This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.

The original was posted on /r/Superstonk by /u/HashtagYoMamma on 2026-08-18 12:47:46+00:00.

---

TL;DR

• Comparing GME's price to a "normal" stock's valuation assumes normal market mechanics: accurate short reporting, on-time settlement, no legal workaround for delivery obligations. GME's own regulatory record says that didn't hold.

• GME sat on the SEC's Reg SHO Threshold List - a mechanical trigger for sustained failure-to-deliver, not a sentiment metric - for hundreds of trading days through 2024.

• Reg SHO contains a bona fide market-maker exemption that makes some naked short selling completely legal, by design (17 CFR 242.203(b)(2)).

• The SEC has already prosecuted the "sham reset" mechanism used to fake compliance with close-out rules (SEC v. optionsXpress, 2012). The mechanism is real and has been proven in an enforcement action - though that case predates GME by over a decade, so I'm citing it as precedent, not as evidence about GME specifically.

• Robinhood was found by the SEC (Jan. 2025) to have violated Reg SHO's close-out, order-marking, and locate requirements from 2019–2023. That's a real, confirmed finding - but it's firm-wide and multi-year, not a GME-specific finding, and I want to be upfront about that rather than overstate it.

• A 2022 SEC rule proposed after the Archegos blowup - which would have required disclosure of large swap positions - was formally withdrawn in June 2025.

None of this requires believing a conspiracy. It requires reading the SEC's own record.

---

The actual disagreement:

The "GME should trade like [any normal ticker] because fundamentals support this price" argument has a hidden assumption baked in: that GME's price was set by a market functioning the way regulators assume markets function.

Checked against the primary-source record, it doesn't hold up cleanly.

1. The Reg SHO Threshold List isn't sentiment - it's mechanical.

A stock lands on the list when it has a sustained, material level of failures-to-deliver. GME was on it for hundreds of trading days through 2024. This isn't a self-reported percentage published twice a month - it only activates when settlement is actually breaking down.

1. Some naked short selling is legal by design.

Under Reg SHO's bona fide market-maker exemption (17 CFR 242.203(b)(2)), registered market makers can sell short without locating a borrow first, under specific conditions. This isn't an illegal loophole - it's written into the rule itself. "Naked shorting doesn't happen because it's illegal" is simply not an accurate description of the rule.

1. The "sham reset" mechanism has already been prosecuted - once, elsewhere.

In SEC v. optionsXpress (Admin. Proc. File No. 3-14848, Exchange Act Release No. 66815, April 16, 2012), the SEC found that optionsXpress used sham "reset" transactions to create the appearance of closing out failure-to-deliver positions without actually delivering shares, from October 2008 to March 2010. That's not a community theory - it's a completed, proven enforcement action showing the mechanism is real. It's not evidence this happened with GME; it's evidence the tool exists and has been used.

1. Robinhood's Reg SHO violations are confirmed.

In January 2025, the SEC fined Robinhood Securities and Robinhood Financial $45 million combined (SEC Press Release 2025-5), finding Robinhood Securities violated Reg SHO's close-out, order-marking, and locate requirements from May 2019 through December 2023, tied to its stock lending and fractional-share program. That period includes the GME event window, but the SEC's order doesn't name GameStop. It's a firm-wide, multi-year finding - accurate framing beats an inflated one that falls apart under scrutiny.

1. The disclosure rule built to catch exactly this kind of risk was pulled.

After Archegos collapsed in 2021 partly because its swap exposure was invisible to regulators, the SEC proposed Rule 10B-1 to require reporting of large security-based swap positions. That rule was formally withdrawn on June 12, 2025, over Commissioner Crenshaw's dissent ("repeal by extension"). Compare that to how routinely rules that impose *no* new disclosure obligations get adopted on schedule.

---

Why this matters

A normal-stock valuation model assumes short interest is accurately reported, trades settle on time, and large concentrated positions are visible to regulators. GME's regulatory record shows sustained settlement failures, a legal carve-out for naked shorting, a proven precedent for faking close-out compliance, a major broker's confirmed multi-year Reg SHO violations, and a withdrawn rule that would have added exactly the visibility regulators said they needed post-Archegos.

You don't need every Superstonk theory to be true to conclude that applying efficient-market pricing logic to GME means ignoring the SEC's own enforcement and rulemaking record. That's the real disagreement - not sentiment vs. fundamentals, but whether the market structure behaved normally enough for normal-stock logic to even apply.

---

Sources

• SEC Reg SHO Threshold List data

• 17 CFR 242.203(b)(2) - Reg SHO bona fide market-maker exemption

• SEC v. optionsXpress, Inc., Thomas E. Stern, and Jonathan I. Feldman - Securities Act Release No. 9313 / Exchange Act Release No. 66815 / Admin. Proc. File No. 3-14848 (April 16, 2012)

• SEC Press Release 2025-5, "Two Robinhood Broker-Dealers to Pay $45 Million in Combined Penalties..." (Jan. 13, 2025)

• SEC Rule 10B-1 formal withdrawal, June 12, 2025; Commissioner Crenshaw dissent, "Repeal by Extension"