DISCLAIMER: I am not a financial advisor. This is a DD (Due Diligence) post in regard to the upcoming squeeze aimed at AMC. The information is a collection of research from credible sources with some of my personal thoughts on the topic.
NOTE: ANYONE WHO IS INFORMED ON THE MARKET AND HOW IT WORKS, SKIP TO PART 2.
This DD will cover more than average DD's since WSB has gained a large following of new traders who can benefit from a full description.
Part 1: $AMC, what is it? 🎞️🎟️
---Source--- AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. is an American movie theater chain headquartered in Leawood, Kansas, and the largest movie theater chain in the world. Founded in 1920, AMC has the largest share of the U.S. theater market ahead of Regal and Cinemark Theatres.
Part 1.2: What is a squeeze?🤏🏼
A squeeze in the market ($GME, $AMC) is a phenomenon that occurs when shorts have to be covered, especially by high class traders (hedge fund managers).
Part 1.3:What are shorts, why are they popular with the top 1%?
In short selling, a position is opened by borrowing shares of a stock that the investor believes will decrease in value by a set future date . The investor then sells these borrowed shares to buyers willing to pay market price. Before the borrowed shares must be returned, the trader is betting on the prices decline and then can purchase them at a lower cost. This stategy is HIGH RISK HIGH REWARD.
Part 1.4 (final intro peice): Why do squeezes cause losses up top?
Simple. In the case of $GME the hedge funds bet that $GME would fall. Logically, they should have been right. But as I'm sure everyone knows, WSB and working class investors from all over the world flipped the trend on its head. So, since the hedge funds bet on a fall they had to cover the losses caused by their BORROWED positions becoming absolutely useless (nice).
Part 2: The stats on $AMC. 📈🧠
---Paraphrased from "Yahoo Finance", Some IMO.---
AMC has 44.6 million shorted shares and a grand total of 101.95 million shares. Now what everyone is waiting for it when shorted shares become useless and the hedge funds have to cover what they bet and lost on. Today's target (1/29) was to beat $8.63 and we closed at $13.29! This short will expire in 0.5 trading days (Feb 1/21) So Monday when they're forced to cover the $8.63 they will have to buy it at its current price to cover their bet. Raising the price up even higher from said stimulus. There are 9 different short stocks between $1.98-$5.96. Over the next few trading days it is going to be a strong squeeze. $AMC is standing where $GME did a week ago. Hold your ground. Gains coming in hot next week.
Part 3: What are our targets for buying and selling?💵📈💵
THIS REQUIRES DIAMOND HANDS 💎👐
From what I have read, buying into $AMC at $17 or below is a safe bet. My exit plan is to secure some profit next week as the squeeze reaches it's height, and reinvest (into $AMC) a comfortable amount based on collected gain. I plan to keep shares for up to 12-18 months so long as $AMC keeps on the track we can see now. AGAIN, I AM NOT A FINANCIAL ADVISOR. MY WORD IS NOT LAW.
Part 4: Beware The Big Man (Reason for Holding)🏦🚫
Big money managers and short sellers are going to manipulate the stock in the after hours session to scare us investors out of buying and holding with the intent of executing their shorts as planned or to cushion the blow from failed investment. Again, 👐💎.
Part 5: The Conclusion on $AMC in short (wording wise) 🚀🚀
•The statistics on this stock are legit.
•The company is longstanding (70+ years)
•The company is legit
•A squeeze is seemingly inevitable
•Being the largest theatre company, post COVID gains are likely as cinemas will re-open.
•The hedge funds are in a position to be bent over again via their shorts in $AMC.
•Last but not least, I know alot of you autists lost alot of money gambling during highs on $KTOV, $XSPA, $GNUS, and many others... So why not get some tendies for once.
AGAIN I AM NOT A FINANCIAL ADVISOR, THIS IS A COLLECTION OF DATA AND RESEARCH BASED ON RECENT TRENDS AND $AMC's POSITION IN THE MARKET AS OF CLOSE ON (1/29/21) I AM NOT LIABLE FOR LOSSES OR THE REASON FOR GAIN. THIS POST IS STRICTLY FOR SHARING INFORMATION GATHERED.
TL/DR: 💎👐📈🚀🌑
(typed on mobile, computer format may be fucked up)
Edit: Monkey brain was on overdrive while typing, I know shorts do not expire but monkey brain like thinking about put options.
I am also aware alot of us are receiving different numbers regarding floating shares and shares outstanding. I included the name of my source, take it up with yahoo not me. Just trying to help the people who need it.

GME Short Squeeze What Comes Next Part 3
Hello all,
Before I begin I would like to address something I have been encountering on my posts in the comments section. I keep receiving some hate concerning my opinions and I want to be crystal clear that they are just that; opinions. I also want everyone to know that is is meant to be a dialog. I am not trying to pump this stock because truthfully, this goes far beyond us retail investors at this point. What I want is a dialog between all sides to examine this truly fascinating phenomenon that is occurring.
I would also like to clarify something, I am not a bagholder. I do currently hold bags because I own 336 shares at a $194.34 cost basis, however, that total amount is house money that was used from my profits on the first go around.
I also understand some people are tired of hearing about this because it's the same regurgitated form of someone else's post as it keeps circulating in an attempt to retain hype and drive future buying; this is not what this post is about. As investors and individuals involved in the world of finance, this situation should absolutely intrigue us whether or not we are involved. I am here to present my logic on the situation but encourage healthy discussion and debate.
This brings me to my first claim. This is not over. Now, I am not claiming that a squeeze will still occur, I am simply claiming it is not over, for better or for worse. Several things need to take place for this to be completely over, at which point I will either post my gains or my losses from the adventure.
When I say "it" I am referring to this entire phenomenon, not one short squeeze. I do not think these events, "it", is over. This is largely due to retail and institutional purchasing not really changing all that much since we found the bottom and established support at a staggering $60. This support was lost today and found new support at $50. There was very interesting ATH action and I'm not sure what to make of it.
Millions of bag holders (not just WSB) are still holding and in fact, averaging down, thereby purchasing more. These same bag holders are absolutely refusing to sell for such massive losses and in turn are becoming long term investors on the stock if another squeeze isn't to occur. People are picking up speculative positions in the off-chance of another squeeze. Others are determining this as a fair value for the company, not fundamentally, but based on the future prospects of Ryan Cohen and team. Finally, it is nowhere near leaving the global stage with important upcoming dates that we will discuss later.
To examine why it isn't over let's look at both sides of the argument:

Bulls claim it's not over for many reasons that you can find in the hundreds of other bullish posts, so I won't bore you with those details. My argument on the bull side is more along the lines of what I listed above.
Bears claim it is over because there was a 2250% price increase over the course of two weeks, therefore this must be a short squeeze.

I think we can all agree, bear or bull, that something happened. A 2250% increase certainly isn't nothing. The question is...what? I see several possibilities and would like to discuss them in the comments.

The shorts in fact covered and this was a short squeeze.
The shorts partially covered and this was a partial short squeeze, but the price increase was mainly hype and gamma squeezes.
The shorts didn't cover anything and this was a globally hyped price increase in conjunction with several gamma squeezes.
Some combination of the above 3.

First, the data:
Based on morningstar the short interest is showing 78.46%. Now, I think the website is having some issues storing cookies because it will show the outdated 226% unless you open it up in incognito.
Market watch is showing 41.95%
This spread is interesting for sure, my thoughts are some of these calculations are including "synthetic longs" introduced by S3.
It is extremely possible to manipulate these numbers via illegal methods and even legal methods using options. Please see this SEC document to explain how this would work. I am not trying to convince anyone to fit my narrative, but these things occur far more commonly than one would expect. The reasoning is because the fines for committing the crime are far less costly than letting the event take place. Please see FINRA's website for the long, and frequent list of fines being dealt out due to manipulation. A common culprit? Lying about short volume.
Let's use the absolute worst case scenario being reported of 41.95%, which mind you is still extremely high for one stock:
The shorts in fact covered and this was a short squeeze
What's interesting here is even if the shorts 100% covered all of their positions, they very well could have shorted on the way back down. Why wouldn't you? It would be insane to not open a short position when this hit nearly $500 especially if you lost half of your companies money; what better way to get it back? For the remainder of this thesis, I will be assuming that some of the short positions that exist are newly opened positions at a higher price unless someone has a counter-claim as to why that wouldn't be possible/probable.
That would mean 226% was covered on the way up and another 41.95% was reopened on the way back down. Based on the volume and price changes throughout the past two weeks this simply doesn't pass the math check.
The shorts partially covered and this was a partial short squeeze.
Again, using 41.95% this is highly likely and the most reasonable case. Some, probably the worst positions, were covered on the way up.
I think this is precisely what happened, we had some partial shorts covering but for the most part it was gamma squeezes, hype, and FOMO whereby the price started climbing so rapidly it became smarter for the shorts to just wait out the bubble than to actually cover all of their positions.
Again, we fall into a "what-if" scenario regarding shorting on the way back down.
The shorts didn't cover anything and this was a globally hyped price increase in conjunction with several gamma squeezes.
This scenario does not pass the math check using the 41.95% figure.
If the data is being manipulated then this becomes very interesting because if some of the worst positions are still open then that means all of these HF's losses that were reported were strictly interest and they are simply waiting this out for as long as it takes making back their losses on their newly opened short positions in t $300-$400 range.
Sadly, this puts us in the guessing range yet again. We can do the math and see it's possible this scenario exists, however, we would be comparing it against losses reported by the entities that were being squeezed.
There are way to many what-if's for me to me consider this a possibility, but I can't write it off completely.
Some combination of the above 3.
Truthfully, this isn't worth examining just yet. There would be far to many "what-if's" to address, this is something that could be address at the later dates that we will get to shortly.
Now, I've heard it a lot regarding the 02/09 data. "It's two weeks old". Well, that is always the case. The FINRA short data is always two weeks old and suggesting that we can't pull any information from it at all is asinine. Where it gets quite murky, is the data includes 01/27 information. This was a day unlike any other in this saga.
I will take this moment to address the following upcoming catalysts and when I truly think this will be done; one way or the other.
Today's data 02/09, was very important because if it showed an extremely low percentage then we know shorts have exited and did not re-enter and this is completely done. Given the data does not reflect that, we now must turn to several events that could act as catalysts for either a further squeeze or a complete shutdown.
02/19 - In my last post, I discussed the Failure To Deliver (FTD) conundrum. I do need some help figuring out the exact expiration date. From here "The close-out requirement states that a participant of a clearing agency needs to take immediate action to close 4 out a fail to deliver position in a threshold security that has persisted for 13 consecutive settlement days by purchasing securities of like kind and quantity."
The exact date is slightly irrelevant because I highly doubt all of these FTD's are going to deliver on the same exact day. This site, while it isn't an official channel seems to be doing a good job of tracking data. If you want to learn more about FTD's and the implications there please visit that site or review my last post which has links to follow for further reading.
02/18 - Keith Gill aka u/DeepFuckingValue will testify before congress and RH CEO Vladimir will be attending. This can go several ways which can lead to an SEC trading halt on GameStop or with evidence that proves foul play occurred. Who knows? It will certainly be interesting and I don't even to speculate on the market reaction to this even because it could go a ton of different ways; it will be an important date nonetheless
02/24 - The next FINRA short interest information will be made readily available to the public. This will be far more interesting and helpful information because it won't include the insane volatility of January, but it will also highlight the newest short positions. This data will help further drive where I think this is all going to end. It's possible that shorts opened new positions at $50 thinking it was going back to $12. Let's not speculate too much here either, it's just another dataset that will bring light to the direction this is headed.
03/25 - GameStop ER. This is big too for several reasons. First, this will include the console sales cycle which historically has done well for GameStop. A typical buy the hype, sell the news event. It will be interesting to see how the market reacts leading up to this ER, maybe people won't even touch GME leading up to then due to the recent volatility, but if they do, and if there is still a lot of short interest, this too could force shorts to begin covering. Another critical part of this ER is Ryan Cohen. This will be the first time this new board addresses the public with their plans for the future and for the first time since this entire adventure began, the "dying brick and mortar" narrative will finally begin to change in the public eye. That is still the common misconception regarding GameStop, that it is a dying brick and mortar retailer where nothing has changed. This hasn't been the case for around 6 months now, but this will be the first time it is publicly address. The headlines surrounding GameStop's future plans will be very interesting to read and the markets reaction will be far more interesting.
I have been asked a lot what my PT is and when I expect the squeeze to happen, but let me be clear. Very seldom do squeezes "just happen". In fact, short squeezes are far more common than one would think, they just typically happen over months, if not years and the shorts cover on dips so you don't even notice it's happening. In order to force a squeeze, you need to hold a decent amount of shorts underwater. Soon one will crack and start closing their position, this leads to a series of shorts closing their positions skyrocketing the price until more and more shorts need to cover. This is rare.
I hope this narrative of purchasing heavily shorted companies comes to a close soon because a lot of people are going to lose a lot of money simply buying up companies because they are heavily bet against. Catalysts and massive changes need to occur like overhauling your entire business as is the case with GameStop.
Normally, shorts will close their positions one at a time, covering on dips and you don't even notice it's happening. In times where you see a price rise of seemingly no news could very well be shorts closing their positions because their research led them to realize this company is on the road to recovery.
I digress. Given the most recent data and the multiple upcoming catalysts I am still very bullish on a GME short squeeze. My post from quite some time ago illustrated the importance of catalysts regarding a short squeeze, this is still very much the case. The first run was interrupted and the second run won't happen with magic, it requires a catalyst. Another post was titled For those who do not understand the inevitable GME short squeeze, was at the time "inevitable" because math. That is no longer the case. It is no longer inevitable but it is still possible.
I want to be clear: This is not nearly as close to a sure thing as it once was and it depends on a lot of different factors. One of the largest is the people. Granted, a lot of what's happening now is in the hands of institutions but millions of retailers holding their positions to the grave certainly helps the institutional buyers have more faith in their play to continue a squeeze.
SO WHAT DO I THINK
I think shorts certainly covered some of their positions, but not all. I also firmly believe a significant amount of short positions were opened on the way back down by both HF's and individuals. Some certainly positioned high, but based on sentiment, it appears a lot of people think GME is fairly valued around $20 (which I disagree with but let's use that for the time being). That would mean shorts would have no problem opening positions at 100,70,60, even $50.
42% is still very high which means a squeeze is inevitable so long as the company continues in a positive path. However, squeezes typically aren't as abrupt as people think. They are actually quite common, in fact another position I'm heavily invested in is SPCE and they have been going through a squeeze for several weeks and will continue to squeeze so long as news continues to be positive.
How would we get an abrupt short squeeze? A massive bull run. The new shorts that entered at lower levels wouldn't be too hard to catch, however, they are probably low volume, so when they buy to close, it won't be large enough volumes for massive peaks, but a bull run very well could lead to these lower tiered shorts closing, triggering a gamma squeeze. If gamma squeezes are made week over week then shorts at the higher end would have two options:

Close early and take profits
Wait it out because they are positioned so well that interest means nothing and they don't think there is any hope of us rising to those levels.

