“FINRA whistles the play dead”, The MMTLP Winners and Losers

Crank up your HBOMax app, or borrow a friends account and watch “Gaming Wall St“, if you need background on the reddit by the name of wallstreetbets that has gone viral among common folks who dabble in stock investments. Whether you agree or disagree with the concept of people banding together to share trade information and investing as a group, or not, its happening all over the world. For example, for people interested in trading in FOREX markets, there are paid subscriptions where people join conference lines and invest in calls or puts against currency pairs, real time, based on an expert’s educated guess shared on the conference line. Its foundational that when you plan to invest in anything, you want to be able to weigh the risks and potential gains. In a society of impatience, people are willing to lean on the expertise and research of trusted sources, even if those sources are sources by association. Kindergarten games teach us, the further away from a personal connection to the true source, the less likely your information is credible, yet the daring members of wallstreetbets stay the course and sometimes risk it all on opportunities to win big. The publicly traded security Meta Materials Preferred Shares (MMTLP) had a unique and tremendous upside, because the company submitted documentation, signaling they were going PRIVATE and giving trade of the security a hard stop date of 12/12/2022. This setup the uncommon environment for an inevitable short squeeze. However, to the surprise of many investors, MMTLP wasn’t available for trade at all in the pivotal last days of trade. I guess I have to give you a little back story on MMTLP before I get into winners and losers.

Torch Light (NASDAQ:TRCH) was a stock that some in the wallstreetbets group speculated would grow massively last year. The company was acquired by Metamaterial Inc, and the symbol was converted to MMAT and a number of MMTLP preferred shares were awarded to any current shareholders of TRCH in the process. Anyone still holding these shares or still paying attention learned that, this year, the company filed documents with the proper trade authorities, committing to going PRIVATE. When a publicly traded company decides to spinoff and go private, all investors must close positions before the deadline given, or the respective brokerages will have to forcefully close the positions themselves to balance their books. This isn’t unusual, MMTLP is not the first company to spinoff, and they won’t be the last.

What I found to be blog worthy about this particular situation is the unequal treatment of individual investors in comparison to hedge funds. After word was given that MMTLP would be going private, hedge funds were given continued authorization to short sell this security. When you short a stock, you are basically loaned someone else’s shares to sell immediately receiving the cash, with hopes and expectation that the price of the stock will fall. Then you can buy back the loaned amount of shares and keep the difference. How hedge funds were allowed to do this, while at the same time, some brokerages weren’t allowing MMTLP to be purchased at all by the public is perplexing. According to some in the wallstreetbets group who claim to have credible sources, the security was shorted well beyond the amount of shares that exist. When a company is heavily shorted, there is a simulation of low investor confidence. The price of the stock dips because so many shares are being sold in a short amount of time. Ask yourself why would a hedge fund be allowed to do such a complex transaction, if the average Joe couldn’t even do simple transactions like buying on the same symbol?

With the hard deadline for the MMTLP spinoff approaching, countless shares of the security would need to be bought back by the hedge funds to close their short positions, which was set to send the price of the security soaring, or as wallstreetbets members say, “to the moon”. FINRA, “the powers that be”, decided to do what some unpopular referees do in American football. In the NFL, if a player fumbles and the opposing team picks up the ball, and runs in for a touchdown, the play can be reviewed, and depending on the video review, the defensive team can be credited for 6 points, or the ball can be placed back at the yard-line of the fumble if the offensive player was found to be “down by contact” post-review. In hindsight, they can get the RIGHT call and proper outcome with the help of review. However, if the referee whistles the play dead, the defensive team never has a chance to run the ball in for the touchdown, and the best possible outcome for the defensive team is never realized. Even if the defensive team’s coach challenges the call and it turns out that the offensive player really fumbled the ball, the defensive team never gets that moment of open play to score again. In a situation where there was a clear path to the end-zone, defensive teams often feel like losers, even if they are awarded possession, because of the opportunity to score they were robbed of.

