Oh, we've got a doozy for you today folks, but very nice day for the market as a whole. We have the Dow up, the S P, up, the Nasdaq up, even the rusty Small caps up two percent. And the one thing that I do always genuinely appreciate from the financial media is how they always post pictures of floor traders either smiling or crying based on how the stock market is trading in that day. they say money can't buy happiness, but I've never seen such a big smile over a couple percent rally in the down.

If that ain't genuine, I don't know what is, folks. growth plays and hyper growth plays were pretty murky today. it was mostly flat overall, but there were definitely some outliers that were doing bad, mostly on the retail side. Amc had a down day today.

My prediction from last night's video was that if we didn't see that strong momentum continue into market open today, that it would be likely to fizzle out and we'd see some dumping of selling pressure because that's the pattern and behavioral iteration cycle that we've been in for pretty much the last 12 trading days. But anyways, folks in this video, we're going to be violently talking about some of the hottest and biggest plays from today. and then the main entree today is going to be on Amc. and this theory that failures to deliver is going to force incoming margin calls within the next couple of weeks.

You see, if you're a broker that allows naked short selling of something, well you and your parties that are engaging in that transaction end up failing to deliver on that. And the theory is based on the interpretation of a law that says if you fail to deliver, you have to cover within 35 days which means means in effect if you knew exactly when the highest failure to deliver rates were and then you track that forward 35 days later right before the 35th day. could be the period where you see the biggest spikes because that be the last day where those failure to delivers have to cover. And of course not So coincidentally, this is a week where exactly 35 days ago we saw a lot of failures to deliver.

So a lot of people are sort of talking about this theory now, explaining that hey, we're in for a very, very intense couple of weeks. And of course, with most theories and most due diligence in terms of Amc, there is a lot of different interpretations and a lot of different basis for discussion and arguments. and I want to talk about my thoughts on what is and isn't true and what I would extrapolate from it anyways. The only thing that I ask before we get into all of this is that you hit that ravishing like button and also don't forget to subscribe either.

Okay, quick update on plays. So yesterday I presented on Clne. My take was that due to social sentiment trends, the company itself and the recent history, it's likely that Cl E will be in a good deal range if it gets down to that 10 or so below region. We got a nice selloff today that got it closer to achieving that entry level It's not quite at 10 yet, but today was a step in the right direction and I'm happy for that.

Then again, you can watch my full breakdown from yesterday's video. But I think that Clne is an intriguing play, not just because of its previous patterns on the chart, but because it's also a genuinely interesting company and a very, very interesting market. so I see those two factors as working together. There's a lot of chart hype, and there's also a lot of company-based hype that I think we're going to start seeing later on in the year if both come together to give us a rally sooner than expected.

Hey, I'm not going to complain about that, but I still continue to say patience is a virtue we don't want to overpay for these stocks. The other play that I'm watching for a deal on is Upstart. I designated this one as a take profit play during its last rally so that we could seize the cycle and it's getting discounted nicely again, which in my view, sets it up for another upward cycle. Do we know that that cycle is going to be as fast as the previous cycle? No, But who cares.

It's all about snapping good plays up at good prices, and then waiting out to sell. When it gets to the price that you want to sell it at, it happens very quickly. Great. That's ice it on the cake.

If it takes a little longer, Who cares. We love the stock. Do I think that it's a buy right now? Well, last time that we talked about it as a take profit stock, I said that we'd reiterate it as a buy in the low hundreds and I stand by that again. The key is always being patient and making sure that you're getting a good deal.

They say in order to be successful in the stock market, you either have to be smart or very patient. I say, why can't we be both next morning Catalyst from the briefings: Very weak day for morning runners. Only a couple of takers. Today was more of a discount type of day for retail play, so it's a little bit murky, but whatever.

Trch was one of the takers and one that we continue to keep an eye on. We briefed on it this morning 30 minutes prior to market open and it ran to 1088 before, in the after hours running to 11.70 But there are many reasons that Trch is a special play for us. Ortex is reporting 24.66 short interest and short sellers are sitting on 200 million in losses today, and this is also one of our previous briefing plays from last week on Tuesday and Wednesday of last week. we briefed on this play and even recapped it publicly on the channel after it ran from just under five bucks.

and today we capped off a high of way over 11 bucks. But there's a lot more to Trch than meets the eye. Not only is it a short squeeze candidate, but as we talked about last week, they also declared a special dividend to be paid out on the 24th and they have a pending merger coming up. And honestly, I continue to see some trading opportunities in the run-up to that special dividend payout on the 24th and then perhaps later on in the future in the run-up to the merger.