In the first case, them closing early would be a nice short squeeze to probably several hundred dollars, but it wouldn't break $1000.
To break $1000 we would need a big bull run to catch the shorts, trigger gamma squeezes, and keep momentum until they are caught and underwater. This is highly unlikely unless there is another global sentiment.
NOTE: ALL OF THESE ASSUMPTIONS I AM MAKING ARE BASED ON THE 42% REPORTING. IF IT IS IN FACT 78% THEN THE POSSIBILITY IS TREMENDOUSLY INCREASED FOR THESE THINGS TO HAPPEN.
SO WHEN DOES IT ALL END
My though is if by the end of March these catalysts were not enough to reignite the hype and squeeze, then it will essentially be over except in the case of a few circumstances:

A VW/Porche moment occurs where a large buyer picks up a large portion of the company.
Some other currently unknown catalyst appears seemingly out of thin air
The data was in fact manipulated. Regardless of what the data says, if the shorts did in fact lie about their short int to take the fine over being squeezed, then they will be squeezed regardless.

It is quite possible, that these catalysts and moments aren't enough to force a squeeze anymore especially if the shorts have repositioned really well. I will retain the mindset that this fateful January 2021 was not a short squeeze. However, that does not mean it will ever actually happen.
SO WHAT IS YOUR PLAY HOOMAN?
Well, I am long on GME which is why I didn't mind hopping back in even at outrageous prices. I will continue averaging down and don't plan on selling for quite some time, probably several years. The reason for this is I believe in Cohen and his team to turn this into something unexpected and I imagine an eventual ROI. Once this is all said and done and I think either the shorts truly have covered or they simply got away with it (Beginning of April), I will be posting my DD for GME as a long play regardless of the squeeze mechanics.
Thank you all for joining me on this wild journey. I hope we can discuss some of these points in the comments like adults and truly try to grasp this wild situation we are all in. There are extremes on both sides from "get over it, the squeeze happened" to a cult like mentality on the other extreme. I hope through discussion we can find the moderate approach and further understand the market mechanics at play.
Thanks for your time
WARNING: Until the squeeze business is over for good, this is a very volatile and risky play. Joining now for the hope of a potential round 2 squeeze should only be done in a speculative manner with money you are willing to lose. This is more akin to a gamble than it is investing. I think the current market price is fair given the future prospects of the company but do your own DD, I will not be releasing any until this squeeze is put to rest.
TL;DR: I am still bullish on this scenario even at 42%, if it really is 78% then I am extremely bullish. There are a plethora of upcoming catalysts that could reignite the squeeze but even if none are powerful enough, with Cohen's new direction we could expect good news for quite some time forcing shorts to exit on a more spread out timeline.
Disclaimer: I am not a financial advisor. I do not wish to sway your opinion in either direction. I simply seek to examine this interesting and volatile situation via crowd sourcing. What you do with your money is entirely up to you.

ALL CREDIT GOES TO u/hooman_or_whatever
GME Short Squeeze What Comes Next Part 3
Hello all,
Before I begin I would like to address something I have been encountering on my posts in the comments section. I keep receiving some hate concerning my opinions and I want to be crystal clear that they are just that; opinions. I also want everyone to know that is is meant to be a dialog. I am not trying to pump this stock because truthfully, this goes far beyond us retail investors at this point. What I want is a dialog between all sides to examine this truly fascinating phenomenon that is occurring.
I would also like to clarify something, I am not a bagholder. I do currently hold bags because I own 336 shares at a $194.34 cost basis, however, that total amount is house money that was used from my profits on the first go around.
I also understand some people are tired of hearing about this because it's the same regurgitated form of someone else's post as it keeps circulating in an attempt to retain hype and drive future buying; this is not what this post is about. As investors and individuals involved in the world of finance, this situation should absolutely intrigue us whether or not we are involved. I am here to present my logic on the situation but encourage healthy discussion and debate.
This brings me to my first claim. This is not over. Now, I am not claiming that a squeeze will still occur, I am simply claiming it is not over, for better or for worse. Several things need to take place for this to be completely over, at which point I will either post my gains or my losses from the adventure.
When I say "it" I am referring to this entire phenomenon, not one short squeeze. I do not think these events, "it", is over. This is largely due to retail and institutional purchasing not really changing all that much since we found the bottom and established support at a staggering $60. This support was lost today and found new support at $50. There was very interesting ATH action and I'm not sure what to make of it.
Millions of bag holders (not just WSB) are still holding and in fact, averaging down, thereby purchasing more. These same bag holders are absolutely refusing to sell for such massive losses and in turn are becoming long term investors on the stock if another squeeze isn't to occur. People are picking up speculative positions in the off-chance of another squeeze. Others are determining this as a fair value for the company, not fundamentally, but based on the future prospects of Ryan Cohen and team. Finally, it is nowhere near leaving the global stage with important upcoming dates that we will discuss later.
To examine why it isn't over let's look at both sides of the argument:

Bulls claim it's not over for many reasons that you can find in the hundreds of other bullish posts, so I won't bore you with those details. My argument on the bull side is more along the lines of what I listed above.
Bears claim it is over because there was a 2250% price increase over the course of two weeks, therefore this must be a short squeeze.

I think we can all agree, bear or bull, that something happened. A 2250% increase certainly isn't nothing. The question is...what? I see several possibilities and would like to discuss them in the comments.

The shorts in fact covered and this was a short squeeze.
The shorts partially covered and this was a partial short squeeze, but the price increase was mainly hype and gamma squeezes.
The shorts didn't cover anything and this was a globally hyped price increase in conjunction with several gamma squeezes.
Some combination of the above 3.

First, the data:
Based on morningstar the short interest is showing 78.46%. Now, I think the website is having some issues storing cookies because it will show the outdated 226% unless you open it up in incognito.
Market watch is showing 41.95%
This spread is interesting for sure, my thoughts are some of these calculations are including "synthetic longs" introduced by S3.
It is extremely possible to manipulate these numbers via illegal methods and even legal methods using options. Please see this SEC document to explain how this would work. I am not trying to convince anyone to fit my narrative, but these things occur far more commonly than one would expect. The reasoning is because the fines for committing the crime are far less costly than letting the event take place. Please see FINRA's website for the long, and frequent list of fines being dealt out due to manipulation. A common culprit? Lying about short volume.
Let's use the absolute worst case scenario being reported of 41.95%, which mind you is still extremely high for one stock:
The shorts in fact covered and this was a short squeeze
What's interesting here is even if the shorts 100% covered all of their positions, they very well could have shorted on the way back down. Why wouldn't you? It would be insane to not open a short position when this hit nearly $500 especially if you lost half of your companies money; what better way to get it back? For the remainder of this thesis, I will be assuming that some of the short positions that exist are newly opened positions at a higher price unless someone has a counter-claim as to why that wouldn't be possible/probable.
That would mean 226% was covered on the way up and another 41.95% was reopened on the way back down. Based on the volume and price changes throughout the past two weeks this simply doesn't pass the math check.
The shorts partially covered and this was a partial short squeeze.
Again, using 41.95% this is highly likely and the most reasonable case. Some, probably the worst positions, were covered on the way up.
I think this is precisely what happened, we had some partial shorts covering but for the most part it was gamma squeezes, hype, and FOMO whereby the price started climbing so rapidly it became smarter for the shorts to just wait out the bubble than to actually cover all of their positions.
Again, we fall into a "what-if" scenario regarding shorting on the way back down.
The shorts didn't cover anything and this was a globally hyped price increase in conjunction with several gamma squeezes.
This scenario does not pass the math check using the 41.95% figure.
If the data is being manipulated then this becomes very interesting because if some of the worst positions are still open then that means all of these HF's losses that were reported were strictly interest and they are simply waiting this out for as long as it takes making back their losses on their newly opened short positions in t $300-$400 range.
Sadly, this puts us in the guessing range yet again. We can do the math and see it's possible this scenario exists, however, we would be comparing it against losses reported by the entities that were being squeezed.
There are way to many what-if's for me to me consider this a possibility, but I can't write it off completely.
Some combination of the above 3.
Truthfully, this isn't worth examining just yet. There would be far to many "what-if's" to address, this is something that could be address at the later dates that we will get to shortly.
Now, I've heard it a lot regarding the 02/09 data. "It's two weeks old". Well, that is always the case. The FINRA short data is always two weeks old and suggesting that we can't pull any information from it at all is asinine. Where it gets quite murky, is the data includes 01/27 information. This was a day unlike any other in this saga.
I will take this moment to address the following upcoming catalysts and when I truly think this will be done; one way or the other.
Today's data 02/09, was very important because if it showed an extremely low percentage then we know shorts have exited and did not re-enter and this is completely done. Given the data does not reflect that, we now must turn to several events that could act as catalysts for either a further squeeze or a complete shutdown.
02/19 - In my last post, I discussed the Failure To Deliver (FTD) conundrum. I do need some help figuring out the exact expiration date. From here "The close-out requirement states that a participant of a clearing agency needs to take immediate action to close 4 out a fail to deliver position in a threshold security that has persisted for 13 consecutive settlement days by purchasing securities of like kind and quantity."
The exact date is slightly irrelevant because I highly doubt all of these FTD's are going to deliver on the same exact day. This site, while it isn't an official channel seems to be doing a good job of tracking data. If you want to learn more about FTD's and the implications there please visit that site or review my last post which has links to follow for further reading.
02/18 - Keith Gill aka u/DeepFuckingValue will testify before congress and RH CEO Vladimir will be attending. This can go several ways which can lead to an SEC trading halt on GameStop or with evidence that proves foul play occurred. Who knows? It will certainly be interesting and I don't even to speculate on the market reaction to this even because it could go a ton of different ways; it will be an important date nonetheless
02/24 - The next FINRA short interest information will be made readily available to the public. This will be far more interesting and helpful information because it won't include the insane volatility of January, but it will also highlight the newest short positions. This data will help further drive where I think this is all going to end. It's possible that shorts opened new positions at $50 thinking it was going back to $12. Let's not speculate too much here either, it's just another dataset that will bring light to the direction this is headed.
03/25 - GameStop ER. This is big too for several reasons. First, this will include the console sales cycle which historically has done well for GameStop. A typical buy the hype, sell the news event. It will be interesting to see how the market reacts leading up to this ER, maybe people won't even touch GME leading up to then due to the recent volatility, but if they do, and if there is still a lot of short interest, this too could force shorts to begin covering. Another critical part of this ER is Ryan Cohen. This will be the first time this new board addresses the public with their plans for the future and for the first time since this entire adventure began, the "dying brick and mortar" narrative will finally begin to change in the public eye. That is still the common misconception regarding GameStop, that it is a dying brick and mortar retailer where nothing has changed. This hasn't been the case for around 6 months now, but this will be the first time it is publicly address. The headlines surrounding GameStop's future plans will be very interesting to read and the markets reaction will be far more interesting.
I have been asked a lot what my PT is and when I expect the squeeze to happen, but let me be clear. Very seldom do squeezes "just happen". In fact, short squeezes are far more common than one would think, they just typically happen over months, if not years and the shorts cover on dips so you don't even notice it's happening. In order to force a squeeze, you need to hold a decent amount of shorts underwater. Soon one will crack and start closing their position, this leads to a series of shorts closing their positions skyrocketing the price until more and more shorts need to cover. This is rare.
I hope this narrative of purchasing heavily shorted companies comes to a close soon because a lot of people are going to lose a lot of money simply buying up companies because they are heavily bet against. Catalysts and massive changes need to occur like overhauling your entire business as is the case with GameStop.
Normally, shorts will close their positions one at a time, covering on dips and you don't even notice it's happening. In times where you see a price rise of seemingly no news could very well be shorts closing their positions because their research led them to realize this company is on the road to recovery.
I digress. Given the most recent data and the multiple upcoming catalysts I am still very bullish on a GME short squeeze. My post from quite some time ago illustrated the importance of catalysts regarding a short squeeze, this is still very much the case. The first run was interrupted and the second run won't happen with magic, it requires a catalyst. Another post was titled For those who do not understand the inevitable GME short squeeze, was at the time "inevitable" because math. That is no longer the case. It is no longer inevitable but it is still possible.
I want to be clear: This is not nearly as close to a sure thing as it once was and it depends on a lot of different factors. One of the largest is the people. Granted, a lot of what's happening now is in the hands of institutions but millions of retailers holding their positions to the grave certainly helps the institutional buyers have more faith in their play to continue a squeeze.
SO WHAT DO I THINK
I think shorts certainly covered some of their positions, but not all. I also firmly believe a significant amount of short positions were opened on the way back down by both HF's and individuals. Some certainly positioned high, but based on sentiment, it appears a lot of people think GME is fairly valued around $20 (which I disagree with but let's use that for the time being). That would mean shorts would have no problem opening positions at 100,70,60, even $50.
42% is still very high which means a squeeze is inevitable so long as the company continues in a positive path. However, squeezes typically aren't as abrupt as people think. They are actually quite common, in fact another position I'm heavily invested in is SPCE and they have been going through a squeeze for several weeks and will continue to squeeze so long as news continues to be positive.
How would we get an abrupt short squeeze? A massive bull run. The new shorts that entered at lower levels wouldn't be too hard to catch, however, they are probably low volume, so when they buy to close, it won't be large enough volumes for massive peaks, but a bull run very well could lead to these lower tiered shorts closing, triggering a gamma squeeze. If gamma squeezes are made week over week then shorts at the higher end would have two options:

Close early and take profits
Wait it out because they are positioned so well that interest means nothing and they don't think there is any hope of us rising to those levels.