FINRA whistled the play dead. Instead of allowing the living breathing markets to balance themselves, and the chips to fall where they may, the markets were trifled with by FINRA, and MMTLP was administratively and prematurely taken off the market on 12/09, days before the deadline. Investors never got to see just how many shares hedge funds needed to buy to close their short positions, and never got to see what that demand would have done to the price of MMTLP. The settlement of the shorts was handled under the table and off the books, mafia style. A hedge fund would have had to close its short positions and depending on how reckless the hedge fund had gotten with MMTLP shorts, the event may have wiped them out completely, causing any other stocks to dip, if in the proverbial blast radius that is said hedge fund’s portfolio. As the price of MMTLP went up, investors would have had the opportunity to sell their shares and reap the benefits of stock purchases at prices that some had waited over a year to see. Reports of suicide attempts and devastation for the people who were deemed less important than hedge funds by FINRA have rang out all over twitter and reddit. Are some hedge funds “too big to fail”? If so, shouldn’t the risks they’re allowed to take be regulated?

In this NFL analogy, FINRA is the referee, hedge funds are the offensive team, the winners, who fumbled the ball, and everyday investors, like the people in the wallstreetbets community, are the defensive team, the losers, who recovered the ball and looked to score before the play was blown dead. The unknown actor is the defensive team’s coach. Who challenges the ruling on the field? The damages are unknown since trade was stopped, but it is no question the ball was in the hands of the real shareholders of MMTLP, and they deserve more than Next Bridge Hydrocarbons‘ private stock. I hope to God this situation results in real change, new regulations on hedge funds and FINRA, and less market manipulation in the future. It stinks of corruption, and gives me little faith in the concept of the market being free flowing and administered ethically. At time of posting, this was the most recent update I received regarding the matter, and it leaves a sliver of hope for MMTLP shareholders. I hope things work out in their favor.

Missing Child: Losing Enzo

I’m going to tell you a story about a father, or at least a guy that thinks he is a father. From what I hear, he is pretty excited about the prospect of fatherhood, and considers it an awesome responsibility. How he came to be a father is far from conventional, but that didn’t paralyze him, and he was looking forward to everything he could comprehend about how his life would change from the moment he looked into the eyes of his own son. For him it was a dream, and his dream turned into a nightmare when his son went missing before he could ever lay eyes on him.

To tell this father’s story, there is only one name he would want you to know, and that’s the name of his boy, Enzo. For over 8 months he prepared with the child’s mother, though there was no romantic relationship between them. On nearly a weekly basis during the prenatal months, the expecting parents spent hours planning how the child would be taken care of. When angered, the mother threatened to run away with the child. Sometimes she humored the idea of co-parenting, but was strongly against broken homes. Because the father refused romantic relationship with the mother, the mother often wanted to abort the child or give the child up for adoption, and favored those options above allowing the father to raise the child absent of her involvement, even when assured no child support would be requested. You see, the mother had a bad experience growing up in a broken home and wanted no such life for her unborn child. At the same time, she wrestled with the thought of abortion. She knew the father wanted Enzo, even if it meant raising him alone. The mother knew how the father was preparing for the child, but was very upset when the father was out of town on the day she went into labor. She had not forgiven her own father for not being present for her mother when she was born. She decided to give the baby up for adoption, saying “He should have been there”. The father was denied access to any information about the child due to HIPPA though some US states have laws that allow anyone to inquire about the identity of a parent leaving an infant child at the hospital, emergency medical services station, or fire station. This situation would have to go to court, and that’s when things really take a turn for the worse.