Nonetheless though, very fun plan. I'm very pleased with it so far. Keep in mind that we show up every single morning and we put a ton of work in and sometimes we find tons of opportunities when the market shoots them at us and other times there's like very few opportunities so we have to really pick from slim pickings. Just gotta put the work in and show up every day so that when you do get the opportunities.

well, Cha Chinga! So another play that we talked about was wish we briefed on it 30 minutes prior to opening Iran to 1396. Not something that's crazy, but this is a social sentiment squeeze stock that I would continue to watch throughout this week that I think this is going to become very, very relevant as we go through the weekend. especially considering that today was a bad day for squeeze stocks. And if this is how wish performs on a day where money was pulled from squeeze stocks, I'd love to see how it performs on a day where money's going into them.

Okay, Amc. So the concept that I want to discuss with you is this idea of T35 or 35 days settlement. I believe it originated in the Ramc stock form and you could see the original poster and whatnot, but the idea is that Amc's price will spike before the 35th day after a spike in failures to deliver since that is the maximum requirement for covering or buying back shares after failing to deliver. Based on the theory's opinion on the regulation and what the regulation lays out and there's some truths in this and some misleading information in this and some things that I think are just kind of inaccurate but bigger picture, I want to break down the fury and then go into my thoughts.

Theory goes to infer that any date that is 35 days after a 1 million or so shares failing to deliver would mean a date where hedge funds would be forced to buy tons of shares of Amc and spike the price. Every share that fails to deliver has to be bought. so if you have a million, that's a sizeable amount to spike the price according to the theory. so if you break down all of the days where a million shares have failed to deliver and then you add 34 days to that, then perhaps you can use that data to extrapolate what days you're going to see spikes in Amc, and considering many spikes in failure to deliver are getting close to that T35 deadline this week and next week, that means that it's super relevant right now.

if you believe in theory and you consider some of the biggest spikes in Amc share price over the last couple of months as corresponding to huge spikes in failures to deliver 34 days before that, while presents some interesting discussions for this theory and its credibility. For example, on April 14th, there were 2.7 million failures to deliver in Amc. Then on June 2nd, 34 days later, we had that massive day where Amc traded from a low at 35 59 and then rallied all the way up to highs at 72-62 That was the massive gamma squeeze day that we covered at the time. And you look at something like that 100 plus rally day.

It's very possible that you had a combination of both failures to deliver, being forced to cover, then momentum from riled up retail traders seeing how fast it was going up, which then forced a gamma squeeze which then caused more momentum and more retail traders to pour in. But you consider that just coincidentally, a massive amount of failures to deliver needed to be covered that day. And it does add again a very convincing argument in favor of the role of failures to deliver and the Reddit apes. Research goes even further showing more evidence of price spikes correlated with April 22nd, 23rd, 26th, and 27th failure to delivery dates all above 1 million failures to deliver later correlated with intraday spikes 34 days later on June 10th, 11th, 14th, and 15th respectively.

And if you take it for what it is, there does seem to be some correlation between at least the trend of higher failures to deliver, and then 34 days later you see a spike in prices. And there are problems with this in the calculations as a whole, which we'll get into a little bit later. but because we're explaining the theory, let's just assume that it's true. for now, if you consider that most failures to deliver that above 1 million are most likely to spike 34 days later.

it does allow you to extrapolate probabilities of Amc spiking on certain days in the future as well. For example, May 3rd, May 4th, and May 5th. Spike in failures to deliver correlates with failure delivery deadlines today tomorrow, and the next day of well over a million. Then on May 7th, which correlates with June 25th aka Friday, we have the first jump above 3 million failures to deliver to cover.

Which means that according to this theory, there's a lot of shares that are going to have to be covered because of these failure to delivers in the next 10 days. And that's basically the theory in a nutshell. Now, in terms of problems with the theory, if you want the quick breakdown, I think that probably the bigger context of the theory is getting some details right. It's getting the idea that there's a lot of failures to deliver.

they do have to buy them back, and failures to deliver is evidence of naked short selling. I think those three things are true, and they're getting the big picture right, but the smaller details and implications of exact days on this is very, very debatable. For example, this theory is based on vague and legal Sec definitions in terms of what constitutes a 35-day settlement time versus a T21 or a T3 or even next day settlement. And the law cited by the theory maker says that there are three different categories of what needs to happen if one fails to deliver.