In the first case, them closing early would be a nice short squeeze to probably several hundred dollars, but it wouldn't break $1000.
To break $1000 we would need a big bull run to catch the shorts, trigger gamma squeezes, and keep momentum until they are caught and underwater. This is highly unlikely unless there is another global sentiment.
NOTE: ALL OF THESE ASSUMPTIONS I AM MAKING ARE BASED ON THE 42% REPORTING. IF IT IS IN FACT 78% THEN THE POSSIBILITY IS TREMENDOUSLY INCREASED FOR THESE THINGS TO HAPPEN.
SO WHEN DOES IT ALL END
My though is if by the end of March these catalysts were not enough to reignite the hype and squeeze, then it will essentially be over except in the case of a few circumstances:

A VW/Porche moment occurs where a large buyer picks up a large portion of the company.
Some other currently unknown catalyst appears seemingly out of thin air
The data was in fact manipulated. Regardless of what the data says, if the shorts did in fact lie about their short int to take the fine over being squeezed, then they will be squeezed regardless.

It is quite possible, that these catalysts and moments aren't enough to force a squeeze anymore especially if the shorts have repositioned really well. I will retain the mindset that this fateful January 2021 was not a short squeeze. However, that does not mean it will ever actually happen.
SO WHAT IS YOUR PLAY HOOMAN?
Well, I am long on GME which is why I didn't mind hopping back in even at outrageous prices. I will continue averaging down and don't plan on selling for quite some time, probably several years. The reason for this is I believe in Cohen and his team to turn this into something unexpected and I imagine an eventual ROI. Once this is all said and done and I think either the shorts truly have covered or they simply got away with it (Beginning of April), I will be posting my DD for GME as a long play regardless of the squeeze mechanics.
Thank you all for joining me on this wild journey. I hope we can discuss some of these points in the comments like adults and truly try to grasp this wild situation we are all in. There are extremes on both sides from "get over it, the squeeze happened" to a cult like mentality on the other extreme. I hope through discussion we can find the moderate approach and further understand the market mechanics at play.
Thanks for your time
WARNING: Until the squeeze business is over for good, this is a very volatile and risky play. Joining now for the hope of a potential round 2 squeeze should only be done in a speculative manner with money you are willing to lose. This is more akin to a gamble than it is investing. I think the current market price is fair given the future prospects of the company but do your own DD, I will not be releasing any until this squeeze is put to rest.
TL;DR: I am still bullish on this scenario even at 42%, if it really is 78% then I am extremely bullish. There are a plethora of upcoming catalysts that could reignite the squeeze but even if none are powerful enough, with Cohen's new direction we could expect good news for quite some time forcing shorts to exit on a more spread out timeline.
Disclaimer: I am not a financial advisor. I do not wish to sway your opinion in either direction. I simply seek to examine this interesting and volatile situation via crowd sourcing. What you do with your money is entirely up to you.

Also on my blog with better formatting, cute footnotes and inlined images.
Note that not much here is new material, mostly rehashing existing points.

Disclaimer

This article started out as research for my betting against Bitcoin on the stock market. This isn't financial advice. As a matter of fact, I encourage all readers you to not buy or short crypto, through any market or derivative. Use your money for productive uses.
Here's a TL;DR:

The current parabolic price increase in Bitcoin is a bubble that has started popping.
A stablecoin called Tether is either one of the largest frauds or money laundering operation in history, and is providing most of the liquidity in the cryptocurrency ecosystem.
A BTC bubble pop, incoming regulation on stablecoins or the current NYAG investigation into tether will expose tether's insolvency to the crypto market. This is bigger than it sounds.
(Speculative, but one can hope) Current prices to mine BTC could end up higher than BTC market price, exposing BTC to a 51% attack.

A Recap: Bitcoin is useless and should go away

Bitcoin serves no purpose. Let's just rehash that by quickly debunking the major claimed uses over time as seen here

Proof of concept: No argument here, but now that the market cap of cryptocurrencies is closing in on a $700B, this seems moot.
Cheap Payment Network: Nonsense, since BTC transactions are currently >$10 and this worsens the more people use it.
Anonymous Darknet Currency: I'd have said "no argument here", but apparently it's surprisingly easy to trace BTC nowadays. However, crypto ecosystem as a whole seems to do a decent job at laundering money as we'll see later.
Reserve Currency for Crypto: Since a reserve currency should be useful as a means of exchange, and I wrote several thousand words on how BTC is not that, my position is pretty clear. Also, the fact that a cryptocurrency indexed to the US dollar has trounced BTC as the main means of exchange in the crypto ecosystem speaks for itself.
Programmable Shared Database: You know what's programmable, shared and a database? The database we use at work. Just learn to implement access control lists on your SQL server.
Uncorrelated Financial Asset: Given BTC crashed just like the rest of the market when COVID showed up, this doesn't hold up

The stupidest version of the "uncorrelated asset" argument I hear is "Bitcoin is a great hedge for inflation!"
You know what's a good "hedge for inflation"? Literally anything. The definition of inflation is "the price of money". If the price of money goes down (inflation) then everything else has a positive return by comparison.
People who say "bitcoin is a good hedge for inflation" shouldn't be trusted to manage their own money, let alone give financial advice to anyone.

Censorship Resistant e-Gold: This is a roundabout way of saying "BTC is a store of value"! Which, again, can only be said by people who've never read the definition of "store of value" in a textbook.

I already went into detail into this, but BTC is a terrible store of value because it's volatile. Assets that can lose 20% of value overnight don't "store value". BTC is a "vehicle for speculation".
The only way price is sustained for BTC is that you can find some other idiot to sell it to. Just as a reminder, 50% of Gold is used for things that aren't speculation, like Jewelry, so you'll never have to worry finding a seller there.
Here are some real uses for bitcoin:

Gambling is fun. You buy BTC, the price might go up! Or down! This is exciting.
Hackers, money launderers and other criminals certainly find cryptocurrencies useful.

Reminder: BTC is an ecological scourge
The current cost to mine a BTC is around $8000 in electricity. This electricity mostly comes from subsidized coal in China.
And given the current amount of BTC generated each day, we're using about equivalent to the electricity from all of Belgium, largely in coal, to keep this going.
I don't mind wasting time on intellectual curiosities, but destroying our planet for glorified gambling is not something I'm happy about. I want cryptocurrencies to go away entirely on this basis, philosophically.

Current BTC prices are a bubble

Before we go into tether, reminder that at the time of writing, the plot of BTC price against the S&P500 looks like this
BTC price has increased by ~800% since March. Still, no one uses it for anything useful since the last bubble in 2017, or the other one before that in 2013. This is another bubble however you put it.
BTC is not "new technology"
10 years the internet became popular, Google and Amazon already existed. We're 8 years after the popular emergence of deep learning and it has already revolutionized machine translation, computer vision and natural language processing in general.
You could argue that deep learning and the internet existed before their emergence, but so did cryptocurrencies. Look up b-money and hashcash for instance.
Bitcoin has existed since 2008 and emerged in popularity around the same time as deep learning did, yet we're still to find actual uses for it except speculation and criminal uses. It's a solution waiting for a problem.
Institutional investors are also idiots
The narrative this time is that "institutional investors" are buying into BTC. This doesn't mean it's not a bubble.
Many of the institutions were buying through Grayscale Bitcoin Trust. Rather, many of them were chasing the premium over net asset value that hovered around 20%. Basically, lock money in GBTC for 6 months, cash out and collect the premium as profit. Of course, this little Ponzi couldn't last forever and the premium seems to be evaporating now.
Similarly, totally-not-a-bitcoin-ETF-wearing-a-software-company-skinsuit Microstrategy (MSTR) trades at a massive premium over fundamentals.
There will always be traders chasing bonuses from numbers going up, regardless what is making the number going up. The same "institutional investors" were buying obviously terrible CDOs in the run-up to 2008.

Tether is lunacy

Tether is a cryptocurrency whose exchange rate is supposed to be pegged to the US Dollar. Initially this was done by having 1-to-1 US Dollar reserves for each tether issued. Then they got scammed by their money launderer, losing some $800M, which made them insolvent.
Anyway, now tether maintains their reserves are whatever they want them to be and they haven't gotten audited since 2017.
You know, normal stuff.
There's a problem to backing your USD-pegged security with something that isn't US Dollars. Namely, if the price of the thing you're backing your US Dollars against goes down, you're now insolvent. If you were backing $10B in tether with $10B of bitcoin, then the bitcoin drops by half, you're insolvent by $5B.
And then this spotlessly clean company they somehow added $20B to their balance sheet in the second half of 2020
Reminder: one side of that balance sheet is currently floating around the cryptocurrency ecosystem. Cryptocurrency traders own it as an asset and sell it to others. The other half of the balance sheet is whatever tether wants.
There are only two possibilities that explain tether's growth:

Massive unbacked issuances, because they're afraid their scam has run its course.
Money laundering. Lots of it.

It could also be a happy mix of both.
One particularly interesting date is 30/8/2020, where tether added $3B to its balance sheet overnight. This is interesting because it predates the subsequent movement in bitcoin price and large movements in other cryptocurrencies.
The story from tether and tether's bank's CEO is that this money largely comes from foreign nationals through an OTC desk which implies the transaction goes as following:

A foreign national sends money in a foreign currency to an OTC desk. This is exactly as clean as you'd think -- often raw cash transactions in the millions.
That OTC desk converts the money to USD and sends it to tether's correspondent US bank. The OTC desk gives tether to the foreign national.
Wait tether has a correspondent US bank?

Oh, I forgot to mention, no bank wants tether as a customer because they obviously break KYC/AML compliance. So tether first ~~bought~~ invested in a bank called Noble which then lost its relationship with Wells-Fargo when they realized tether were lying to them about AML. Poor tether lost its legal access to USD.
Tether has been banking in the Bahamas with a bank called Deltec since. First they had a money launderer called Crypto Capital Corp to send funds to customers, who stole the $800M from them and subsequently went to jail.
But worry not! Tether found a way to get banked in USD afterwards. Curious coincidence, an executive at Deltec was randomly blogging about buying small US community banks in 2018. You know, that thing money launderers do.
So tether's story is that in 2020, they took in roughly twenty billion USD of shady foreign money into the small community US bank their deltec bankers bought. These transactions are necessarily breaking KYC/AML. The foreign parties to those transactions wouldn't take such a rickety route to convert billions into cryptocurrencies if they weren't laughed out of the room in serious banks.
But of course, Deltec will say it did KYC on tether. Really solid KYC, clearly, since they're the last bank on earth taking tether's business. Tether says they do KYC on their customers (the large OTC desks). And I'm sure the OTC desks would be shocked, shocked if the cash money they get in Russia and China turns out to be dirty. So everyone can pass the buck of responsibility down the road and claim "We do KYC on our customers".
Sure you do, tether. If you did such great KYC, you wouldn't have such problems finding banking relationships. I mean when even HSBC is not doing business with you you're apparently more obviously moving criminal money than fucking drug cartels.
And, according to tether's people, this money is what's backing tether's reserves. Money that will get frozen the instant a prosecutor even looks at it.
Reminder: the above is the charitable, positive case for tether.
The less charitable case is that they took crayons and added zeros to their balance sheet, and that there's a couple billions waiting to burn a hole in the crypto ecosystem.
Anyway, the $25B garbage fire that is tether will make a great book/netflix series at some point and their hilariously stupid CTO going on podcasts while flinching on questions about how BTC ended up on their balance sheet will be a fun part of it.
But I'm not here to write a book, I'm here to make money by shorting all of this. For my purposes, even in the positive case tether is a ticking time bomb waiting to burn a hole in the crypto ecosystem, because...

KYC and AML are coming for cryptocurrencies

If you listen to "crypto news", all incoming crypto regulation is just great, because that means crypto is becoming legit. However, companies investing in crypto are very angry about them.
This is because crypto transactions break the FinCEN travel rule, where KYC information should "travel" along transactions, to prevent money laundering obfuscation schemes.
Of course, according to the crypto industry this is "stifling innovation". A more reasonable take is that by being leaving the crypto industry outside normal financial regulations, we're enabling a "race to the bottom". As we saw with shadow banks in the 2000-2007 era this leads to "creative banking". I don't want my bankers to be creative, I want them to be solvent.

Tether's effect on the crypto ecosystem

When tether implodes, it's taking most of the crypto industry along for a fun ride. Tether can implode in one of a few ways:

A BTC price crash triggers it. If
Regulators decide they've had enough of AML avoidance and regulate them.
The NYAG investigation, which is waiting for an update in a few weeks, finds something and shuts them out.

Let's assume tether falls to $0 for simplicity. The analysis is the same directionally if tether significantly "breaks the buck".
This doesn't happen instantly, but it happens quickly. The peg breaks, and most people holding tether will try to sell it for other crypto (BTC, ETH, etc.). This puts downward pressure on the price of tether, incentivizing even more people to "pass the buck". Automated inter-exchange arbitrage bots might try to exploit emerging gaps in bid-ask spreads, only to end up with worthless tether instead, as their operators rush to pull the plug.
Then, we have a small village of cryptocurrency enthusiasts being out some $24B. With the trading bots turned off and the trading lubricant (a dollar pegged asset) gone, the bid-ask spreads blow up. You get a predictable flight to safety -- that is, to real money. This puts downward pressure on BTC.
While all of this is happening, there are all sorts of fun second-order effects happen. A lot of DeFi derivative products are priced in cryptocurrencies, so having normally stable prices shuffle around (eg. USDC price moving above $1 in a flight to safety) triggers a tsunami of margin calls. Some exchanges might insolvent (they're the ones redeeming tether for USD after all).

If BTC price drops below $8000, fun things happen

Currently, the price to mine a BTC is roughly $8000. Most of the mining comes from huge mining farms using subsidized coal in China, and mining costs more the more hardware there is to mine it.
Since the price of BTC hasn't substantially dropped below cost to mine we're in for a fun experiment if the price drops below this threshold. Most of these farms should turn off so that the price to mine comes back to breakeven in a case of prisoner's dilemma.
But if too much hardware turns off, this leaves mining hardware idle and the door becomes wide open to a 51% attack. It's not clear at what price below breakeven cost to mine a 51% attack becomes a serious threat, but once this threshold is crossed, we're in the "irreparable harm to BTC" risk zone.
And for a person like me, who just wants to see crypto disappear forever this is very exciting.
Maybe those mining farms could be replaced with nice forests soaking up all the carbon they emitted for posterity. One can hope.