The effect of COVID 19 caused delays in securing a court date. When a court date was finally set, Enzo would have been 5 months old. The first day in court, the mother’s lawyer submitted a motion to dismiss the case, stating that the child was left at the hospital, so the father should be required to gather any information from the hospital directly, as the mother’s parental rights had been forfeited. The judge denied this motion and ordered the parents to sort out their grievances in mediation. When the mediation date arrived, the mother was uncooperative, exercising her right to remain silent. When Enzo would have been about 6 months old the parents met in court again, and the judge thought it was reasonable to require the mother to disclose the hospital of which she gave birth. The mother gave this information begrudgingly. The father and his lawyer, spent the next few weeks contacting the hospital and worked their way up the chain of command until they got someone to acknowledge and obey the court order over HIPPA and disclose data they had in their system regarding mothers who left their infant at any of the hospital’s locations. There was no match on the mother’s name or child’s name at the hospital that was given in court, for all the reported hospital’s locations in the tri-county area. By the next time, the parents would appear in court, Enzo would have been just about 8 months old, and the father would have to begin apologizing to friends who gifted clothing for the baby’s first few months of life at the intimate baby shower he organized for Enzo weeks before birth. When the inconclusive report from the hospital record search was given to the judge, the mother would be sworn under oath for the first time, and asked to provide sworn testimony under penalties of perjury regarding where she gave birth. The mother, representing herself, stated under oath, that she did not know where she gave birth, and after 8 months, had forgotten. The judge then gave the father and his legal team the ability to search the mother’s phone because the mother reported to be in possession of a photograph of baby Enzo at the hospital, on the day the child was born, which could have been used for geolocation purposes. A private investigator and the father’s lawyer examined the mother’s phone and photo files of the child to no avail. The mother appeared in court with new representation 2 months later, and under oath stated she was never pregnant and the whole thing was made up. The father contests this, but his legal team has lost interest in his case, as it has taken longer than expected and has yielded little money for them. With proper, diligent representation, the father could get the information he needs to find if the baby was adopted, or if something more sinister has taken place of which the mother is trying to cover up. He maintains that he was in the presence of the mother the entire duration of her pregnancy, and even helped her to make a “paper mache” mold of her stomach at 7 months. He has several ultrasounds the mother gave him during the prenatal months that he is forced to cross-reference with local hospitals and clinics, when he gets off from work, due to stagnating support from his legal team.

Men like Enzo’s father, are in need of reform in the area of father’s rights, as well as financial assistance while awaiting on the law to mature around the issues of father’s rights. As Florida Governor DeSantis approves millions towards Father’s rights, there are fathers in desperate need of competent legal assistance. Not only should more Governors initiate similar initiatives in their states, but providing grants to help fathers secure better legal assistance would help since so few laws give the father any inherent rights to a child without DNA testing. When a father has been proven to have done due diligence with respect to establishing paternity, such a grant would allow swift legal paternity actions to be filed to overturn unjust adoptions, and also provide justice in cases when the mother may have acted criminally against her unborn child. Florida happens to be a state that has such laws that allow fathers to inquire about the identity of a parent leaving a child at a hospital, however no hospital would place this state law above HIPPA, even when pressured by a lawyer. The legal teams of hospitals have to be involved which wastes more precious time as the trail for children like Enzo grows colder by the day.

A Looter’s Mindset

I present to you, the backdrop. Humor with me this scenario…

You believe in the right to protest. You believe in the principle of “government for the people, by the people”. You believe it is the right of the people to stand up and voice their displeasure when their government does not serve them, or worse, wages war against them. In this scenario, you are a black person in America, and there are certainly black people who feel under siege by the police in their communities. This is your reality. You feel, in America, people with darker pigments of skin only benefit from the white majority being morally and financially divided on the issue of how to treat people who have similar skin tone as you. Surely, there are some who still believe you are less than human. Surely, there are some who will believe in your humanity but view your life as something less valuable than a white person’s life. Somewhere out there, there may even be some who believe you are created equal to a white person. Since the abolishment of Slavery in the USA, White America has wrestled with it’s divided opinions surrounding how to treat those classified as “black” in our society. People with brown skin have secured rights within society over the years, but brown people keep finding inconsistencies in society’s enforcement of the laws surrounding the violation of their rights.

The reality that White America is the real America and Black America is some cheap derivative is made painfully clear when you witness someone black being killed by the police on a video you watch from your social media timeline. The image of that person’s last moments on this earth is imprinted into your mind, and you follow the story in the news and on social media to learn more. You find out that no arrests have taken place, and your mind cannot fathom why. For you and people who look like you, the presence of physical evidence like the video you watched does not yield the same arrests that the video would yield if it were you in the video doing the killing. You are outraged.

