TraderZero

$AKBA +15% 😄 $RAPT +14% 😄 $EXFY FLAT (11/7 earnings 🤔 $CTXR -13% 😩 (no trade, archive WL, watch catalysts) Spotlght Ticker $SVM -10% 🧐 This silver play hsd shown strong financial health, with no debt and a fat cash position of about $215 million, equating to about $0.99 per share. The company's operational efficiency is also high, with a current ratio of 4.03, indicating strong liquidity and stability. $SVM had a solid run from approximately $3 to $5.30 but has recently pulled back more than i think it should have, trading around $4.50. This dip is deep considering it comes despite positive fundamentals, which could just mean profit-taking then reload ahead of the upcoming earnings release on 11/7. Insider selling may have spooked some unfamilar with how the Chinese sell into runs on most tickers. I reset my trading plan into ER, here's how ill trade this; Technical Levels: Support: Around $4.30, aligning with the 50-day moving average, which could act as a strong support level. Resistance: Recent highs near $5.30 may act as a near-term ceiling, especially if earnings do not significantly exceed expectations. Volume and Market Sentiment The RSI currently sits around 48.52, reflecting neutral momentum but signaling potential for further downside if selling pressure increases. Short interest is low at 3.31%, indicating that bearish sentiment is not overwhelming and that recent selling may primarily be profit-taking rather than an indicator of fundamental weakness. Strategy for $SVM: Trade Setup and Options Strategy 1. Bullish Scenario (If Support Holds Post-Earnings) Stock Trade: Entry: Enter near $4.30 if the stock stabilizes with low selling volume. Target: First target at $5.00, with an extension to $5.30 if earnings exceed expectations. $7 if they blow em out. Stop Loss: Place a stop at $4.10 to protect against further downside. Rationale: Given SVM's profitability and strong balance sheet, a supportive earnings report could drive a fat bounce off the 50-day moving average as traders load back up for another run. 2. Bearish Scenario (If Earnings Disappoint) Stock Trade: Entry: Consider shorting if SVM breaks below $4.30 with rising volume, indicating selling pressure. Target: $4.00 initially, with a possible move to $3.75. Stop Loss: Place a stop just above $4.50 to limit losses in case of a reversal. Options Strategy (Earnings Volatility Play) 1. Straddle Strategy (for Expected Volatility): Setup: Buy a $4.50 straddle (buy both a $4.50 call and put) with a November 10 expiration. Rationale: This strategy profits from significant price moves in either direction. If earnings lead to a strong move, this can capitalize on increased volatility. 2. Bullish Call Spread (If Expecting Moderate Upside): Setup: Buy the $4.50 call and sell the $5.00 call, expiring November 10. Rationale: This strategy captures profit if SVM rises modestly post-earnings, with a cap at $5.00, while limiting upfront cost. Based on all standard valuation metrics, this stock is seriously undervalued and a hot ER could send it. ALWAYS trade your plan, enter on the target, don't hesitate, set your stop and only move it up never down. If the stock runs on heavy volume LOAD UP, move stops and sell when the volume and price action signal a reversal.

$MMTLP Ok... I am going to be as respectful as possible here, but there are some discrepancies that need to be addressed: While the NSCC is supposed to guarantee the settlement of trades there's just ONE problem. THE NSCC DID NOT HANDLE SETTLEMENT AND CLEARING FOR THE MMTLP SECURITY. I called. Today. While they don't usually talk to members of the investing public, in my 3 minutes with the lady (now is not the time for jokes, Jack) I spoke to, I managed to finesse her into answering ONE question for my "case study": "Was the NSCC involved in the settlement and clearance for MMTLP trading?" The answer was "No." "Never? Not one trade?" "Andrew, never." "G-d bless you two times, my dear. Thank you for your help!" So, the NSCC, and their guaranteed settlement, means precisely DINKIS to our situation. I have the receipts to back it up, and the name of the employee I spoke to. What does this mean? This means that every argument that says that we could not have an imbalance past a T+2 settlement due to the NSCC guarantee, is 100% incorrect. During the TRCH-MMAT merger, shorts did not close out as expected. Additionally, it's widely believed that options were used to obfuscate short positions. There is no other explanation for why, after all the years TRCH traded, suddenly right before the merger options became tradable. If there was a large naked short position at that time, this would have left unresolved positions that likely contributed to ongoing imbalances. We all know that the MMTLP security was made tradable by unknown parties after the merger. Given this context and the options chain issue, it’s reasonable to assume that this action might have been taken to obscure or conceal naked shorting practices. Introducing new trading mechanisms or altering the tradability of the security could have been an attempt to hide the scale of shorting and fails-to-deliver that were unresolved. Especially given that we already know that there was broker to broker settlement, and now that we know there was NO NSCC involvement. This cannot be argued against as a possibility. A share audit is the ONLY CONCLUSIVE ANSWER (unless, as per FINRA, NBH brings about conditions where shorts CAN NOT exist). Especially now that we know the NSCC was not involved in the clearance and settlement of the MMTLP security. This was the only argument they had left. Now it's gone. A share audit is, now more than ever, essential to provide an accurate count of how many shares are in circulation and whether they match reported figures. If this is the information we want, this is the only way to verify if a share imbalance exists. NSCC bye bye. Share audit... only way, grasshopper. No matter how you cut the cake, the fact that we’ve been waiting for 20 months without a comprehensive share audit raises concerns. It suggests that the regulatory establishment might be (ahem) aware of the imbalance but is avoiding a thorough investigation. This suspicion is now compounded by all of the above, in addition to the lack of transparency and the ongoing issues shareholders are having with both their brokers and the transfer agent. I’m open to the possibility that we are wrong, but it doesn’t seem very likely given all we have learned, ESPECIALLY after what I learned today. A share audit is the only way to definitively prove whether such an imbalance exists and to hold all parties accountable. This is why, with all respect to anyone who differs in opinion, I will not stop pushing for transparency and demanding a thorough audit of the shares to uncover the truth unless NBH does something that forces a reconciliation (which I think they are). Our financial system relies on accurate reporting and integrity, and it’s time to ensure we get both. And whether I was here or not, whether this post was made or not, these issues won’t go away until they are resolved. I do want to ask the @The_DTCC one question: If the NSCC was not involved in the settlement and clearance of the MMTLP security, who the hell had oversight on this thing? I'm going to start counting down to see how long it takes you to remove yourself from this conversation instead of answer the question. Maybe @SusanneTrimbath would know the answer and be kind enough to help us pick her brain on it? In a way, I want to thank the person who challenged me to look into this. But, with respect, I don’t want to hear shit about the NSCC ANYMORE as it relates to the MMTLP security. They were not involved in settling our trades. Period. End.

@JohnnyTabacco is misinterpting the conversation. My point was that it was possible that the shares of NBH could have been received by the borrower, the person in the lending program does not get the NBH shares. The borrower would then be on the hook to pay cash in lieu - HOWEVER - the dividend at the time was worth and now is only worth .0001/share to anyone holding it. The borrower would only have to pay one cent for every 1000 shares. To represent my comment any other way isn't accurate.