How do I bet against all of this?

Microstrategy (MSTR) is, at this point, a bitcoin ETF wearing the skinsuit of a dying software company.
Michael Saylor, MSTR's CEO, is quite the character. I wrote a lot about his lack understanding of what a currency is, but it's on another level to look at the early stages of a bubble pop and decide this is a good time to buy $10M more of the stuff, as seen here
However, this bubble is tame by Michael's standards. Look at the historical stock of his company
What's happening on the left is that Saylor pumped the numbers with accounting fraud then the SEC took issue with the fake numbers. The stock dropped 90% practically overnight. Their accountants, PWC, paid $51M in fines. Saylor and friends paid fines, partly with company stock.
You could also short GBTC, but when Mr. Saylor provides you with an options market instead, why not use it? Shorting on crypto exchanges that might become insolvent in the very event you want to happen with this bet is a bad idea, on the other hand.

Mike can't cash out

The bitcoin market is illiquid and leveraged when it comes to real money coming in and leaving the ecosystem. Buys in the $10M-$100M seemingly move the price of BTC by upwards of $1000 in the last weeks. This means hundreds of millions of real money means tens of billions in movement in BTC market capitalization.
Now imagine what cashing $1.1B of BTC into real money would mean for the price. And this is purely in market terms, before the PR damage from bitcoin's demigod abandoning ship would have second-order effects.
Saylor has painted himself into a corner. Even if he wanted to cash out, he can't.

MSTR fundamentals: Why it should be valued below $10

In early 2020, MSTR was a slowly dying business. The EBITDA has been rapidly evaporating in the last 5 years
At that point, MSTR a stock price of $115 meaning a market cap of $1.1B. This included some $560M of cash they were sitting on. I presume the remaining $550M was an implicit sales premium for the inevitable private equity firm investors expected was going to relieve them of this stock and make the business profitable again.
Of course, they didn't sell.
Instead, they took the $560m they were sitting on and bought $400m of BTC at prices $11k and $13k in late summer 2020. Then, in early December, they took on $600m of debt to buy BTC with at $23k. They also bought $10m more in January at a price of $30.5k.
At this point, we can mostly value MSTR like a trust.

Price the underlying software business as being worth $600M, as the market did before the bitcoin nonsense. If BTC went to $0, this is what we'd value it at, and the MSTR stock should be around $65.
But wait! MSTR took on $650M in debt in December. Their actual value with a BTC priced at $0 should be much, much lower than $65 depending on how you value the debt. You could make an argument it should be in the single digits.
They hold 70,784 BTC. At current prices ($32,000) this is worth roughly $2.2B. With the current market cap of MSTR ($577 stock price), this means MSTR is currently priced at an eye watering $3B premium over fundamental value.

GBTC's 20% premium-to-NAV is a joke compared to the MSTR premium.

How the Hunt Brothers Cornered the Silver Market and Then Lost it All

TL:DR: yes its long. Grab a beer.

Until his dying day in 2014, Nelson Bunker Hunt, who had once been the world’s wealthiest man, denied that he and his brother plotted to corner the global silver market.
Sure, back in 1980, Bunker, his younger brother Herbert, and other members of the Hunt clan owned roughly two-thirds of all the privately held silver on earth. But the historic stockpiling of bullion hadn’t been a ploy to manipulate the market, they and their sizable legal team would insist in the following years. Instead, it was a strategy to hedge against the voracious inflation of the 1970s—a monumental bet against the U.S. dollar.
Whatever the motive, it was a bet that went historically sour. The debt-fueled boom and bust of the global silver market not only decimated the Hunt fortune, but threatened to take down the U.S. financial system.
The panic of “Silver Thursday” took place over 35 years ago, but it still raises questions about the nature of financial manipulation. While many view the Hunt brothers as members of a long succession of white collar crooks, from Charles Ponzi to Bernie Madoff, others see the endearingly eccentric Texans as the victims of overstepping regulators and vindictive insiders who couldn’t stand the thought of being played by a couple of southern yokels.
In either case, the story of the Hunt brothers just goes to show how difficult it can be to distinguish illegal market manipulation from the old fashioned wheeling and dealing that make our markets work.
The Real-Life Ewings
Whatever their foibles, the Hunts make for an interesting cast of characters. Evidently CBS thought so; the family is rumored to be the basis for the Ewings, the fictional Texas oil dynasty of Dallas fame.
Sitting at the top of the family tree was H.L. Hunt, a man who allegedly purchased his first oil field with poker winnings and made a fortune drilling in east Texas. H.L. was a well-known oddball to boot, and his sons inherited many of their father’s quirks.
For one, there was the stinginess. Despite being the richest man on earth in the 1960s, Bunker Hunt (who went by his middle name), along with his younger brothers Herbert (first name William) and Lamar, cultivated an image as unpretentious good old boys. They drove old Cadillacs, flew coach, and when they eventually went to trial in New York City in 1988, they took the subway. As one Texas editor was quoted in the New York Times, Bunker Hunt was “the kind of guy who orders chicken-fried steak and Jello-O, spills some on his tie, and then goes out and buys all the silver in the world.”
Cheap suits aside, the Hunts were not without their ostentation. At the end of the 1970s, Bunker boasted a stable of over 500 horses and his little brother Lamar owned the Kansas City Chiefs. All six children of H.L.’s first marriage (the patriarch of the Hunt family had fifteen children by three women before he died in 1974) lived on estates befitting the scions of a Texas billionaire. These lifestyles were financed by trusts, but also risky investments in oil, real estate, and a host of commodities including sugar beets, soybeans, and, before long, silver.
The Hunt brothers also inherited their father’s political inclinations. A zealous anti-Communist, Bunker Hunt bankrolled conservative causes and was a prominent member of the John Birch Society, a group whose founder once speculated that Dwight Eisenhower was a “dedicated, conscious agent” of Soviet conspiracy. In November of 1963, Hunt sponsored a particularly ill-timed political campaign, which distributed pamphlets around Dallas condemning President Kennedy for alleged slights against the Constitution on the day that he was assassinated. JFK conspiracy theorists have been obsessed with Hunt ever since.
In fact, it was the Hunt brand of politics that partially explains what led Bunker and Herbert to start buying silver in 1973.
Hard Money
The 1970s were not kind to the U.S. dollar.
Years of wartime spending and unresponsive monetary policy pushed inflation upward throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s. Then, in October of 1973, war broke out in the Middle East and an oil embargo was declared against the United States. Inflation jumped above 10%. It would stay high throughout the decade, peaking in the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution at an annual average of 13.5% in 1980.
Over the same period of time, the global monetary system underwent a historic transformation. Since the first Roosevelt administration, the U.S. dollar had been pegged to the value of gold at a predictable rate of $35 per ounce. But in 1971, President Nixon, responding to inflationary pressures, suspended that relationship. For the first time in modern history, the paper dollar did not represent some fixed amount of tangible, precious metal sitting in a vault somewhere.
For conservative commodity traders like the Hunts, who blamed government spending for inflation and held grave reservations about the viability of fiat currency, the perceived stability of precious metal offered a financial safe harbor. It was illegal to trade gold in the early 1970s, so the Hunts turned to the next best thing.
📷

Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics; chart by Priceonomics

As an investment, there was a lot to like about silver. The Hunts were not alone in fleeing to bullion amid all the inflation and geopolitical turbulence, so the price was ticking up. Plus, light-sensitive silver halide is a key component of photographic film. With the growth of the consumer photography market, new production from mines struggled to keep up with demand.
And so, in 1973, Bunker and Herbert bought over 35 million ounces of silver, most of which they flew to Switzerland in specifically designed airplanes guarded by armed Texas ranch hands. According to one source, the Hunt’s purchases were big enough to move the global market.
But silver was not the Hunts' only speculative venture in the 1970s. Nor was it the only one that got them into trouble with regulators.
Soy Before Silver
In 1977, the price of soybeans was rising fast. Trade restrictions on Brazil and growing demand from China made the legume a hot commodity, and both Bunker and Herbert decided to enter the futures market in April of that year.
A future is an agreement to buy or sell some quantity of a commodity at an agreed upon price at a later date. If someone contracts to buy soybeans in the future (they are said to take the “long” position), they will benefit if the price of soybeans rise, since they have locked in the lower price ahead of time. Likewise, if someone contracts to sell (that’s called the “short” position), they benefit if the price falls, since they have locked in the old, higher price.
While futures contracts can be used by soybean farmers and soy milk producers to guard against price swings, most futures are traded by people who wouldn’t necessarily know tofu from cream cheese. As a de facto insurance contract against market volatility, futures can be used to hedge other investments or simply to gamble on prices going up (by going long) or down (by going short).
When the Hunts decided to go long in the soybean futures market, they went very, very long. Between Bunker, Herbert, and the accounts of five of their children, the Hunts collectively purchased the right to buy one-third of the entire autumn soybean harvest of the United States.
To some, it appeared as if the Hunts were attempting to corner the soybean market.
In its simplest version, a corner occurs when someone buys up all (or at least, most) of the available quantity of a commodity. This creates an artificial shortage, which drives up the price, and allows the market manipulator to sell some of his stockpile at a higher profit.
Futures markets introduce some additional complexity to the cornerer’s scheme. Recall that when a trader takes a short position on a contract, he or she is pledging to sell a certain amount of product to the holder of the long position. But if the holder of the long position just so happens to be sitting on all the readily available supply of the commodity under contract, the short seller faces an unenviable choice: go scrounge up some of the very scarce product in order to “make delivery” or just pay the cornerer a hefty premium and nullify the deal entirely.
In this case, the cornerer is actually counting on the shorts to do the latter, says Craig Pirrong, professor of finance at the University of Houston. If too many short sellers find that it actually costs less to deliver the product, the market manipulator will be stuck with warehouses full of inventory. Finance experts refer to selling the all the excess supply after building a corner as “burying the corpse.”
“That is when the price collapses,” explains Pirrong. “But if the number of deliveries isn’t too high, the loss from selling at the low price after the corner is smaller than the profit from selling contracts at the high price.”
📷

The Chicago Board of Trade trading floor. Photo credit: Jeremy Kemp

Even so, when the Commodity Futures Trading Commission found that a single family from Texas had contracted to buy a sizable portion of the 1977 soybean crop, they did not accuse the Hunts of outright market manipulation. Instead, noting that the Hunts had exceeded the 3 million bushel aggregate limit on soybean holdings by about 20 million, the CFTC noted that the Hunt’s “excessive holdings threaten disruption of the market and could cause serious injury to the American public.” The CFTC ordered the Hunts to sell and to pay a penalty of $500,000.
Though the Hunts made tens of millions of dollars on paper while soybean prices skyrocketed, it’s unclear whether they were able to cash out before the regulatory intervention. In any case, the Hunts were none too pleased with the decision.
“Apparently the CFTC is trying to repeal the law of supply and demand,” Bunker complained to the press.
Silver Thursday
Despite the run in with regulators, the Hunts were not dissuaded. Bunker and Herbert had eased up on silver after their initial big buy in 1973, but in the fall of 1979, they were back with a vengeance. By the end of the year, Bunker and Herbert owned 21 million ounces of physical silver each. They had even larger positions in the silver futures market: Bunker was long on 45 million ounces, while Herbert held contracts for 20 million. Their little brother Lamar also had a more “modest” position.
By the new year, with every dollar increase in the price of silver, the Hunts were making $100 million on paper. But unlike most investors, when their profitable futures contracts expired, they took delivery. As in 1973, they arranged to have the metal flown to Switzerland. Intentional or not, this helped create a shortage of the metal for industrial supply.
Naturally, the industrialists were unhappy. From a spot price of around $6 per ounce in early 1979, the price of silver shot up to $50.42 in January of 1980. In the same week, silver futures contracts were trading at $46.80. Film companies like Kodak saw costs go through the roof, while the British film producer, Ilford, was forced to lay off workers. Traditional bullion dealers, caught in a squeeze, cried foul to the commodity exchanges, and the New York jewelry house Tiffany & Co. took out a full page ad in the New York Times slamming the “unconscionable” Hunt brothers. They were right to single out the Hunts; in mid-January, they controlled 69% of all the silver futures contracts on the Commodity Exchange (COMEX) in New York.
📷

Source: New York Times

But as the high prices persisted, new silver began to come out of the woodwork.
“In the U.S., people rifled their dresser drawers and sofa cushions to find dimes and quarters with silver content and had them melted down,” says Pirrong, from the University of Houston. “Silver is a classic part of a bride’s trousseau in India, and when prices got high, women sold silver out of their trousseaus.”
According to a Washington Post article published that March, the D.C. police warned residents of a rash of home burglaries targeting silver.
Unfortunately for the Hunts, all this new supply had a predictable effect. Rather than close out their contracts, short sellers suddenly found it was easier to get their hands on new supplies of silver and deliver.
“The main factor that has caused corners to fail [throughout history] is that the manipulator has underestimated how much will be delivered to him if he succeeds [at] raising the price to artificial levels,” says Pirrong. “Eventually, the Hunts ran out of money to pay for all the silver that was thrown at them.”
In financial terms, the brothers had a large corpse on their hands—and no way to bury it.
This proved to be an especially big problem, because it wasn’t just the Hunt fortune that was on the line. Of the $6.6 billion worth of silver the Hunts held at the top of the market, the brothers had “only” spent a little over $1 billion of their own money. The rest was borrowed from over 20 banks and brokerage houses.
At the same time, COMEX decided to crack down. On January 7, 1980, the exchange’s board of governors announced that it would cap the size of silver futures exposure to 3 million ounces. Those in excess of the cap (say, by the tens of millions) were given until the following month to bring themselves into compliance. But that was too long for the Chicago Board of Trade exchange, which suspended the issue of any new silver futures on January 21. Silver futures traders would only be allowed to square up old contracts.
Predictably, silver prices began to slide. As the various banks and other firms that had backed the Hunt bullion binge began to recognize the tenuousness of their financial position, they issued margin calls, asking the brothers to put up more money as collateral for their debts. The Hunts, unable to sell silver lest they trigger a panic, borrowed even more. By early March, futures contracts had fallen to the mid-$30 range.
Matters finally came to a head on March 25, when one of the Hunts’ largest backers, the Bache Group, asked for $100 million more in collateral. The brothers were out of cash, and Bache was unwilling to accept silver in its place, as it had been doing throughout the month. With the Hunts in default, Bache did the only thing it could to start recouping its losses: it start to unload silver.
On March 27, “Silver Thursday,” the silver futures market dropped by a third to $10.80. Just two months earlier, these contracts had been trading at four times that amount.
The Aftermath
After the oil bust of the early 1980s and a series of lawsuits polished off the remainder of the Hunt brothers’ once historic fortune, the two declared bankruptcy in 1988. Bunker, who had been worth an estimated $16 billion in the 1960s, emerged with under $10 million to his name. That’s not exactly chump change, but it wasn’t enough to maintain his 500-plus stable of horses,.
The Hunts almost dragged their lenders into bankruptcy too—and with them, a sizable chunk of the U.S. financial system. Over twenty financial institutions had extended over a billion dollars in credit to the Hunt brothers. The default and resulting collapse of silver prices blew holes in balance sheets across Wall Street. A privately orchestrated bailout loan from a number of banks allowed the brothers to start paying off their debts and keep their creditors afloat, but the markets and regulators were rattled.
Silver Spot Prices Per Ounce (January, 1979 - June, 1980)
📷