You decide to protest, and you assemble with a group of other people who share your outrage on the injustice, some you know but most you do not. You hold your sign, yell your message to all that will hear. You reflect on the history of your people as you walk and chant, because the act of protesting in this way is reminiscent of the days of the Civil Rights Movement. Yet, your reality through the prism of the Civil Rights Movement only intensifies your outrage, making you increasingly determined to get more definitive change within the system that oppresses you and people like you. You want to finish what your people started years ago. What will you do differently to bring about the change they could not? You wrestle in your mind for an answer to this age-old question, understanding that both the nonviolent and violent actions of your people, together, led to the incremental changes of the Civil Rights era. Suddenly, you hear glass shatter nearby. Someone in the crowd has caused damage to a business, and people are beginning to enter the building and take things…

What happens next will differ for you based on the combination of a multitude of factors. Your personal core values and morality, your needs, your socioeconomic status and ability to provide your own needs, your familiarity with the business that was damaged, and your level of outrage are only a few of the factors that will dictate what you do next. In fact, if not merely provocateurs, the same contributing factors would be the likely motivation for the unknown person who damaged the building in the first place.

Consider the mindset of the immoral looter. For whatever reason, life experience has not given them the core values and morality to resist the temptation to steal. This person may shoplift on a normal day, merely because they have devised a scheme to get away with it. During a riot or protest, when the police are preoccupied, they could act with no respect or care for the just cause of the people assembled to protest injustice. This kind of person would even seek out such an environment to carry out their scheme, because it presents opportunity to escape consequence.

Consider the mindset of the need-based looter. This person develops a higher sense of morality when they themselves do not have a need. On a day when they just purchased the newest iPhone, they will be zealous about turning in a smartphone they found unattended at the Starbucks condiment counter to lost-and-found. However, when their current phone is “on the fritz”, stumbling upon a shiny new smart phone may be too good to pass up, even though they don’t feel completely right about taking it. This person could simply hear word that Target was broken into and show up to grab a TV because they wanted a new one.

Consider the mindset of the poor looter. This person lives their life on the edge of going without basic needs on a regular basis. This person may or may not be homeless, but they are living in poverty, nonetheless. If they have the opportunity to take something, they don’t have to know what it is or how valuable it is. They’re basic needs are on the forefront of their minds, so much so, that they would take anything and figure out it’s value later. This person could benefit greatly from riot in their community and would certainly seek out the opportunity to secure anything valuable for themselves in such an environment.

Consider the mindset of the vindictive looter. This person can justify doing wrong to those who they’ve associated as the source of their anguish. We all know someone who is vindictive. When given the opportunity to kick their enemy when they are down, they will most certainly take it. If there was a negative interaction with a representative of a business, it may be all this person needs to destroy and loot from the business.

Lastly, consider the mindset of the enraged looter. This person is in a genuine state of rage over the issues that plagues them. There is not much forethought to any of their actions and they are capable of almost anything in this dangerous mental state. They’re looting is out of their anger and it doesn’t have to be anything personal. They are reflecting their pain on the world around them in any way they can.

In America, especially during this time of pandemic, you cannot isolate any of these mindsets to only black people. You, most certainly, should not link the actions of any looter to the cause of the nearby protest. You could consider looting a byproduct of the cause for some, while most others are merely capitalizing off an opportunity for free goods while the law of the land is too preoccupied to enforce immediate consequences. Minus the unknown provocateurs, I believe the video footage of the George Floyd riots reflects the diversity of the people with these mindsets. However, if you tried to isolate these behaviors to only black people or tried to provide some statistical analysis of why the mentalities I discussed are more common among African Americans, you would only be highlighting factors created by systemic racism and highlighting the things that we should be trying to change rather than perpetuate.

