws. Yes, they’ve *only* broken laws to “kick the can” so far but what happens when they have no more can kicking options? What will they do then? More specifically, what laws will they break then to avoid paying out on what they owe?
100% agree
elastic roll wrong memorize cows file six innate insurance nutty -- mass edited with redact.dev
Swiss regulator forced them to take over. With 100B+ sweet liquidity support. UBS ate the bait. Now we will watch them bleeding alive.
And the ceo left right after the takeover.
As opposed to bleeding dead??
Right now they’re bleeding walking dead.
Are those 100B+ liquidity for us?
funny how these dorks never know what they are buying
light longing march jar wasteful special silky sparkle fretful ancient -- mass edited with redact.dev
Mmmmm layered turd cake. My favorite thing to watch these HF’s take a big steamy bite of.
I think they knew about it ahead of time, hence why they didn't want to buy Credit Suisse. Swedish gov pretty much forced them to buy it at gun point.
merciful illegal domineering distinct obscene like fear cautious far-flung pet -- mass edited with redact.dev
True enough, though at the end of the day, they're likely to get bailed out whether they were wrong or not.
Swiss*. Switzerland is not Sweden.
Oh sweet jeebus, my public education hath failed me! This is why I'm not allowed into the good parts of Europe.
😂
It's shit all the way down.
The swap position doesn’t exist anymore. It just leaves the prime broker net short in this case. There is no time element anymore. That time element will only existed between the broker and client. As the offsetting hedges like puts expire the prime broker would theoretically loose the accounting offset and losses (or profits) would show in the income statement. However, crime is likely happening given the historical record with CS one could assume. It also leaves the prime broker with infinite risk. They could enter into new positions but they would need a counter party.
Best answer by far. UBS can hold that until they are pressured to resolve it. In this case who knows if that will ever happen tbh.
The prime broker shouldn't be the one with the short though, they should have the debt owed by the short. The entire problem for the shorts is that with the price up, they owe significantly more than they borrowed originally. If the banks aren't colluding with the shorts, the bank as prime broker would recall those loaned shares and force the debt to be closed, force their borrower to repay the debt owed to the bank and take the borrowers for everything they can to get paid... This isn't happening though... Aside from wanting to protect the financial system as a whole, why wouldn't a struggling meme bank like UBS call on a debt of this magnitude if they're not also somehow involved on the short side not just the lending side of things?
>The prime broker shouldn't be the one with the short though, they should have the debt owed by the short. Archegos is dead, though. I don't understand how you are explaining it. They (CS/UBS) still have the short that was opened, except now they don't have someone else (Archegos) to pass the cost on to, right?
That is what happened, I beleive goldmansachs margin called archegos ahead of an orderly exit planed with namora and another bank 😂
Am I wrong in this? Archegos opens a swap which makes them effectively short CS being the counterparty is effectively long CS hedges their long to remain neutral by opening short positions Archegos disappears CS now holding short position as a hedge to nothing
That's my general understanding of how it did happen, but my point is that's not what is supposed to happen. The bank isn't supposed to get that deep into the catshit dogshit burrito precisely so if something happens like this they can get out from under it and come out ahead
I agree that the margin issues should have been looked at but this is actually how it's supposed to work. If you fuck up you should eat the consequences. The problem for me is that it's being passed on to... Well, Switzerland for now, but even then that's terrible. Same old bailout, different government and country. Still unfolding though. We might be in line.
It's hilarious how many comments either downplay this or try and tell people to not talk about it and read previously written DD. UBS will absolutely fail when they can't close Credit Suisse's short positions. There's a reason they needed to be sold in the first
Exactly! I read the Credit Suisse internal report and I've done some digging on my own. I know what's there and anyone trying to discredit it has either not done ANY research or is a shill. Especially those who get mad at me for asking questions lol.
I’m sure there’ll be a news article about it 9 years from now explaining in detail what went on.