Source: Trading Economics

In the words of then CFTC chief James Stone, the Hunts’ antics had threatened to punch a hole in the “financial fabric of the United States” like nothing had in decades. Writing about the entire episode a year later, Harper’s Magazine described Silver Thursday as “the first great panic since October 1929.”
The trouble was not over for the Hunts. In the following years, the brothers were dragged before Congressional hearings, got into a legal spat with their lenders, and were sued by a Peruvian mineral marketing company, which had suffered big losses in the crash. In 1988, a New York City jury found for the South American firm, levying a penalty of over $130 million against the Hunts and finding that they had deliberately conspired to corner the silver market.
Surprisingly, there is still some disagreement on that point.
Bunker Hunt attributed the whole affair to the political motives of COMEX insiders and regulators. Referring to himself later as “a favorite whipping boy” of an eastern financial establishment riddled with liberals and socialists, Bunker and his brother, Herbert, are still perceived as martyrs by some on the far-right.
“Political and financial insiders repeatedly changed the rules of the game,” wrote the New American. “There is little evidence to support the ‘corner the market’ narrative.”
Though the Hunt brothers clearly amassed a staggering amount of silver and silver derivatives at the end of the 1970s, it is impossible to prove definitively that market manipulation was in their hearts. Maybe, as the Hunts always claimed, they just really believed in the enduring value of silver.
Or maybe, as others have noted, the Hunt brothers had no idea what they were doing. Call it the stupidity defense.
“They’re terribly unsophisticated,” an anonymous associated was quoted as saying of the Hunts in a Chicago Tribune article from 1989. “They make all the mistakes most other people make,” said another.
p.s. credit to Ben Christopher

1:30pm EST - Private member business - Safe and regulated Sports Betting Act (Canadian politics)
https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentVieween/house/latest/projected-business
If this passes, this is going to 🚀 this stock. They have investment from PENN a large gambling company US and they are also owned by one of the largest media companies in Canada....
Do your own DD but this is one to keep your 👁 on or blind faith into before the bill reading ✊🏼

EDIT: the post has been re-activated on stocks please comment there as it has the most traffic so I’m not jumping back and forth trying to respond. Appreciate everyone!
GME Short Squeeze What Comes Next Part 3
Hello all,
Before I begin I would like to address something I have been encountering on my posts in the comments section. I keep receiving some hate concerning my opinions and I want to be crystal clear that they are just that; opinions. I also want everyone to know that is is meant to be a dialog. I am not trying to pump this stock because truthfully, this goes far beyond us retail investors at this point. What I want is a dialog between all sides to examine this truly fascinating phenomenon that is occurring.
I would also like to clarify something, I am not a bagholder. I do currently hold bags because I own 336 shares at a $194.34 cost basis, however, that total amount is house money that was used from my profits on the first go around.
I also understand some people are tired of hearing about this because it's the same regurgitated form of someone else's post as it keeps circulating in an attempt to retain hype and drive future buying; this is not what this post is about. As investors and individuals involved in the world of finance, this situation should absolutely intrigue us whether or not we are involved. I am here to present my logic on the situation but encourage healthy discussion and debate.
This brings me to my first claim. This is not over. Now, I am not claiming that a squeeze will still occur, I am simply claiming it is not over, for better or for worse. Several things need to take place for this to be completely over, at which point I will either post my gains or my losses from the adventure.
When I say "it" I am referring to this entire phenomenon, not one short squeeze. I do not think these events, "it", is over. This is largely due to retail and institutional purchasing not really changing all that much since we found the bottom and established support at a staggering $60. This support was lost today and found new support at $50. There was very interesting ATH action and I'm not sure what to make of it.
Millions of bag holders (not just WSB) are still holding and in fact, averaging down, thereby purchasing more. These same bag holders are absolutely refusing to sell for such massive losses and in turn are becoming long term investors on the stock if another squeeze isn't to occur. People are picking up speculative positions in the off-chance of another squeeze. Others are determining this as a fair value for the company, not fundamentally, but based on the future prospects of Ryan Cohen and team. Finally, it is nowhere near leaving the global stage with important upcoming dates that we will discuss later.
To examine why it isn't over let's look at both sides of the argument:

Bulls claim it's not over for many reasons that you can find in the hundreds of other bullish posts, so I won't bore you with those details. My argument on the bull side is more along the lines of what I listed above.
Bears claim it is over because there was a 2250% price increase over the course of two weeks, therefore this must be a short squeeze.

I think we can all agree, bear or bull, that something happened. A 2250% increase certainly isn't nothing. The question is...what? I see several possibilities and would like to discuss them in the comments.

The shorts in fact covered and this was a short squeeze.
The shorts partially covered and this was a partial short squeeze, but the price increase was mainly hype and gamma squeezes.
The shorts didn't cover anything and this was a globally hyped price increase in conjunction with several gamma squeezes.
Some combination of the above 3.

First, the data:
Based on morningstar the short interest is showing 78.46%. Now, I think the website is having some issues storing cookies because it will show the outdated 226% unless you open it up in incognito.
Market watch is showing 41.95%
This spread is interesting for sure, my thoughts are some of these calculations are including "synthetic longs" introduced by S3.
It is extremely possible to manipulate these numbers via illegal methods and even legal methods using options. Please see this SEC document to explain how this would work. I am not trying to convince anyone to fit my narrative, but these things occur far more commonly than one would expect. The reasoning is because the fines for committing the crime are far less costly than letting the event take place. Please see FINRA's website for the long, and frequent list of fines being dealt out due to manipulation. A common culprit? Lying about short volume.
Let's use the absolute worst case scenario being reported of 41.95%, which mind you is still extremely high for one stock:
The shorts in fact covered and this was a short squeeze
What's interesting here is even if the shorts 100% covered all of their positions, they very well could have shorted on the way back down. Why wouldn't you? It would be insane to not open a short position when this hit nearly $500 especially if you lost half of your companies money; what better way to get it back? For the remainder of this thesis, I will be assuming that some of the short positions that exist are newly opened positions at a higher price unless someone has a counter-claim as to why that wouldn't be possible/probable.
That would mean 226% was covered on the way up and another 41.95% was reopened on the way back down. Based on the volume and price changes throughout the past two weeks this simply doesn't pass the math check.
The shorts partially covered and this was a partial short squeeze.
Again, using 41.95% this is highly likely and the most reasonable case. Some, probably the worst positions, were covered on the way up.
I think this is precisely what happened, we had some partial shorts covering but for the most part it was gamma squeezes, hype, and FOMO whereby the price started climbing so rapidly it became smarter for the shorts to just wait out the bubble than to actually cover all of their positions.
Again, we fall into a "what-if" scenario regarding shorting on the way back down.
The shorts didn't cover anything and this was a globally hyped price increase in conjunction with several gamma squeezes.
This scenario does not pass the math check using the 41.95% figure.
If the data is being manipulated then this becomes very interesting because if some of the worst positions are still open then that means all of these HF's losses that were reported were strictly interest and they are simply waiting this out for as long as it takes making back their losses on their newly opened short positions in t $300-$400 range.
Sadly, this puts us in the guessing range yet again. We can do the math and see it's possible this scenario exists, however, we would be comparing it against losses reported by the entities that were being squeezed.
There are way to many what-if's for me to me consider this a possibility, but I can't write it off completely.
Some combination of the above 3.
Truthfully, this isn't worth examining just yet. There would be far to many "what-if's" to address, this is something that could be address at the later dates that we will get to shortly.
Now, I've heard it a lot regarding the 02/09 data. "It's two weeks old". Well, that is always the case. The FINRA short data is always two weeks old and suggesting that we can't pull any information from it at all is asinine. Where it gets quite murky, is the data includes 01/27 information. This was a day unlike any other in this saga.
I will take this moment to address the following upcoming catalysts and when I truly think this will be done; one way or the other.
Today's data 02/09, was very important because if it showed an extremely low percentage then we know shorts have exited and did not re-enter and this is completely done. Given the data does not reflect that, we now must turn to several events that could act as catalysts for either a further squeeze or a complete shutdown.
02/15ish - In my last post, I discussed the Failure To Deliver (FTD) conundrum. I do need some help figuring out the exact expiration date. From here "The close-out requirement states that a participant of a clearing agency needs to take immediate action to close 4 out a fail to deliver position in a threshold security that has persisted for 13 consecutive settlement days by purchasing securities of like kind and quantity."
I am missing two pieces of information to answer this.

Does the 13 day countdown begin after T+2, or are those two days counted in the total number?
Are settlement days business days only?

Depending on the above information, starting at 01/29 we are looking at these possibilities:

If T+2 is not included and weekends are: 02/15
If T+2 is not included and its business days only: 02/19
If T+2 is included and weekends are: 02/13 (Saturday)
If T+2 is included and its business days: 02/17

The exact date is slightly irrelevant because I highly doubt all of these FTD's are going to deliver on the same exact day. This site, while it isn't an official channel seems to be doing a good job of tracking data. If you want to learn more about FTD's and the implications there please visit that site or review my last post which has links to follow for further reading.
02/18 - Keith Gill aka u/DeepFuckingValue will testify before congress and Robinhood CEO Vladimir will be attending. This can go several ways which can lead to an SEC trading halt on GameStop or with evidence that proves foul play occurred. Who knows? It will certainly be interesting and I don't even to speculate on the market reaction to this even because it could go a ton of different ways; it will be an important date nonetheless
02/24 - The next FINRA short interest information will be made readily available to the public. This will be far more interesting and helpful information because it won't include the insane volatility of January, but it will also highlight the newest short positions. This data will help further drive where I think this is all going to end. It's possible that shorts opened new positions at $50 thinking it was going back to $12. Let's not speculate too much here either, it's just another dataset that will bring light to the direction this is headed.
03/25 - GameStop ER. This is big too for several reasons. First, this will include the console sales cycle which historically has done well for GameStop. A typical buy the hype, sell the news event. It will be interesting to see how the market reacts leading up to this ER, maybe people won't even touch GME leading up to then due to the recent volatility, but if they do, and if there is still a lot of short interest, this too could force shorts to begin covering. Another critical part of this ER is Ryan Cohen. This will be the first time this new board addresses the public with their plans for the future and for the first time since this entire adventure began, the "dying brick and mortar" narrative will finally begin to change in the public eye. That is still the common misconception regarding GameStop, that it is a dying brick and mortar retailer where nothing has changed. This hasn't been the case for around 6 months now, but this will be the first time it is publicly address. The headlines surrounding GameStop's future plans will be very interesting to read and the markets reaction will be far more interesting.
I have been asked a lot what my PT is and when I expect the squeeze to happen, but let me be clear. Very seldom do squeezes "just happen". In fact, short squeezes are far more common than one would think, they just typically happen over months, if not years and the shorts cover on dips so you don't even notice it's happening. In order to force a squeeze, you need to hold a decent amount of shorts underwater. Soon one will crack and start closing their position, this leads to a series of shorts closing their positions skyrocketing the price until more and more shorts need to cover. This is rare.
I hope this narrative of purchasing heavily shorted companies comes to a close soon because a lot of people are going to lose a lot of money simply buying up companies because they are heavily bet against. Catalysts and massive changes need to occur like overhauling your entire business as is the case with GameStop.
Normally, shorts will close their positions one at a time, covering on dips and you don't even notice it's happening. In times where you see a price rise of seemingly no news could very well be shorts closing their positions because their research led them to realize this company is on the road to recovery.
I digress. Given the most recent data and the multiple upcoming catalysts I am still very bullish on a GME short squeeze. My post from quite some time ago illustrated the importance of catalysts regarding a short squeeze, this is still very much the case. The first run was interrupted and the second run won't happen with magic, it requires a catalyst. Another post was titled For those who do not understand the inevitable GME short squeeze, was at the time "inevitable" because math. That is no longer the case. It is no longer inevitable but it is still possible.
I want to be clear: This is not nearly as close to a sure thing as it once was and it depends on a lot of different factors. One of the largest is the people. Granted, a lot of what's happening now is in the hands of institutions but millions of retailers holding their positions to the grave certainly helps the institutional buyers have more faith in their play to continue a squeeze.
SO WHAT DO I THINK
I think shorts certainly covered some of their positions, but not all. I also firmly believe a significant amount of short positions were opened on the way back down by both HF's and individuals. Some certainly positioned high, but based on sentiment, it appears a lot of people think GME is fairly valued around $20 (which I disagree with but let's use that for the time being). That would mean shorts would have no problem opening positions at 100,70,60, even $50.
42% is still very high which means a squeeze is inevitable so long as the company continues in a positive path. However, squeezes typically aren't as abrupt as people think. They are actually quite common, in fact another position I'm heavily invested in is SPCE and they have been going through a squeeze for several weeks and will continue to squeeze so long as news continues to be positive.
How would we get an abrupt short squeeze? A massive bull run. The new shorts that entered at lower levels wouldn't be too hard to catch, however, they are probably low volume, so when they buy to close, it won't be large enough volumes for massive peaks, but a bull run very well could lead to these lower tiered shorts closing, triggering a gamma squeeze. If gamma squeezes are made week over week then shorts at the higher end would have two options:

Close early and take profits
Wait it out because they are positioned so well that interest means nothing and they don't think there is any hope of us rising to those levels.