Too often, the laws of our society fail to serve the black man and woman. If this yields lawless acts of the black man and woman, we should not pretend to not understand their reactions, whether we agree or disagree with the lawlessness. Looting has always been part of riots because of the lawless climate it creates. If someone would steal on a regular day, they would certainly loot during a riot. When the thing you want for yourself is right before you, nobody is going to stop you from taking it, and if you don’t take it someone else will because you’re surrounded by takers, only a higher sense of personal accountability and morality will stop you from doing so. You cannot fathom what you will do until put into position and presented the temptation of no immediate consequence. This is the mindset of the looter, yet this is ironically the mindset of the police officer abusing his or her power of authority and use of force. If we care about the lawlessness of the rioting looter, we have to care just as much about the lawlessness of the police officer. It is the African American’s desire for police officers to have a similar higher sense of morality and personal accountability in their use of force, yet we are still trying to fix the system that should hold them accountable when they they fail to protect and serve the black civilian. The black civilian only has the ability to loot in times of riot, while the police officer can exert their power over the black person at any time. Certainly, there are abuses the black person endures at the hand of police that are less severe than death. Yet, it is only in the extreme cases of wrongful death do you get the mass media response, subsequent protests, and occasional riots. It is my hope that law and order is reestablished across the board, that there may be justice for all lawlessness and less hypocrisy in the world.

Biden v Trump 2020: Old, White, and Unfiltered

As the country reacts to the news about Joe Biden’s possible miscue on “The Breakfast Club” interview with Charlamagne, I’m strapping myself in for what may be a wild ride to the polls in November.

Two old white guys, one democrat, one republican, both with mouth-filter issues. Should one be held to a higher standard than the other? Should only one be allowed to shoot his mouth off, unfiltered. Two old white guys who know they are to represent their parties in the presidential election. I expect they will both boast and speak very proudly to their respective bases from now until November. They will defend themselves and their records and paint themselves as profits who saw the drama of 2020 before it happened. Along the way, one of them may say things that will make groups of people feel uncomfortable and may upset a few communities. A scandal may resurface for one or both of them. With all that in mind, I hope there is no double standard, this time around.

Last election year, whether you love Hillary Clinton, or you hate her, she was a million times more presidential, in her presentation, in how she conducted herself, and in how she spoke on the issues. Every debate, when asked a question, she communicated competency on the issue, dropped a reference to her record on the issue if applicable, and explained how she would handle the issue if elected president. In the same debates, on the same questions, seconds before or seconds after, it was optional if Donald Trump ever explained what he would do about the issue, if elected. Yet, after the debate, when everyone weighed in with their analysis, Trump was praised when he simply “held it together”.

It is my hope that this year, when the country looks at their televisions, and listens to these two old, white, and unfiltered gentlemen, they’re treated as equals in the post-debate analysis. I hope the media, and the nation holds the two of them to an equal standard. For free, I hope nobody wonders how we got here. I hope nobody bothers to say, “I’m not voting for either of these guys”. Come November, if Trump doesn’t pass from complications related to hydroxychloroquine, I hope the majority of the nation looks at these two guys, acknowledges that one of them will be elected, and chooses one or the other based on their understanding of the issues and ability to articulate their plan of action to “Heal America”. Because, man, “Heal America” could easily be someone’s campaign slogan. America is hurt, America is sick, America is suffering, America is crying out for help. Americans need rehabilitation, Americans need therapy, Americans need healthcare, Americans need solutions.

Let us not give anyone any points on “holding it together”. Let’s educate ourselves on the issues as we quarantine. Let’s become smarter voters and understand how to make our votes count. Let us sign petitions, create SuperPACs of our own, and take actions to make the issues that plague our communities part of the conversation, and vote on the platforms of our candidate of choice. Let’s vote with our brains, and our conscience. Nobody should have been surprised when Trump used twitter as his platform of choice to communicate matters of national security. Nobody should be surprised how Trump answers tough questions from the press from the podium, given the way he answered questions on the debate stage. Trump always talks of his “numbers”, whether he’s talking about the polls or how many confirmed carriers or deaths associated with the COVID-19 virus the US has. To him, it’s a game of numbers, and if Biden comes in and plays the same game, I hope it is equally acceptable. I’m sure it’s obvious who I don’t plan to vote for, but regardless of the outcome, I hope the double standards of 2016 don’t resurface in 2020.

