Let me take a crack at this.

>When the buy button was shut off by brokers in January, if SHFs were covering their short positions why did the price drop rather than continuing to increase? We know they had to buy the entire float of shares back and then some, past squeezes tell us no one can do this would be impossible to do in one day.

Most of the shorts covered before the button was shut off. The reason why price went to $400 so rapidly was in part from shorts scrambling to cover. Once most of it was done, the price stabilized around $400 before catering as people sought out to take their profits.

>If they covered in January, why did they run ads on CNBC saying citadel covered their shorts? They don't gain anything doing that so why would they?

CNBC doesn't run "ads" within their programming. If you're implying that they ran undisclosed paid stories you should say that outright. While the media is not above doing that, I dont think this has been proven so it's baseless speculation.

CNBC was running stories that hedge fund shorts covered because that's what the hedge funds reported and testified at the hearing. Why would they not run this story when its news?

>Why hasn't Citadel acted like a normal company since? For example, they used to post to platforms like Twitter regularly and they are now working through the night 7 days a week.

They probably stopped posting on social media because of a huge harassment barrage. Probably counter productive to try doing PR on Twitter when it just backfires every time with endless spam about shorts and manipulation. I dont know the source for changed employee hours so I can't comment. I really hope its not the lights being on in the building.


>Why did we run up in price afterward from $40 to nearly $350 over a couple of days when everyone thought this was already over?

Stock markets are volatile and unpredictable.

If I were to speculate, big player accumulated around $50 and then let it rip up. The people retail traders who weakened at $50, rushed back to buy. You will see a lot of people claiming they have around 200 average, so it clearly worked. This situation is a wet dream for big players. Lots of non savvy emotional traders as your opposition is playing the stock market on easy mode.

>Why did we run-up from 240 to 340 then back down to 170 on no news on March 10th all before 1pm?

Stock markets are volatile and unpredictable.

If I were to speculate, the move to 340 had few dips to clear out the stops, so when it started moving down there was a stop loss cascade which on low liquidity caused such a dramatic drop. It's not super unusual.

>Why are SHFs still reporting massive and fluctuating losses related to the GME share price?

I dont think they are?

This is from 3 days ago:

"Gabe Plotkin’s Melvin Capital Management ended the first half of 2021 down 46%"

this is from end of January:

"Hedge fund Melvin Capital Management lost 53% in January amid a record rally in GameStop, which the fund was betting against."

So 53% for January and 46% for first half. Looks like they made some profit following January's catastrophic loss.

>If the votes were accurate, why was there an anomaly in gamestops 8-K filing?

Honestly I dont know. I would chalk it up to a clerical error. A difference of one vote hardly makes a difference. The alternative explanation is that gamestop is defrauding investors by intentionally manipulating the vote counts, which I doubt.

>Why did we see price swings up $30 then immediately back down $30 on no news within less than 10 minutes, while at the exact same time other "meme stocks" (I do not consider GME a meme stock obviously but this is the terminology easily used) did the same exact thing?

Stock markets are volatile and unpredictable.

However, stocks moving in similar niches moving in tandem is a regular occurrence. This happened with certain canine currency. Happened with weed stocks. Even the scam company Nicola, pumped together with Tesla. You not considering gme a meme stock doesn't mean the rest of the market doesn't.

>Why has GME charted exactly the same way as some other "meme stocks" (I do not consider GME a meme stock obviously but this is the terminology easily used)?

See previous answer.

>Why was the volume so low on June 9th? The lowest in a year, when gamestop issued 8.5million more shares tradable since. Should we not have higher volume as there are more available to trade?

Uh... no? Did you suddenly have an unstoppable urge to trade more shares than you would normally when GME issued more shares? The rest of the market didn't either. There is no logical  causal link of more float -> more volume. Frankly it's very odd that you think there should be.