In the first case, them closing early would be a nice short squeeze to probably several hundred dollars, but it wouldn't break $1000.
To break $1000 we would need a big bull run to catch the shorts, trigger gamma squeezes, and keep momentum until they are caught and underwater. This is highly unlikely unless there is another global sentiment.
NOTE: ALL OF THESE ASSUMPTIONS I AM MAKING ARE BASED ON THE 42% REPORTING. IF IT IS IN FACT 78% THEN THE POSSIBILITY IS TREMENDOUSLY INCREASED FOR THESE THINGS TO HAPPEN.
SO WHEN DOES IT ALL END
My though is if by the end of March these catalysts were not enough to reignite the hype and squeeze, then it will essentially be over except in the case of a few circumstances:

A VW/Porche moment occurs where a large buyer picks up a large portion of the company.
Some other currently unknown catalyst appears seemingly out of thin air
The data was in fact manipulated. Regardless of what the data says, if the shorts did in fact lie about their short int to take the fine over being squeezed, then they will be squeezed regardless.

It is quite possible, that these catalysts and moments aren't enough to force a squeeze anymore especially if the shorts have repositioned really well. I will retain the mindset that this fateful January 2021 was not a short squeeze. However, that does not mean it will ever actually happen.
SO WHAT IS YOUR PLAY HOOMAN?
Well, I am long on GME which is why I didn't mind hopping back in even at outrageous prices. I will continue averaging down and don't plan on selling for quite some time, probably several years. The reason for this is I believe in Cohen and his team to turn this into something unexpected and I imagine an eventual ROI. Once this is all said and done and I think either the shorts truly have covered or they simply got away with it (Mid March-ish), I will be posting my DD for GME as a long play regardless of the squeeze mechanics.
Thank you all for joining me on this wild journey. I hope we can discuss some of these points in the comments like adults and truly try to grasp this wild situation we are all in. There are extremes on both sides from "get over it, the squeeze happened" to a cult like mentality on the other extreme. I hope through discussion we can find the moderate approach and further understand the market mechanics at play.
Thanks for your time
WARNING: Until the squeeze business is over for good, this is a very volatile and risky play. Joining now for the hope of a potential round 2 squeeze should only be done in a speculative manner with money you are willing to lose. This is more akin to a gamble than it is investing. I think the current market price is fair given the future prospects of the company but do your own DD, I will not be releasing any until this squeeze is put to rest.
TL;DR: I am still bullish on this scenario even at 42%, if it really is 78% then I am extremely bullish. There are a plethora of upcoming catalysts that could reignite the squeeze but even if none are powerful enough, with Cohen's new direction we could expect good news for quite some time forcing shorts to exit on a more spread out timeline.
Disclaimer: I am not a financial advisor. I do not wish to sway your opinion in either direction. I simply seek to examine this interesting and volatile situation via crowd sourcing. What you do with your money is entirely up to you.

Reposting because for whatever reason once this post started gaining traction in stocks it was removed.
stocks reactivated the post, I posted this in several places please comment there as it has the most opinions to go around and I’m not jumping all over the place
Hello all,
Before I begin I would like to address something I have been encountering on my posts in the comments section. I keep receiving some hate concerning my opinions and I want to be crystal clear that they are just that; opinions. I also want everyone to know that is is meant to be a dialog. I am not trying to pump this stock because truthfully, this goes far beyond us retail investors at this point. What I want is a dialog between all sides to examine this truly fascinating phenomenon that is occurring.
I would also like to clarify something, I am not a bagholder. I do currently hold bags because I own 336 shares at a $194.34 cost basis, however, that total amount is house money that was used from my profits on the first go around.
I also understand some people are tired of hearing about this because it's the same regurgitated form of someone else's post as it keeps circulating in an attempt to retain hype and drive future buying; this is not what this post is about. As investors and individuals involved in the world of finance, this situation should absolutely intrigue us whether or not we are involved. I am here to present my logic on the situation but encourage healthy discussion and debate.
This brings me to my first claim. This is not over. Now, I am not claiming that a squeeze will still occur, I am simply claiming it is not over, for better or for worse. Several things need to take place for this to be completely over, at which point I will either post my gains or my losses from the adventure.
When I say "it" I am referring to this entire phenomenon, not one short squeeze. I do not think these events, "it", is over. This is largely due to retail and institutional purchasing not really changing all that much since we found the bottom and established support at a staggering $60. This support was lost today and found new support at $50. There was very interesting ATH action and I'm not sure what to make of it.
Millions of bag holders (not just WSB) are still holding and in fact, averaging down, thereby purchasing more. These same bag holders are absolutely refusing to sell for such massive losses and in turn are becoming long term investors on the stock if another squeeze isn't to occur. People are picking up speculative positions in the off-chance of another squeeze. Others are determining this as a fair value for the company, not fundamentally, but based on the future prospects of Ryan Cohen and team. Finally, it is nowhere near leaving the global stage with important upcoming dates that we will discuss later.
To examine why it isn't over let's look at both sides of the argument:

Bulls claim it's not over for many reasons that you can find in the hundreds of other bullish posts, so I won't bore you with those details. My argument on the bull side is more along the lines of what I listed above.
Bears claim it is over because there was a 2250% price increase over the course of two weeks, therefore this must be a short squeeze.

I think we can all agree, bear or bull, that something happened. A 2250% increase certainly isn't nothing. The question is...what? I see several possibilities and would like to discuss them in the comments.

The shorts in fact covered and this was a short squeeze.
The shorts partially covered and this was a partial short squeeze, but the price increase was mainly hype and gamma squeezes.
The shorts didn't cover anything and this was a globally hyped price increase in conjunction with several gamma squeezes.
Some combination of the above 3.

First, the data:
Based on morningstar the short interest is showing 78.46%. Now, I think the website is having some issues storing cookies because it will show the outdated 226% unless you open it up in incognito.
Market watch is showing 41.95%
This spread is interesting for sure, my thoughts are some of these calculations are including "synthetic longs" introduced by S3.
It is extremely possible to manipulate these numbers via illegal methods and even legal methods using options. Please see this SEC document to explain how this would work. I am not trying to convince anyone to fit my narrative, but these things occur far more commonly than one would expect. The reasoning is because the fines for committing the crime are far less costly than letting the event take place. Please see FINRA's website for the long, and frequent list of fines being dealt out due to manipulation. A common culprit? Lying about short volume.
Let's use the absolute worst case scenario being reported of 41.95%, which mind you is still extremely high for one stock:
The shorts in fact covered and this was a short squeeze
What's interesting here is even if the shorts 100% covered all of their positions, they very well could have shorted on the way back down. Why wouldn't you? It would be insane to not open a short position when this hit nearly $500 especially if you lost half of your companies money; what better way to get it back? For the remainder of this thesis, I will be assuming that some of the short positions that exist are newly opened positions at a higher price unless someone has a counter-claim as to why that wouldn't be possible/probable.
That would mean 226% was covered on the way up and another 41.95% was reopened on the way back down. Based on the volume and price changes throughout the past two weeks this simply doesn't pass the math check.
The shorts partially covered and this was a partial short squeeze.
Again, using 41.95% this is highly likely and the most reasonable case. Some, probably the worst positions, were covered on the way up.
I think this is precisely what happened, we had some partial shorts covering but for the most part it was gamma squeezes, hype, and FOMO whereby the price started climbing so rapidly it became smarter for the shorts to just wait out the bubble than to actually cover all of their positions.
Again, we fall into a "what-if" scenario regarding shorting on the way back down.
The shorts didn't cover anything and this was a globally hyped price increase in conjunction with several gamma squeezes.
This scenario does not pass the math check using the 41.95% figure.
If the data is being manipulated then this becomes very interesting because if some of the worst positions are still open then that means all of these HF's losses that were reported were strictly interest and they are simply waiting this out for as long as it takes making back their losses on their newly opened short positions in t $300-$400 range.
Sadly, this puts us in the guessing range yet again. We can do the math and see it's possible this scenario exists, however, we would be comparing it against losses reported by the entities that were being squeezed.
There are way to many what-if's for me to me consider this a possibility, but I can't write it off completely.
Some combination of the above 3.
Truthfully, this isn't worth examining just yet. There would be far to many "what-if's" to address, this is something that could be address at the later dates that we will get to shortly.
Now, I've heard it a lot regarding the 02/09 data. "It's two weeks old". Well, that is always the case. The FINRA short data is always two weeks old and suggesting that we can't pull any information from it at all is asinine. Where it gets quite murky, is the data includes 01/27 information. This was a day unlike any other in this saga.
I will take this moment to address the following upcoming catalysts and when I truly think this will be done; one way or the other.
Today's data 02/09, was very important because if it showed an extremely low percentage then we know shorts have exited and did not re-enter and this is completely done. Given the data does not reflect that, we now must turn to several events that could act as catalysts for either a further squeeze or a complete shutdown.
02/19 - In my last post, I discussed the Failure To Deliver (FTD) conundrum. I do need some help figuring out the exact expiration date. From here "The close-out requirement states that a participant of a clearing agency needs to take immediate action to close 4 out a fail to deliver position in a threshold security that has persisted for 13 consecutive settlement days by purchasing securities of like kind and quantity."
The exact date is slightly irrelevant because I highly doubt all of these FTD's are going to deliver on the same exact day. This site, while it isn't an official channel seems to be doing a good job of tracking data. If you want to learn more about FTD's and the implications there please visit that site or review my last post which has links to follow for further reading.
02/18 - Keith Gill aka u/DeepFuckingValue will testify before congress and RH CEO Vladimir will be attending. This can go several ways which can lead to an SEC trading halt on GameStop or with evidence that proves foul play occurred. Who knows? It will certainly be interesting and I don't even to speculate on the market reaction to this even because it could go a ton of different ways; it will be an important date nonetheless
02/24 - The next FINRA short interest information will be made readily available to the public. This will be far more interesting and helpful information because it won't include the insane volatility of January, but it will also highlight the newest short positions. This data will help further drive where I think this is all going to end. It's possible that shorts opened new positions at $50 thinking it was going back to $12. Let's not speculate too much here either, it's just another dataset that will bring light to the direction this is headed.
03/05 - GameStop ER. This is big too for several reasons. First, this will include the console sales cycle which historically has done well for GameStop. A typical buy the hype, sell the news event. It will be interesting to see how the market reacts leading up to this ER, maybe people won't even touch GME leading up to then due to the recent volatility, but if they do, and if there is still a lot of short interest, this too could force shorts to begin covering. Another critical part of this ER is Ryan Cohen. This will be the first time this new board addresses the public with their plans for the future and for the first time since this entire adventure began, the "dying brick and mortar" narrative will finally begin to change in the public eye. That is still the common misconception regarding GameStop, that it is a dying brick and mortar retailer where nothing has changed. This hasn't been the case for around 6 months now, but this will be the first time it is publicly address. The headlines surrounding GameStop's future plans will be very interesting to read and the markets reaction will be far more interesting.
I have been asked a lot what my PT is and when I expect the squeeze to happen, but let me be clear. Very seldom do squeezes "just happen". In fact, short squeezes are far more common than one would think, they just typically happen over months, if not years and the shorts cover on dips so you don't even notice it's happening. In order to force a squeeze, you need to hold a decent amount of shorts underwater. Soon one will crack and start closing their position, this leads to a series of shorts closing their positions skyrocketing the price until more and more shorts need to cover. This is rare.
I hope this narrative of purchasing heavily shorted companies comes to a close soon because a lot of people are going to lose a lot of money simply buying up companies because they are heavily bet against. Catalysts and massive changes need to occur like overhauling your entire business as is the case with GameStop.
Normally, shorts will close their positions one at a time, covering on dips and you don't even notice it's happening. In times where you see a price rise of seemingly no news could very well be shorts closing their positions because their research led them to realize this company is on the road to recovery.
I digress. Given the most recent data and the multiple upcoming catalysts I am still very bullish on a GME short squeeze. My post from quite some time ago illustrated the importance of catalysts regarding a short squeeze, this is still very much the case. The first run was interrupted and the second run won't happen with magic, it requires a catalyst. Another post was titled For those who do not understand the inevitable GME short squeeze, was at the time "inevitable" because math. That is no longer the case. It is no longer inevitable but it is still possible.
I want to be clear: This is not nearly as close to a sure thing as it once was and it depends on a lot of different factors. One of the largest is the people. Granted, a lot of what's happening now is in the hands of institutions but millions of retailers holding their positions to the grave certainly helps the institutional buyers have more faith in their play to continue a squeeze.
SO WHAT DO I THINK
I think shorts certainly covered some of their positions, but not all. I also firmly believe a significant amount of short positions were opened on the way back down by both HF's and individuals. Some certainly positioned high, but based on sentiment, it appears a lot of people think GME is fairly valued around $20 (which I disagree with but let's use that for the time being). That would mean shorts would have no problem opening positions at 100,70,60, even $50.
42% is still very high which means a squeeze is inevitable so long as the company continues in a positive path. However, squeezes typically aren't as abrupt as people think. They are actually quite common, in fact another position I'm heavily invested in is SPCE and they have been going through a squeeze for several weeks and will continue to squeeze so long as news continues to be positive.
How would we get an abrupt short squeeze? A massive bull run. The new shorts that entered at lower levels wouldn't be too hard to catch, however, they are probably low volume, so when they buy to close, it won't be large enough volumes for massive peaks, but a bull run very well could lead to these lower tiered shorts closing, triggering a gamma squeeze. If gamma squeezes are made week over week then shorts at the higher end would have two options:

Close early and take profits
Wait it out because they are positioned so well that interest means nothing and they don't think there is any hope of us rising to those levels.

In the first case, them closing early would be a nice short squeeze to probably several hundred dollars, but it wouldn't break $1000.
To break $1000 we would need a big bull run to catch the shorts, trigger gamma squeezes, and keep momentum until they are caught and underwater. This is highly unlikely unless there is another global sentiment.
NOTE: ALL OF THESE ASSUMPTIONS I AM MAKING ARE BASED ON THE 42% REPORTING. IF IT IS IN FACT 78% THEN THE POSSIBILITY IS TREMENDOUSLY INCREASED FOR THESE THINGS TO HAPPEN.
SO WHEN DOES IT ALL END
My though is if by the end of March these catalysts were not enough to reignite the hype and squeeze, then it will essentially be over except in the case of a few circumstances:

A VW/Porche moment occurs where a large buyer picks up a large portion of the company.
Some other currently unknown catalyst appears seemingly out of thin air
The data was in fact manipulated. Regardless of what the data says, if the shorts did in fact lie about their short int to take the fine over being squeezed, then they will be squeezed regardless.