Equal Pay for All

Violations of the law of anti-hypocrisy must stop wherever it may rear its head. Whether you learned it as “love thy neighbor as thy self” or “Would you like that if your sister did that to you?” almost everyone has been taught the concept of anti-hypocrisy by a person that loved them at an early age. It is something that is assumed we all know, and it should be obvious we do not all live by it. This principle shapes our laws of ethical business practices, criminal law, and is the spirit of fairness. It is the spirit of sportsmanship, and the spirit of many sacred things that we as humans hold dear like the price for food and commodities. You want a “fair price” don’t you? You want the umpire to call a “fair game” and you want “fair pay” for the work you do…Oops…Maybe I shouldn’t go there. Since there are still companies that pay women less money when they do the same work as men. Just as well, employers are still paying black people less than white people for the same job…but wait…Where does that leave black women?

If John negotiates a great salary for his project management position, it should be considered unethical to pay anyone less, with similar experience, at the same office, for the same position, if hired after John. John set the bar, and everyone else benefits from the bar he set. Is this not fair? Is this not what equal pay for equal work is all about? Sometimes there is no way to know what John negotiated, unless you ask him. But should you have to ask? The company knows, and they should acknowledge what the position is worth to them and should pay all future employees that amount. On the back end, when reviews are given, any person excelling at John’s position should be given a raise to get them somewhere within range of the new standard pay for the position.

Violation of the law of anti-hypocrisy has to end. Let’s start paying people fairly. If anyone, white man, black man, red man, method man, or orange man perform the same job, for the same organization, with similar or offsetting credentials (education, experience, certification, etc.), lets pay them the same. Let us govern our pay scale as they do in the NBA, NFL, FIFA Soccer Leagues, etc. If a starting quarterback at the top of his game negotiates a record contract from his team, it helps all the rest of the starting quarterbacks at the top of their game in the NFL. The same goes for NBA players and soccer players. Why should it be any different for INSERT OCCUPATION HERE?

Are there more good women out there than men?

In dating, it is said, “there are more good women out there than men”. I am inclined to disagree. Moreover, I look at this as a double standard of sorts. I believe men and women go through the same things from different perspectives. Unless you’re going to look at the literal number of men and women on the planet, and say “mathematically, men have more options out there than women”, and provide all the statistical analysis, SAVE IT. You find me a man who has left a woman because the relationship wasn’t good for him, and I’ll show you a woman who was in a relationship that wasn’t good for her.

See what I did there?

For whatever reason, when relationships don’t work out, it is because life has something else in store for all parties involved. Whether or not the very next person they talk to is an “upgrade” from the last, is irrelevant. Whether you feel like I should replace “life” in the previous sentence with God, or Karma, or the Universe, is also irrelevant. Facts are just facts, and to assume that men are the reason why relationships don’t work is only looking at relationships from one point of view. Men that are happy within their relationships, because they feel they can be themselves, come home to a place of peace, and have a partner and friend in the woman they love, do more to preserve their relationships than they do to destroy them. The previous statement would hold up, equally, if applied to women, and neither party within the relationship will be immune to mistakes.

I’ll leave you with one more fact. Honesty balances us. Embrace truth, in love. You know a person loves you when they know your honest, ugly truth, and they love you anyway. When you find someone who loves you that way…Hold on to them, make excuses for them to others, and tell them the truth about their ugly truth. Growing together, instead of growing apart requires honesty from the ones we love. The kind of honesty that gives us balance. Never settling for someone who doesn’t live up to your standard, or worse their own standard, doesn’t mean you run away. It means you block out outside distractions, lock each other in a room, and shine a spotlight on the issues to have constructive conversations, with the obvious intent to make each other better. To reject solutions in our relationships, is to embrace the problems in our relationships. Men and women are guilty of these sins against their relationships, and are equally unfit to be in them. Let’s stop saying there are more good women out there than men. It will be one less lie that we make our truth.