Each category has drastically different indications, and anybody can assume that there's a combination of different failures to deliver that fit into each category instead of all just flowing into one, but the person who made the theory assumed that all of them flowed into that middle category, which is 35 day settlement. That's a very bold assumption because the data that we actually have publicly available doesn't distinguish between the three, so you can't assume that every single one flows into the one that's convenient for the theory. And look folks, no shades of the poster. The whole point of a theory is to discuss it right.

There's also some problems in terms of calculating calendar days versus trading days. For example, the rules on the Cornell Law website cited by the poster say calendar day, but other settlement times in many other places say trading days and the numbers used in the theory by the original poster use trading days instead of the law that it cited calendar days. And obviously, the way that you calculate days has dramatic impacts on the conclusion of when failures to deliver have to be bought by. And it's also true that the law itself makes it very, very difficult to calculate the number of days between each failure to deliver, because not only is it calendar days, but it also throws in the fact that failures to deliver must be solved before the beginning of regular trading hours, which implies trading days for those transactions are based on business days instead of calendar days, which makes the whole thing a lot more difficult to calculate and a lot of these numbers a little bit more questionable.

But whatever your interpretation of the law, what really matters is how in practice things are actually done. Many situations in the stock market, there are regulations that say hey, you can't naked short sell There are regulations that say a million different things that people are supposed to follow, but they still don't follow. If they followed them, we wouldn't have this whole story in the first place, right? And the whole theory is kind of based on this idea that hedge funds are waiting until the last day to cover most of their failures to deliver, which in and of itself is going to be very different based on how you calculate days, based on how you categorize each failure to deliver, and based on how many failures to deliver are reported, based on the category on the Cornell Law website that the whole thing is based on, and again assuming everything is perfect. That's still assuming that that the parties that have failed to deliver are following the regulation in terms of what they need to do, which is settle within that 35 day period.

It's also true that just because something expires on a certain date, doesn't mean that somebody's not going to go ahead and cover way before that date or spread it out. The other thing, and probably the biggest elephant in the room here is what: if you're planning on rolling out and holding on to your short positions, Well, you could cover the ones that you're failing to deliver on. You buy back the shares, and at the same time you can short sell shares that creates a net neutral picture and allows you to roll over your short position, basically mitigating the theory. Now again, I don't mean any shade to the original poster and I think that the overall picture here is helpful.

I just think that if you really dig into some of the details in terms of the theory and what this is based on, it's very, very difficult to confirm a lot of these ideas and to reasonably extrapolate that certain dates you're going to see massive spikes. But I will say that I think the bigger picture here is correct. The bigger picture is there's a lot of failures to deliver they do have to cover eventually, and it's also an indication of a lot of naked short selling that's going on behind the scenes. Not every failure to deliver is naked short selling.

By the way, there's many different categories that something can fail to deliver and end up in, but I think they're going into specific dates and extrapolating previous trends to confirm this theory is going a little bit too far, especially considering that there's so much ambiguity in terms of what's actually done in practice and in terms of how the original poster even came up with a lot of these different calculations. Anyways, folks that capped off the video: If you have any questions, feel free to reach out to us below or join us on Ziptrader Circle and of course Quick Plug if you'd like to learn how to trade. Would like access to our private chat and daily morning briefings where we brief on all the biggest catalysts each and every morning. Well, I'll go ahead and put a link to Ziptraderu below.

But folks, please only join us if you're going to commit yourself to the process practicing paper trading with every single concept and then never giving up when times get tough. The program was thoughtfully created to give you a process to learn and grow, but if you don't complete the structure and dedicate yourself to doing every single lesson and doing it as and completing it as designed, then you're not going to get anywhere. When I buy something, I make sure that I'm going to get my money's worth out of it. so I expect you to do the same.

And if you'd like to take the leap and join us, I'll go ahead and put a coupon code in the description below. Battlefield 75 will get you 75 off before checkout. You just put it in the little ad coupon code spot before checkout. And if you're wondering what broker to trade these stocks, then we always like to send new traders over to Weeble.

I'll put a link to them below as well and sign it up and deposit in with the link below. We'll also get you some free stocks anyways. have a great day and I'll see you in the next video.