It is quite possible, that these catalysts and moments aren't enough to force a squeeze anymore especially if the shorts have repositioned really well. I will retain the mindset that this fateful January 2021 was not a short squeeze. However, that does not mean it will ever actually happen.
SO WHAT IS YOUR PLAY HOOMAN?
Well, I am long on GME which is why I didn't mind hopping back in even at outrageous prices. I will continue averaging down and don't plan on selling for quite some time, probably several years. The reason for this is I believe in Cohen and his team to turn this into something unexpected and I imagine an eventual ROI. Once this is all said and done and I think either the shorts truly have covered or they simply got away with it (Mid March-ish), I will be posting my DD for GME as a long play regardless of the squeeze mechanics.
Thank you all for joining me on this wild journey. I hope we can discuss some of these points in the comments like adults and truly try to grasp this wild situation we are all in. There are extremes on both sides from "get over it, the squeeze happened" to a cult like mentality on the other extreme. I hope through discussion we can find the moderate approach and further understand the market mechanics at play.
Thanks for your time
WARNING: Until the squeeze business is over for good, this is a very volatile and risky play. Joining now for the hope of a potential round 2 squeeze should only be done in a speculative manner with money you are willing to lose. This is more akin to a gamble than it is investing. I think the current market price is fair given the future prospects of the company but do your own DD, I will not be releasing any until this squeeze is put to rest.
TL;DR: I am still bullish on this scenario even at 42%, if it really is 78% then I am extremely bullish. There are a plethora of upcoming catalysts that could reignite the squeeze but even if none are powerful enough, with Cohen's new direction we could expect good news for quite some time forcing shorts to exit on a more spread out timeline.
Disclaimer: I am not a financial advisor. I do not wish to sway your opinion in either direction. I simply seek to examine this interesting and volatile situation via crowd sourcing. What you do with your money is entirely up to you.

1:30pm EST - Private member business - Safe and regulated Sports Betting Act (Canadian politics)
https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentVieween/house/latest/projected-business
If this passes, this is going to 🚀 this stock. They have investment from PENN a large gambling company US and they are also owned by one of the largest media companies in Canada....
Do your own DD but this is one to keep your 👁 on or blind faith into before the bill reading ✊🏼

In the late 1980s and early 1990s when I was a young teen growing up in far North Austin, it was a popular custom for many boys in the neighborhood to assemble at the local Stop-N-Go after school on a regular basis for some Grand Champion level tournaments in Street Fighter 2 and Mortal Kombat. The collective insistence of our mothers and fathers to get out of the house, get some exercise, and refrain from playing NES or Sega on the television only led us to seek out more video games at the convenience store down the road. Much allowance and lunch money was spent as well as hours that should have been devoted to homework among the 8 or 9 regular boys in attendance, often challenging each other to 'Best of 5' matches. I myself played Dhalsim and SubZero, and not very well, so I rarely ever made it to the 5th match. The store workers frequently kicked us out for the day only to have us return when they weren't working the counter anymore if not the next day.
There is something about that which has been lost in the present day. While people can today download the latest games on Steam or PSN or in the app store on your smartphone, you can't just find arcade games in stores and restaurants like you used to be able to. And so the fun of a spontaneous 8 or 10 person multiplayer video game tournament has been confined to places like bars, pool halls, Pinballz or Dave&Busters.
But in truth it was that ubiquity of arcade video games, how you could find them in any old 7-11 or Laundromat, which is what killed the original arcades of the early 1980s before the Great Crash of 1983 when home video game consoles started to catch up to what you saw in the arcade.
I was born in the mid 1970s so I missed out on Pong. I was kindergarten age when the Golden Age of Arcade Games took place in the early 1980s. There used to be a place called Skateworld on Anderson Mill Road that was primarily for roller skating but had a respectable arcade in its own right. It was there that I honed my skills on the original Tron, Pac Man, Galaga, Pole Position, Defender, and so many others. In the 1980s I remember visiting all the same mall arcades as others in my age group. There was Aladdin's Castle in Barton Creek Mall, The Gold Mine in Highland, and another Gold Mine in Northcross which was eventually renamed Tilt. Westgate Mall also had an arcade but being a north austin kid I never went there until later in the mid 1990s. There were also places like Malibu Grand Prix and Showbiz Pizza and Chuck-E-Cheeze, all of which had fairly large arcades for kids which were the secondary attraction.
If you're of a certain age you will remember Einsteins and LeFun on the Drag. They were there for a few decades going back way before the Slacker era. Lesser known is that the UT Student Union basement used to have an arcade that was comparable to either or both of those places. Back in the pre-9/11 days it was much easier to sneak in if you even vaguely looked like you could be a UT student.
But there was another place I was too young to have experienced called Smitty's up further north on 183 at Lake Creek in the early 1980s. I never got to go there but I always heard about it from older kids at the time. It was supposed to have been two stories of wall to wall games with a small snack bar. I guess at the time it served a mostly older teen crowd from Westwood High School and for that reason younger kids my age weren't having birthday parties there. It wasn't around very long, just a few years during the Golden Age of Arcades.
It is with almost-forgotten early arcades like that in mind that I wanted to share with y'all some examples of places from The Golden Age of the Video Arcade in Austin using some old Statesman articles I've found. Maybe someone of a certain age on here will remember them. I was curious what they were like, having missed out by being slightly too young to have experienced most of them first hand. I also wanted to see the original reaction to them in the press. I had a feeling there was some pushback from school/parent/civic groups on these facilities showing up in neighborhood strip malls or next to schools, and I was right to suspect. But I'm getting ahead of myself. First let's list off some places of interest. Be sure to speak up if you remember going to any of these, even if it was just for some other kid's birthday party. Unfortunately some of the only mentions about a place are reports of a crime being committed there, such as our first few examples.
Forgotten Arcade #1
Fun House/Play Time Arcade - 2820 Guadalupe
June 15, 1975

ARCADE ENTHUSIASM
A gang fight involving 20 30 people erupted early Saturday morning in front of an arcade on Guadalupe Street. The owner of the Fun House Arcade at 282J Guadalupe told police pool cues, lug wrenches, fists and a shotgun were displayed during the flurry. Police are unsure what started the fisticuffs, but one witness at the scene said it pitted Chicanos against Anglos. During the fight the owner of the arcade said a green car stopped at the side of the arcade and witnesses reported the barrel of a shotgun sticking out. The crowd wisely scattered and only a 23-year-old man was left lying on the ground. He told police he doesn't know what happened.

March 3, 1976

ARCADE ROBBED
A former employee of Play Time Arcade, 2820 Guadalupe, was charged Tuesday in connection with the Tuesday afternoon robbery of his former business. Police have issued a warrant for the arrest of Ronnie Magee, 22, of 1009 Aggie Lane, Apt. 306. Arcade attendant Sam Garner said he had played pool with the suspect an hour before the robbery. He told police the man had been fired from the business two weeks earlier. Police said a man walked in the arcade about 2:45 p m. with a blue steel pistol and took $180. Magee is charged with first degree aggravated robbery. Bond was set on the charge at $15,000.

First it was called Fun House and then renamed Play Time a year later. I'm not sure what kind of arcade games beyond Pong and maybe Asteroids they could have had at this place. The peak of the Pinball craze was supposed to be around 1979, so they might have had a few pinball machines as well. A quick search of youtube will show you a few examples of 1976 video games like Death Race. The location is next to Ken's Donuts where PokeBowl is today where the old Baskin Robbins location was for many years.
Forgotten Arcade #2
Green Goth - 1121 Springdale Road
May 15, 1984

A 23-year-old man pleaded guilty Monday to a January 1983 murder in East Austin and was sentenced to 15 years in prison. Jim Crowell Jr. of Austin admitted shooting 17-year-old Anthony Rodriguez in the chest with a shotgun after the two argued outside the Green Goth, a games arcade at 1121 Springdale Road, on Jan. 23, 1983. Crowell had argued with Rodriguez and a friend of Rodriguez at the arcade, police said. Crowell then went to his house, got a shotgun and returned to the arcade, witnesses said. When the two friends left the arcade, Rodriguez was shot Several weeks ago Crowell had reached a plea bargain with prosecutors for an eight-year prison term, but District Judge Bob Perkins would not accept the sentence, saying it was shorter than sentences in similar cases. After further plea bargaining, Crowell accepted the 15-year prison sentence.

I can't find anything else on Green Goth except reports about this incident with a murder there. There is at least one other report from 1983 around the time of Crowell's arrest that also refer to it as an arcade but reports the manager said the argument started over a game of pool. It's possible this place might have been more known for pool.
Forgotten Arcades #3 & #4
Games, Etc. - 1302 S. First St
Muther's Arcade - 2532 Guadalupe St
August 23, 1983

Losing the magic touch - Video Arcades have trouble winning the money game
It was going to be so easy for Lawrence Villegas, a video game junkie who thought he could make a fast buck by opening up an arcade where kids could plunk down an endless supply of quarters to play Pac-Man, Space Invaders and Asteroids. Villegas got together with a few friends, purchased about 30 video games and opened Games, Etc. at 1302 S. First St in 1980. .,--.... For a while, things, went great Kids waited in line to spend their money to drive race cars, slay dragons and save the universe.
AT THE BEGINNING of 1982, however, the bottom fell out, and Villegas' revenues fell from $400 a week to $25. Today, Games, Etc. is vacant Villegas, 30, who is now working for his parents at Tony's Tortilla Factory, hasn't decided what he'll do with the building. "I was hooked on Asteroids, and I opened the business to get other people hooked, too," Villegas said. "But people started getting bored, and it wasn't worth keeping the place open. In the end, I sold some machines for so little it made me sick."
VILLEGAS ISNT the only video game operator to experience hard times, video game manufacturers and distributors 'It used to be fairly common to get $300 a week from a machine. Now we rarely get more than $100 .
Pac-Man's a lost cause. Six months ago, you could resell a Pac-Man machine for $1,600. Now, you're lucky to get $950 if you can find a buyer." Ronnie Roark says. In the past year, business has dropped 25 percent to 65 percent throughout the country, they say. Most predict business will get even worse before the market stabilizes. Video game manufacturers and operators say there are several reasons for the sharp and rapid decline: Many video games can now be played at home on television, so there's no reason to go to an arcade. The novelty of video games has worn off. It has been more than a decade since the first ones hit the market The decline can be traced directly to oversaturation or the market arcade owners say. The number of games in Austin has quadrupled since 1981, and it's not uncommon to see them in coin-operated laundries, convenience stores and restaurants.
WITH SO MANY games to choose from, local operators say, Austinites be came bored. Arcades still take in thousands of dollars each week, but managers and owners say most of the money is going to a select group of newer games, while dozens of others sit idle.
"After awhile, they all seem the same," said Dan Moyed, 22, as he relaxed at Muther's Arcade at 2532 Guadalupe St "You get to know what the game is going to do before it does. You can play without even thinking about it" Arcade owners say that that, in a nutshell, is why the market is stagnating.
IN THE PAST 18 months, Ronnie Roark, owner of the Back Room at 2015 E. Riverside Drive, said his video business has dropped 65 to 75 percent Roark, . who supplied about 160 video games to several Austin bars and arcades, said the instant success of the games is what led to their demise. "The technology is not keeping up with people's demand for change," said Roark, who bought his first video game in 1972. "The average game is popular for two or three months. We're sending back games that are less than five months old."
Roark said the market began dropping in March 1982 and has been declining steadily ever since. "The drop started before University of Texas students left for the summer in 1982," Roark said. "We expected a 25 percent drop in business, and we got that, and more. It's never really picked up since then. - "It used to be fairly common to get $300 a week from a machine. Now we rarely get more than $100. 1 was shocked when I looked over my books and saw how much things had dropped."
TO COMBAT THE slump, Roark said, he and some arcade owners last year cut the price of playing. Even that didn't help, he said. Old favorites, such as Pac-Man, which once took in hundreds of dollars each week, he said, now make less than $3 each. "Pac-Man's a lost cause," he said. "Six months ago, you could resell a Pac-Man machine for $1,600. Now, you're lucky to get $950 if you can find a buyer." Hardest hit by the slump are the owners of the machines, who pay $3,500 to $5,000 for new products and split the proceeds with the businesses that house them.
SALEM JOSEPH, owner of Austin Amusement and Vending Co., said his business is off 40 percent in the past year. Worse yet, some of his customers began returning their machines, and he's having a hard time putting them back in service. "Two years ago, a machine would generate enough money to pay for itself in six months,' said Joseph, who supplies about 250 games to arcades. "Now that same machine takes 18 months to pay for itself." As a result, Joseph said, he'll buy fewer than 15 new machines this year, down from the 30 to 50 he used to buy. And about 50 machines are sitting idle in his warehouse.
"I get calls every day from people who want to sell me their machines," Joseph said. "But I can't buy them. The manufacturers won't buy them from me." ARCADE OWNERS and game manufacturers hope the advent of laser disc video games will buoy the market Don Osborne, vice president of marketing for Atari, one of the largest manufacturers of video games, said he expects laser disc games to bring a 25 percent increase in revenues next year. The new games are programmed to give players choices that may affect the outcome of the game, Os borne said. "Like the record and movie industries, the video game industry is dependent on products that stimulate the imagination," Osborne said "One of the reasons we're in a valley is that we weren't coming up with those kinds of products."
THE FIRST of the laser dis games, Dragonslayer and Star Wan hit the market about two months ago. Noel Kerns, assistant manager of The Gold Mine Arcade in Northcross Mall, says the new games are responsible for a $l,000-a-week increase in revenues. Still, Kerns said, the Gold Mine' total sales are down 20 percent iron last summer. However, he remain optimistic about the future of the video game industry. "Where else can you come out of the rain and drive a Formula One race car or save the universe?" hi asked.
Others aren't so optimistic. Roark predicted the slump will force half of all operators out of business and will last two more years. "Right now, we've got a great sup ply and almost no demand," Roark said. "That's going to have to change before things get- significantly better."

