Viral Claims Accusing JPMorgan of Short Selling Collapse After Records Show Zero Short Positions
- How Did the False Short-Selling Narrative Spread?
- What Do the Actual SEC Filings Reveal?
- How Does This Compare to the GameStop Situation?
- Who's Really Betting on Bitcoin?
- Why Do These False Narratives Gain Traction?
- What Should Investors Learn From This Episode?
- Frequently Asked Questions
In a dramatic turn of events, viral allegations claiming JPMorgan Chase was dangerously short-selling Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) stocks have been debunked by official SEC filings. The rumors, which spread like wildfire across social media, suggested a 50% stock surge could trigger a bank crisis - but regulatory documents reveal no short positions existed. Meanwhile, institutional investors like Harvard and Abu Dhabi's Al Warda quietly expanded their bitcoin ETF holdings, showcasing a stark contrast between online speculation and real-world financial moves.
How Did the False Short-Selling Narrative Spread?
The firestorm began with a Sunday post by Max Keiser that went viral on X (formerly Twitter), amassing tens of millions of views within two days. Social media users rallied behind calls to "squeeze" JPMorgan, drawing comparisons to the GameStop saga of 2021. Financial influencers amplified the claims, warning of an impending short squeeze that never materialized. The hysteria reached such levels that boycott campaigns against the banking giant gained traction, all based on completely false premises.
What makes this case particularly fascinating is how quickly the financial rumor mill can churn out misinformation. As someone who's followed market manipulation claims for years, I've noticed these viral cycles are becoming more frequent - and more divorced from reality. The SEC's 13F-HR filing from November 7 clearly showed JPMorgan held zero short positions in MSTR, yet this truth was buried under mountains of speculation.
What Do the Actual SEC Filings Reveal?
The FORM 13F-HR, a quarterly requirement for asset managers overseeing more than $100 million, tells a different story than the viral claims. JPMorgan actually reduced its Strategy stock position by 772,453 shares (a 24.54% decrease) while maintaining standard protective options:
- Call options tied to 202,200 shares (~$65 million)
- Put options for 363,000 shares (~$117 million)
Here's where things get interesting - those put options became the smoking gun for conspiracy theorists. But when you crunch the numbers, they represent just 0.00254% of JPMorgan's $4.6 trillion in assets under management. As any seasoned trader knows, this is standard hedging practice, not some "bet the bank" scenario. The maximum possible loss on these puts WOULD be the premiums paid, unlike unlimited loss potential from actual short selling.
How Does This Compare to the GameStop Situation?
The GameStop short interest peaked at over 140% of float shares thanks to rehypothecation (lending the same shares multiple times). Strategy's short interest stood at just 9.74% as of October 31 - about 14 times lower. There's another crucial difference: GameStop had about 70 million shares available, while Strategy has 259 million outstanding shares - nearly four times more. This makes price manipulation by retail investors significantly harder.
During the GameStop frenzy, certain hedge funds found themselves dangerously overexposed. But in this case, there's no evidence JPMorgan was involved in any substantial short position. The FINRA data shows 25.28 million Strategy shares were sold short, but none were attributed to JPMorgan in any regulatory filing.
Who's Really Betting on Bitcoin?
While the internet obsessed over fictional short positions, institutional investors were making real moves in crypto markets:
| Institution | Position Change | Current Value |
|---|---|---|
| Harvard University | +257% in iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) | $442.8 million |
| Al Warda Investments | +230% in IBIT | $517.6 million |
| Emory University | +91% in Grayscale Bitcoin Mini Trust | $42.9 million |
What's remarkable is that Harvard's IBIT position now exceeds its stakes in tech giants like Microsoft, Amazon, or Nvidia. Since their January 2024 approval, U.S. Bitcoin ETFs have seen $60.8 billion in inflows - a stunning vote of confidence from institutional players.
Why Do These False Narratives Gain Traction?
Having watched multiple market manias unfold, I've noticed three key ingredients for viral financial misinformation:
- A recognizable villain (in this case, a "too big to fail" bank)
- The promise of easy money ("let's squeeze the shorts!")
- Social proof (influencers amplifying the message)
The psychology reminds me of the old Wall Street saying: "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent." In today's social media age, narratives can stay irrational longer than facts can stay visible. By November 25, the false claims had been widely accepted as truth in financial social media circles, while the actual SEC documents gathered digital dust.
What Should Investors Learn From This Episode?
First, always verify claims against primary sources like SEC filings. Second, understand that options positions (especially puts) don't necessarily indicate bearish bets - they're often just risk management tools. Third, recognize that social media amplifies extreme positions, creating false binaries between "bullish" and "bearish" camps.
The BTCC research team notes: "This incident highlights the importance of doing your own research rather than following viral trends. Markets reward patience and due diligence, not reactionary moves based on unverified claims."
As for me? I'll be watching how institutions continue navigating these waters. The quiet accumulation of Bitcoin exposure by elite universities and sovereign wealth funds tells a more compelling story than any viral conspiracy theory ever could.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did JPMorgan actually have short positions in Strategy stock?
No. SEC filings from November 7 clearly show JPMorgan held zero short positions in MSTR (Strategy's ticker symbol). The viral claims were completely false.
What were the put options that people misinterpreted?
JPMorgan held put options for 363,000 Strategy shares (worth ~$117 million), representing just 0.00254% of their $4.6 trillion in assets. These were standard hedging instruments, not a massive bearish bet.
How does the Strategy situation differ from GameStop?
GameStop had 140%+ short interest enabled by rehypothecation, while Strategy's short interest was just 9.74%. GameStop's float was 70M shares vs Strategy's 259M, making manipulation much harder.
Which institutions increased Bitcoin exposure?
Harvard (+257% in IBIT), Al Warda Investments (+230% in IBIT), and Emory University (+91% in Grayscale Bitcoin Mini Trust) all significantly boosted their crypto holdings.
Why did the false narrative spread so quickly?
The combination of a villain (big bank), get-rich-quick potential, and social media amplification created perfect conditions for viral misinformation, despite readily available facts proving it wrong.
