100% (305M)

• "24.6%" in DRS (75.4M)
• 22.3% Public Shorts (60.2M)
• 17.3% Insiders (52.9M w/ Insider+Stagnant)
• 10.9% Institutions (33.4M)
• 11.4% MF (34.8M)
• 9.9% ETFs (30.3M)

96.4% (Or 3.6% left for purchase/shorts)

For there to be no synthetics, there can only be 10.9M in brokerage accounts which would mean apes have DRSd >87% of their total holdings

Or maybe; just maybe, there is a chance of synthetics Chives Bibic Animorph jersan SubDRSive ;)?

My name is Max Azzarello, and I am an investigative researcher who has set himself on fire outside of the Trump trial in Manhattan.

This extreme act of protest is to draw attention to an urgent and important discovery..

Date:

May, 28th 2024

What:

"We will transition in the United States (edit: this also includes Canada and Mexico) to securities settlements of T+1 on May 28, 2024."

Sauce:

https://web.archive.org/web/20240202005744/https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/gensler-speech-prepared-remarks-european-commission-012524

Originally Proposed Here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20230402142313/http://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/06/2023-03566/shortening-the-securities-transaction-settlement-cycle

On the Original Proposal, an org commented this:

"The commenter expressed concern that moving to T+1 would reduce the time available for a bona fide market maker too close out fail-to-deliver positions and could adversely impact the liquidity role those market makers provide."

To which the SEC included this citation:

Under Regulation SHO's bona fide market making exceptions, the broker-dealer generally should be holding itself out as standing ready and willing to buy and sell the security by continuously posting widely accessible quotes that are near or at the market. The market maker must be at economic risk for such quotes.

“Broker-dealers that do not publish continuous quotations, or publish quotations that do not subject the broker-dealer to such risk (quotations that are not publicly accessible, are not near or at the market, or are skewed directionally towards one side of the market) would not be eligible for the bona-fide market-maker exceptions under Regulation SHO. In addition, broker-dealers that publish quotations but fill orders at different prices than those quoted would not be engaged in bona-fide market making for purposes of Regulation SHO.”). Thus, a market-maker that continually executed short sales away from its posted quotes would generally be unable to rely on the bona-fide market making exceptions of Regulation SHO.

Further, broker-dealers that publish quotations but fill orders at different prices than those quoted would not be engaged in bona fide market-making for purposes of Regulation SHO. The market-maker must also be engaged in bona fide market making in that security at the time of the short sale for eligibility for the exceptions.

I encourage you to look at what all of these orgs also commented (however the one above is certainly the most damning):

Fidelity Letter
IIAC Letter
LaBree Letter
MMI Letter
Robinson 1 Letter
Ryan 1 Letter
Stauts Letter
letter from Tate Winter (Feb. 17, 2022) (“Winter Letter”)```

What's the point of the sidebar's rules if the mods are going to bury their heads in the sand about the lemmy.world-lib bot-farm

If y'all could read, I'm sure you'd be pissed as fuck

Fairly tired of the lemmy.world crowd and their.. interesting moderation style.

Lemmy hasn't implemented instance blocks yet, so here is my question:

Any scripted way to block-all for the LW bot-fest?

Is there any consideration of a de-federation with LW?

Or is the entire point of a more anarchy-leaning instance to have 0 moderation db0?

Fine with either outcome/method; just sick of going through every single community any time they spin up a new neolib/cia shithole.

Own your own shit, make sure you book!

If there is "NO" difference, why not err on the side of caution, and book them anway ;)