Well there is a lot to take from that long article, among other things, that the author confused "Dragonslayer" with "Dragon's Lair". I lol'd.
Anyone who has been to Emo's East, formerly known as The Back Room, knows they have arcade games and pool, but it's mostly closed when there isn't a show. That shouldn't count as an arcade, even though the former owner Ronnie Roark was apparently one of the top suppliers of cabinet games to the area during the Golden Era. Any pool hall probably had a few arcade games at the time, too, but that's not the same as being an arcade.
We also learn from the same article of two forgotten arcades: Muthers at 2522 Guadalupe where today there is a Mediterranean food restaurant, and another called Games, Etc. at 1302 S.First that today is the site of an El Mercado restaurant. But the article is mostly about showing us how bad the effects were from the crash at the end of the Golden Era. It was very hard for the early arcades to survive with increasing competition from home game consoles and personal computers, and the proliferation of the games into stores and restaurants.
Forgotten Arcades #5 #6 & #7
Computer Madness - 2414 S. Lamar Blvd.
Electronic Encounters - 1701 W Ben White Blvd (Southwood Mall)
The Outer Limits Amusements Center - 1409 W. Oltorf
March 4, 1982

'Quartermania' stalks South Austin
School officials, parents worried about effects of video games
A fear Is haunting the video game business. "We call it 'quartermania.' That's fear of running out of quarters," said Steve Stackable, co-owner of Computer Madness, a video game and foosball arcade at 2414 S. Lamar Blvd. The "quartermania" fear extends to South Austin households and schools, as well. There it's a fear of students running out of lunch money and classes to play the games. Local school officials and Austin police are monitoring the craze. They're concerned that computer hotspots could become undesirable "hangouts" for students, or that truancy could increase because students (high-school age and younger) will skip school to defend their galaxies against The Tempest.
So far police fears have not been substantiated. Department spokesmen say that although more than half the burglaries in the city are committed by juveniles during the daytime, they know of no connection between the break-ins and kids trying to feed their video habit But school and parental worries about misspent time and money continue. The public outcry in September 1980 against proposals to put electronic game arcades near two South Austin schools helped persuade city officials to reject the applications. One proposed location was near Barton Hills Elementary School. The other was South Ridge Plaza at William Cannon Drive and South First Street across from Bedlchek Junior High School.
Bedichek principal B.G. Henry said he spoke against the arcade because "of the potential attraction it had for our kids. I personally feel kids are so drawn to these things, that It might encourage them to leave the school building and play hookey. Those things have so much compulsion, kids are drawn to them like a magnet Kids can get addicted to them and throw away money, maybe their lunch money. I'm not against the video games. They may be beneficial with eye-hand coordination or even with mathematics, but when you mix the video games during school hours and near school buildings, you might be asking for problems you don't need."
A contingent from nearby Pleasant Hill Elementary School joined Bedichek in the fight back in 1980, although principal Kay Beyer said she received her first formal call about the games last Week from a mother complaining that her child was spending lunch money on them. Beyer added that no truancy problems have been related to video game-playing at a nearby 7-11 store. Allen Poehl, amusement game coordinator for Austin's 7-11 stores, said company policy rules out any game-playing by school-age youth during school hours. Fulmore Junior High principal Bill Armentrout said he is working closely with operators of a nearby 7-1 1 store to make sure their policy is enforced.
The convenience store itself, and not necessarily the video games, is a drawing card for older students and drop-outs, Armentrout said. Porter Junior High principal Marjorie Ball said that while video games aren't a big cause of truancy, "the money (spent on the games) is a big factor." Ball said she has made arrangements with nearby businesses to call the school it students are playing the games during school hours. "My concern is that kids are basically unsupervised, especially at the 24-hour grocery stores. That's a late hour for kids to be out. I would like to see them (games) unplugged at 10 p.m.," adds Joslin Elementary principal Wayne Rider.
Several proprietors of video game hot-spots say they sympathize with the concerns of parents and school officials. No one under 18 is admitted without a parent to Chuck E. Cheese's Pizza Time Theatre at 4211 S. Lamar. That rule, says night manager David Dunagan, "keeps it from being a high school hangout. This is a family place." Jerry Zollar, owner of J.J. Subs in West Wood Shopping Center on Bee Cave Road, rewards the A's on the report cards of Eanes school district students with free video games. "It's kind of a community thing we do in a different way. I've heard from both teachers and parents . . . they thought this was a good idea," said Zollar.
Electronic Encounters in Southwood Mall last year was renovated into a brightly lit arcade. "We're trying to get away from the dark, barroom-type place. We want this to be a place for family entertainment We won't let kids stay here during school hours without a written note from their parents, and we're pretty strict about that," said manager Kelly Roberts. Joyce Houston, who manages The Outer Limits amusements center at 1409 W. Oltorf St. along with her husband, said, "I wouldn't let my children go into some of the arcades I've visited. I'm a concerned parent, too. We wanted a place where the whole family could come and enjoy themselves."

Well you can see which way the tone of all these articles is going. There were some crimes committed at some arcades but all of them tended to have a negative reputation for various reasons. Parents and teachers were very skeptical of the arcades being in the neighborhoods to the point of petitioning the City Government to restrict them. Three arcades are mentioned besides Chuck-E-Cheese. Electronic Encounters in Southwood Mall, The Outer Limits amusements center at 1409 W. Oltorf, and Computer Madness, a "video game and foosball arcade" at 2414 S. Lamar Blvd.
Forgotten Arcade #8
Smitty's Galaxy of Games - Lake Creek Parkway
February 25, 1982

Arcades fighting negative image
Video games have swept across America, and Williamson and Travis counties have not been immune. In a two-part series, Neighbor examines the effects the coin-operated machines have had on suburban and small-town life.
Cities have outlawed them, religious leaders have denounced them and distraught mothers have lost countless children to their voracious appetites. And still they march on, stronger and more numerous than before. A new disease? Maybe. A wave of invading aliens from outer space? On occasion. A new type of addiction? Certainly. The culprit? Video games. Although the electronic game explosion has been mushrooming throughout the nation's urban areas for the past few years, its rippling effects have just recently been felt in the suburban fringes of North Austin and Williamson County.
In the past year, at least seven arcades armed with dozens of neon quarter-snatchers have sprung up to lure teens with thundering noises and thousands of flashing seek-and-destroy commands. Critics say arcades are dens of iniquity where children fall prey to the evils of gambling. But arcade owners say something entirely different. "Everybody fights them (arcades), they think they are a haven for drug addicts. It's just not true," said Larry Grant of Austin, who opened Eagle's Nest Fun and Games on North Austin Avenue in Georgetown last September. "These kids are great" Grant said the gameroom "gives teenagers a place to come. Some only play the games and some only talk.
In Georgetown, if you're from the high school, this is it." He said he's had very few disturbances, and asks "undesirables" to leave. "We've had a couple of rowdies. That's why I don't have any pool tables they tend to attract that type of crowd," Grant said.
Providing a place for teens to congregate was also the reason behind Ron and Carol Smith's decision to open Smitty's Galaxy of Games on Lake Creek Parkway at the entrance to Anderson Mill. "We have three teenage sons, and as soon as the oldest could drive, it became immediately apparent that there was no place to go around here," said Ron, an IBM employee who lives in Spicewood at Balcones. "This prompted us to want to open something." The business, which opened in August, has been a huge success with both parents and youngsters. "Hundreds of parents have come to check out our establishment before allowing their children to come, and what they see is a clean, safe environment managed by adults and parents," Ron said. "We've developed an outstanding rapport with the community." Video arcades "have a reputation that we have to fight," said Carol.
Kathy McCoy of Georgetown, who last October opened Krazy Korner on Willis Street in Leander, agrees. "We've got a real good group of kids," she said. "There's no violence, no nothing. Parents can always find their kids at Krazy Korner."
While all the arcade owners contacted reported that business is healthy, if not necessarily lucrative, it's not as easy for video entrepreneurs to turn a profit as one might imagine. A sizeable investment is required. Ron Smith paid between $2,800 and $5,000 for each of the 30 electronic diversions at his gameroom.
Grant said his average video game grosses about $50 a week, and his "absolute worst" game, Armor Attack, only $20 a week. The top machines (Defender and Pac-Man) can suck in an easy $125 a week. That's a lot of quarters, 500 to be exact but the Eagle's Nest and Krazy Korner pass half of them on to Neelley Vending Company of Austin which rents them their machines. "At 25 cents a shot, it takes an awful lot of people to pay the bills," said Tom Hatfield, district manager for Neelley.
He added that an owner's personality and the arcade's location can make or break the venture. The game parlor must be run "by an understanding person, someone with patience," Hatfield said. "They cannot be too demanding on the kids, yet they can't let them run all over them." And they must be located in a spot "with lots of foot traffic," such as a shopping center or near a good restaurant, he said. "And being close to a school really helps." "Video games are going to be here permanently, but we're going to see some operations not going because of the competition," which includes machines in virtually every convenience store and supermarket, Hatfield said.

This article talks about three arcades. One in Georgetown called Eagles Nest, another in Leander called Krazy Korner, and a third called Smitty's Galaxy of Games on Lake Creek Parkway "on the fringes of North Austin". This is the one I remember the older kids talking about when I was a little kid. There was once a movie theater across the street from the Westwood High School football stadium and behind that was Smitty's. Today I think the building was bulldozed long ago and the space is part of the expanded onramp to 183 today. Eventually another unrelated arcade was built next to the theater that became Alamo Lakeline. It was another site of some unrecorded epic Street Fighter 2 and Mortal Kombat tournaments in the 90s.
But the article written before the end of the Golden Era tell us much about the pushback I was talking about earlier. Early arcades were seen as "dirty" places in some circles, and the owners of the arcades in Williamson County had to stress how "clean" their establishments were. This other article from a couple of weeks later tells of how area school officials weren't worried about video games and tells us more arcades in Round Rock and Cedar Park. Apparently the end of the golden age lasted a bit longer than usual in this area.
At some point in the next few years the bubble burst, and places like Smitty's were gone by the late 80s. But the distributors quoted earlier were right that arcade games weren't going completely away. In the mid 1980s LeFun opened up next in the Scientology building at 2200 Guadalupe on the drag. Down a few doors past what used be a coffee shop and a CVS was Einsteins Arcade. Both of those survived into the 21st century. I remember the last time I was at Einsteins I got my ass beat in Tekken by a kid half my age. heheh
That's all for today. There were no Bonus Pics in the UT archive of arcades (other than the classical architectural definition). I wanted to pass on some Bonus newspaper articles (remember to click and zoom in with the buttons on the right to read) about Austin arcades anyway but first a small story.
I mentioned earlier the secret of the UT Student Union. I have no idea what it looks like now but in the 90s there was a sizable arcade in with the bowling alley in the basement. Back in 1994 when I used to sneak in, they featured this bizarre early attempt at virtual reality games. I found an old Michael Barnes Statesman article about it dated February 11, 1994. Some highlights:

Hundreds of students and curiosity-seekers lined up at the University of Texas Union to play three to five minutes of Dactyl Nightmare, Flying Aces or V-Tol, three-dimensional games from Kramer Entertainment. Nasty weather delayed the unloading of four huge trunks containing the machines, which resemble low pulpits. Still, players waited intently for a chance to shoot down a fighter jet, operate a tilt-wing Harrier or tangle with a pterodactyl. Today, tickets will go on sale in the Texas Union lobby at 11:30 a.m. for playing slots between noon and 6 p.m.
Players, fitted with full helmets, throttles and power packs, stood on shiny gray and yellow platforms surrounded by a circular guard rail. Seen behind the helmet's goggles were computer simulated landscapes, not unlike the most sophisticated video games, with controls and enemies viewed in deep space. "You're on a platform waiting to fight a human figure," said Jeff Vaughn, 19, of Dactyl Nightmare. "A pterodactyl swoops down and tries to pick you up. You have to fight it off. You are in the space and can see your own body and all around you. But if you try to walk, you have to use that joy stick to get around."
"I let the pterodactyl carry me away so I could look down and scan the board," said Tom Bowen of the same game. "That was the way I found out where the other player was." "Yeah, it's cool just to stand there and not do anything," Vaughn said. The mostly young, mostly male crowd included the usual gaming fanatics, looking haggard and tense behind glasses and beards. A smattering of women and children also pressed forward in a line that snaked past the lobby and into the Union's retail shops.
"I don't know why more women don't play. Maybe because the games are so violent," said Jennifer Webb, 24, a psychology major whose poor eyesight kept her from becoming a fighter pilot in real life. "If the Air Force won't take me, virtual reality will." "They use stereo optics moving at something like 60 frames a second," said computer science major Alex Aquila, 19. "The images are still pretty blocky. But once you play it, you'll want to play it again and again." With such demand for virtual reality, some gamesters wondered why an Austin video arcade has not invested in at least one machine.

The gameplay looked like this.
Bonus Article #1 - "Video fans play for own reasons" (Malibu Grand Prix) - March 11, 1982
Bonus Article #2 - "Pac-Man Cartridge Piques Interest" - April 13, 1982
Bonus Article #3 - "Video Games Fail Consumer" - January 29, 1984
Bonus Article #4 - "Nintendoholics/Modems Unite" - January 25, 1989
Bonus Article #5 and pt 2 "Two girls missing for a night found at arcade" (truly dedicated young gamers) - August 7, 2003

How Many Online Gambling Brands Will The US Market Support?

largest gambling companies in the us

largest gambling companies in the us - win

$AMC DD (2/1/21-X/X/X)

GME Short Squeeze What Comes Next Part 3

For ALL THOSE WHO MISSED ON GME, LOST MONEY OR BAGHOLDING...THIS IS THE ENDGAME 🚀

The next BTC crash could be something to behold

Disclaimer

A Recap: Bitcoin is useless and should go away

Current BTC prices are a bubble

Tether is lunacy

KYC and AML are coming for cryptocurrencies

Tether's effect on the crypto ecosystem

If BTC price drops below $8000, fun things happen

How do I bet against all of this?

Mike can't cash out

MSTR fundamentals: Why it should be valued below $10

Story Time: Silver short squeeze

How the Hunt Brothers Cornered the Silver Market and Then Lost it All

TL:DR: yes its long. Grab a beer.

SCR.TO - Bill reading day - massive opportunity to get in early before 🚀

GME Short Squeeze What Comes Next Part 3

GME Short Squeeze What Comes Next Part 3

SCR.TO - Bill reading day - last chance to get in at a nice value before we 🚀

Old Austin Tales: Forgotten Video Arcades of The 1970s & 80s

largest gambling companies in the us video

largest gambling companies in the us top