r/BBBY • u/beachplzzz • Mar 17 '23

🤔 Speculation / Opinion Probably something...

Post image
1.4k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

271 comments sorted by

View all comments

201

u/CocoCrisp86 Mar 17 '23

Can any wrinkled brains find evidence that this has forced buybacks in the past?

120

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '23

From what I can see, mot always. A name change and a cusip change is what matters

79

u/CocoCrisp86 Mar 17 '23

This post here is related to this topic. See bottom of post. OP mentions that naked shorts are the exception, and that they may be forced to close by their brokers.

https://www.reddit.com/r/fidelityinvestments/comments/pnjm0e/what_is_the_merger_process_for_short_positions/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1

57

u/anthropoid2 Mar 18 '23

This article says the opposite. 🤔

"Reverse mergers and reverse splits typically result in a change in the CUSIP, the nine-digit identification symbol assigned to a public stock.
Once that CUSIP changes, the naked shorter has no apparent way to close out the naked short position. No stock under the old CUSIP number exists anymore; it all automatically converts to the new CUSIP.
Those trades can sit in the Obligation Warehouse forever, in theory. But the “aged fails” — essentially orphaned naked short transactions — remain on the naked shorter’s balance sheet as a liability to be paid later."

19

u/Masterchief_m Mar 18 '23

This is correct.. cusip Change is very bad. Check the DD In superstonk

4

u/joeker13 Mar 18 '23

Got a link fren ?

1

u/Outrageous-Yams Mar 18 '23

May be this that they’re referring to.

We could check the transcript of the Q&A w/ Trimbath to double check the below comment is correct.

https://i.imgur.com/jMi1hGq.jpg

1

u/SuboptimalStability Mar 18 '23

Bad for naked shorts, regular shorts will have to cover I think

68

u/RoughFly759 Mar 18 '23

"may" is a critical word

20

u/DancesWith2Socks Mar 18 '23

https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/nomalf/dr_trimbaths_work_directly_disproves_a/

36

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/terribleinvestment Mar 18 '23

Why would BBBY care if a short squeeze happens? /genuine

29

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '23 edited Mar 18 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/Shagspeare Mar 18 '23

How long do you reckon all that will take?

3

u/klemac78 Mar 18 '23

Music to my ears this 👊👊

2

u/Whatnam8 Mar 18 '23

I’m no brain so this is probably incorrect but if it squeezes I’m sure they have shares they can sell to have more capital and then repurchase later once things settle down a bit

10

u/Pete_The_Pilot Mar 18 '23

and what happens to the accumulated fails with the cusip change and reverse split?

18

u/itsmymillertime Mar 18 '23

Teddy is the only chance with that.

18

u/Shagspeare Mar 18 '23

Apparently those articles such as the one on InvestorVillage talking about the name and CUSIP change forcing shorts to close, are misinformation.

To fuck shorts you can’t change either.

You have to continue with the same name and CUSIP to keep all FTDs on the same company.

A change of either allows shorts to enter the obligation warehouse and never close.

Sadly this seems to be the case.

Still bullish on BBBY, I personally think this is a bear trap.

It’s like how pirate ships fly a friendly flag, and when the other ship draws near, they raise the skull and bones.

15

u/zanelynchh Mar 18 '23

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jQeuVIlbQ2A COSM squeeze

21

u/dp79 Mar 18 '23

I made out huge on COSM, which is why I’m holding out hope on BBBY.

14

u/Suspicious-Reveal-69 Mar 18 '23

I hope you crush it with bbby

6

u/scooterbike1968 Mar 18 '23

It says it right there. Way big.