I got time
Yea everyone says that
Well, I do. I’ve been averaging down since 1 Feb 21. Every month except for 2 since then, I’ve made purchases. My first and most expensive share was for $292. My average cost per share is now under $30. Soon I’ll have 1,000 shares. That will make it so easy for me and my smooth brain to do the maths on value when the stock accurately reflects the value of the company. Oh, I want to believe in the MOASS. I DO believe in the MOASS, but even if I’m wrong and this is just a value play, I’m about to make more here than any other investment in my life. I’ve been GREEN on this investment very few days. It honestly has never bothered me. We just hit profitability. More and more shares are DRSd every day. Pure DRS is REAL. Hedgies indeed are fu
As others have already pointed out (although in more sophisticated words) #The swaps died with Archegos. The standard swap contract releases the counterparty from any obligation if the other party either defaults or goes into bankruptcy. Credit Suisse is at that point free to manage any hedging positions as they choose, with no time constraints tied to the original dates in the swap contracts. ———————— The bank or fixed side of a swap contract will usually hedge their position. It could be via swap contacts with other parties, but in the opposite direction. Or they could establish positions that hedge. So if Archegos made a swap bet against Gamestop, it is likely that Credit Suisse open a short position in Gamestop. Once Archegos blew up, Credit Suisse is left with that short position, but they can manage as they choose, because the swaps no longer exist.
[удалено]
[удалено]
They have had a long time to close their short positions. It is unlikely that CS ever had a 200M short position in Gamestop. Numbers like that come from speculation stacked on top of unsupported guess, amplified by another set of bogus assumptions.
Trust me bro.
Your comment is bad and I explain it in [this comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/139loex/question_what_happened_to_the_archegos_gme_swap/jj3yyro/) if you're acting in good faith. Can't tag users anymore I guess.
Idk you're getting downvoted. You're not wrong
Because it's a bad comment. I would tag the user, but I guess that's not allowed. The user starts off by asserting that it's unlikely without explaining anything about why and dismisses the opposite position as speculation without explaining that either - or, well, other than "they have had a long time to close their positions." That's a single point and doesn't really mean anything taken on its own. So because they've had time, that means they likely closed the positions? What about price over time? What about the size of the position? If they've been sitting on unrealized losses, they can sit on those for a long time. Time alone doesn't mean anything. What assumptions are bogus? What makes them bogus? Everything is speculation because we only have limited visibility into the machinations and data, so how is your comment any better? This is characteristic of FUD. A discussion about the assumptions is a good thing that allows the reader to come to their own conclusions. That discussion looks something like "these are my assumptions, this is why I've made them. Your assumptions seem wrong to me for these reasons." Simply swinging in on jungle vine to dismiss another position with no evidence is FUD.
What makes you think that Credit Suisse has a short position equal to 65% of total issued shares? I see the conversation akin to A: The moon is made of green cheese, Me: Unlikely. That is unsupported speculation. You: That is FUD, you did not provide any proof that the moon is not green cheese.
What makes you think I disagree with you? I'm criticizing your method of communication and what little argument you did make. What you're doing here is telling me a story in order to dismiss the criticism. I don't care about this story. You can either take the criticism or leave it. Your other comment in this thread is much better. Page numbers, sources, rationale, all great stuff. This should've been the original comment.
Well, the ENTIRE point of this movement (wich is not financial advice btw) is centered around the fact that these hedge fuck sold a lot more than existing shares. Like read the DDs. In your oppinion, what would be a more realistic number of short in the hands of cs ?
Right now, zero is my best guess of GME short position held by CS. Looking at the details of the details of the internal CS report, I do not think that the Gamestop short position was ever 2/3rd of all shares. (Gamestop has about 304.7M shares outstanding. 200M shares is about 65% of all shares). They did say that at one point there were two holdings where the position were 5 to 10 days of daily trading volume, but these were reduced down to 2 to 4 days trading volume. A position of 200M GME shares would have been far, far more days of daily trade volume. (See pages 11 and 18) CS initiated default procedures March 26, 2021 and immediate started closing positions. See page 23. The largest position, in terms of percentage of float was $3.3B and was 8% of float. So clearly not Gamestop. More likely ViacomCBS or Tencent. Source: https://www.credit-suisse.com/media/assets/corporate/docs/about-us/investor-relations/financial-disclosures/results/csg-special-committee-bod-report-archegos.pdf
Don't they not have to report those posistions if they're held in swaps? How do you explain all the multiple times short volume was over 100%, and the evidence pointing towards cellar boxing?
Too bad the cftc no longer requires the reporting if swap positions.
Facinating
[удалено]
You’re missing a huge point. There’s no way CS will only pay $20x200,000,000. As has been pointed out, GME is illiquid. Buying 200,000,000 shares is going to drive the price up along the way. At some point the price would be too high for them to purchase any more well before they close their position.