>Reported on iborrowdesk, SHFs used to have access to shorting millions of stock at a time back in January and February, there is now only 150,000 reported and the number has been shrinking. Shouldn't this be much higher after the 8.5m offering?

iBorrowdesk reports numbers from only IB, a retail broker. Hedge funds use prime brokers. It would be a different pool of shares with different borrow rates that we are not privy to.

The number is probably how much they are willing to offer in a single time  period or to a single entity. As the price increased, the usd value of borrowable shares also increased. Lending 100 shares at $4 is $400. Lending 100 shares at $200 is $20000.

>Why does good news from gamestop always send the price stock down?

Buy the rumor, sell the news. Besides, the stock is not trading on fundamental value currently so news pertaining to the core business are not the driving force. The bad news of 5 million more shares did tank the stock though, so there's that.

>Why isn't the buy massive pressure from retail causing the stock price to rise?

There isn't massive buy pressure from the retail. You can tell from low volume and declining price. Most people who wanted to buy have already bought. Holding shares does not add buy pressure.

>Why did the NYSE president say this?

Because the PFOF arrangements where the exchange is bypassed is her direct competition and it has been eating her lunch. Naturally, she will have an opinion that its providing a worse service that her product. And she is not talking about massive price discrepancies, these exchanges and MMs operate on making tiny percentages on all trades, where charging extra 0.1% can net you billions in profit.

>Why have there been so many regulations put into place not only to curb what tools SHFs have to conceal FTDs but also contingency rules in the event of insolvency by large players?

Regulations are put into place all the time, you just have recency bias. And the unprecedented short squeeze in January revealed that some risk limits are too lenient in this day and age where the retail can coordinate such massive buying.

>In reference to a massive margin breach in Q1 the DTCC said this:
>
>"The largest deficiency incurred during the quarter was mainly driven by a single security exhibiting idiosyncratic risk"
>
>They have just stated here essentially, that one stock has caused the most Margin breaches in Q1, 3x the previous record. This is exactly what would be expected if the DD is correct on GME. Why do you think they would report this if we are incorrect with the DD?

They reported this... because that's what happened? GME was shorted over 100%. "The DD" of high short interest was correct in January, when the stock was shorted heavily and because of that it exhibited "idiosyncratic risk" as they put it.

> What is your reason for why they shut the buy button off if they closed their position? It shouldn't have mattered for them or anyone else as the margin requirements were met and they should have used that cash to close out their position.

Robinhood doesn't have a position to close and they could not have been margin called. What happened is that the DTCC increased the margin requirements that the robinhood needs to provide to continue increasing the position in GME for their customers which robinhood was unable to meet at the time. While both scenarios involve margin, the term margin call is incorrect to use here.

> What happened to the FTDs?

​Massive short interest + rapidly increasing price = FTD piling up in large quantities. They are all gone because the short interest has reduced to low 2 digits, the margin requirements for shorts have gone up dramatically due to the increased volatility so the new shorts are much less risky. There isn't anything illogical about this.

Without lying to yourself, how is it you reasonably believe SHFs closed an over 230%+ SI in one day - during the same time that the largest globally-spanning-retail-rally of a stock in history, on top of a massive Gamma squeeze - without sending the price rocketing into the thousands, despite evidence of previously squeezed stocks with far, far less SI taking multiple days at much much higher peak prices?

No one said they closed in a day? And there were many days where the stock traded 500%+ of the float in single day. There was plenty of volume to close any amount of shorts. What other stocks went higher peak prices? GME pumped over 2000% within 2 weeks. That's bonkers. You wanted **more**? VW pumped only 400% and that's the one everyone was referencing as the big squeeze before this.

> During just the ten days preceding January...

You can trade the same share multiple times. But yes, this volume is quite unusual. Its what happens when there is unprecedented inflow of retail investors coupled with unprecedented volatility and a massive short interest scrambling to cover. The January squeeze was quite insane, which is why a lot of unusual things happened like robinhood having to suspend buying, the congress hearings, massively increased margin requirements for shorting, and the new rules being put into place.

Reached character limit lol, had to shorten some things.