Chart, page-17030

Hey, I'm just trying to understand more and Baba's explanations so far have many gaps that I'm am trying to fill - and I do hear your point about it not being all targeted at me btw!
His explanations of the net holding/exposure etc as I have been questioning simply do not make 100% sense as per my examples in the previous post. Sure, there may be other reasons for shorting and I have been paying close attention to tutor's posts about the mechanics etc, as you have seen.

The bottom line imo is - as with most things, if you cannot explain it in simple terms then you do not understand it yourself - and I am not expecting a detailed explanation of all things shorting, but the very core points about the 2 examples above that Baba's explanation do not fully address and actually raise more Qs. The KISS principle applies.
I get that it may be a complex web, but the reasoning provided so far does not explain why "most of the shorts are "safe"" as is apparently being portrayed here. What advantage is there to having a huge hedged position? You need to then close one side to have net exposure. Why not just open the "other side" when you want that exposure? I don't buy this "insurance policy" analogy. Does it apply because some funds "have to" have a position/s.. ? Off-market swapping and other tactics may offer some benefit afai can see... that's why I'm asking for more detail...

This all started with claims that most of the shorts aren't plain vanilla shorts anyway so they won't suffer either way...!?
Simply saying that funds will have a shitload of hedged shorts and then fluctuate the hedge to expose a net position when it suits them is not reason enough imo, unless some/all of that fluctuation is done to not affect the market price somehow, and therefor provide some advantage over the alternative of a "simple" position... Perhaps someone can explain with a very clear example if that is indeed the case.
@tutor - I am sure I'm missing something here, fine, perhaps you can explain?!

And all that seems very different/separate to the capacity that CS may be acting in as per tutor's explanation btw.
I'm not saying anyone's "wrong", I'm just seeking more clarity from a sceptical viewpoint, considering the bold claims about the VAST majority of shorts here being "safe" if this starts to charge higher. Generalisations or guesses like "less then 10%" of the shorts would be actually exposed to loss etc don't cut it for me.

BTW I am grateful for people's input/explanations - but do still remain sceptical as some of the claims are quite bold and of course various people have their motives and agendas to sometimes portray things in a way that bends reality somewhat! And yes I'm DMOR elsewhere too just good to tap the brains trust here a bit more "directly" at times also - hopefully it brings others in with Qs also and adds to the collective understanding of these issues/processes etc, as we have seen with the short reports over the past few months - less assumptions/guesses about what the numbers represent and more understanding instead! Many helped to question and clarify that stuff btw and I'm sure I'm not the only one to benefit from some clarity so far there. Great stuff. Beats the usual bickering around here - apologies if that overflowed into the tone of my Qs here btw Baba et al.!