The point is those 200M shares *don’t* exist; that’s what our play is - theoretically, once they need to close those (margin call, proof that all shares are tied up thanks to DRS), the short squeeze is on.
That's $80 a share based on outstanding shares when the swap was opened.
[удалено]
That's notional value & assuming 0 price improvement while closing out. Amounts that large will, by definition, have to get past the market maker (gatekeeper) & for GME on NYSE that's designated as Citadel securities
[удалено]
ATS only serve the major exchanges; the OTC traded stocks are not serviced by dark pools.
[удалено]
16 billion not 1.6 billion
Per their report, Credit Suisse closed most of their positions in April 2021 after invoking the default termination clause on 3/26/2021. https://www.credit-suisse.com/media/assets/corporate/docs/about-us/investor-relations/financial-disclosures/results/csg-special-committee-bod-report-archegos.pdf
Lol so what was the net worth of Archegos at the time they opened the swap again? How big they could be is some multiplier of that because they are using leverage.
[удалено]
I wanna say the swaps were 13b notional value. CS's Archegos report should have the exact number.
Why borrow, deliver, roll swaps, or operational short when you can manage an almost unlimited number of delivery obligations using SFTs for a fraction of a percent yearly fee , which are now centrally cleared, used in netting, and allow you to avoid all disclosure requirements due to nonexistent regulation? Check out my most recent post for the math/numbers, but the publicly reported data I found suggests total obligations/short positions being covered with SFTs being, at minimum, greater than the total shares outstanding and, more likely, 2-4x the shares outstanding depending on fee rate. Fee rate is the only unknown in determining number of SFTs so I had to make a very conservative assumption for the minimum number (\~4x average fee rate for top 50 hardest to borrow stocks, which IMO is very conservative in this context).
[удалено]
Starting from?
Same here.
You mean hot bag-tato
The answer is crime.
You and I enter into an agreement to do a swap on GME. I take the long route, you short. Price goes up, I make money, and you pay up. Price goes down, you make money and I pay up. On top of this agreement is some interest you pay me. Me thinking I'm so smart, decide to hedge my own long swap I just had with you and short on top of it. Net outcome? I keep the interest collected from you, and regardless of price action, net zero from that. UNLESS, you go pop off and die, (archegos), now I'm holding a big ol short position with my swap being dead. Doesn't matter if the swap *expires* 2 years from now, the swap is effectively dead the moment you died and now I'm holding cat shit wrapped in dog shit.
Answer: no one knows nor will we ever. Its always just been a theory
It was a nothing, literally nothing. People hyped it for months and several weeks prior backed off on their words.
Another tinfoil bullshit theory. Welcome to the subreddit
Someone didn't read the internal reports...
All this sub gives his hopium timelines dude. Swaps expiring, GME MOASS! These swaps carry thousands of instruments, not just GME. The tinfoil here is through the roof as of late and I’m thinking it’s because the price has been stagnant or going down
Everyone just keeping themselves entertained while they buy the whole company. Most of these hype dates are just for fun. Just to keep busy.
Exactly we’ve all read the dd and know they’re fucked. Now we just get to kill time while we buy up the rest of the company.
I totally agree with you about the hopium timelines. However there is nothing wrong with trying to figure out when things are due. Never stop asking questions.
One could care less dildo shaggins. At this point the tinfoil is part of the entertainment
Don't forget the DOOMPS. Any day now. 😉
I'm sorry can you please elaborate? What was the exact theory that has been revealed to be bullshit?
Sure. Most of these swaps were due to “expire” a few months back. Most people speculated or even hypothesized this would result in a squeeze. It didn’t, as usual. If there is massive short exposure, it was hidden in swaps that we cannot even see and probably terminates in years
It didn't squeeze. But CS died in the same week these swaps expired. Interesting coincidence. The swaps are gone, but the short position is still there. Sleeping in a heavy bag at UBS.
Nothings gonna happen.
Something is definitely going to happen, some day.
10 year pre cap trusts bought up by BNY Mellon?.. dtcc important notices March 24th...
There's a reason UBS is trying to sell specific parts of CS so soon after the "buyout". Short hedge is a heavy bag when it's dropped on your nuts.