- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Holding AMC Thread- Diamond hands unite
Posted on 6/12/21 at 10:46 am to ItNeverRains
Posted on 6/12/21 at 10:46 am to ItNeverRains
Because things are always changing and worth discussing and debating. I thought that's what this board was for?
1
Posted on 6/12/21 at 2:02 pm to Chucktown_Badger
quote:
Because things are always changing and worth discussing and debating
Agreed... but the problem is you have taken your position and haven't moved even though short interest has risen, media/analysts are talking about AMC squeezing, the price rising, options becoming more bullish, etc. etc... unless I have missed it you just keep on with the anti-AMC sentiment, which is perfectly fine but don't act like you are open minded.
If I would've taken your position instead of following my own research I would've missed out on over 400% "unrealized returns"... only unrealized because I don't believe its over yet. So needless to say you were wrong and that's not even debatable!!
Posted on 6/12/21 at 4:59 pm to elprez00
quote:
I’m going to ask a stupid question that I’d really like Slackster to answer.
I keep seeing stuff posted in various places about hedge funds covering using technicality terms in dark pool trading delaying price changes by up to 20 days. So the real value of the stock is higher, but it gives the appearance of a sell off, which in turn makes people sell, which lowers the current price. Again, I don’t know enough about all this stuff, and I suspect there are some shenanigans occurring, but this seems absurdly far fetched.
Is this even possible?
The short answer is no. The long answer is no.
Covering in dark looks isn’t giving the appearance of a sell off. Dark pool orders can be executed in private, but that transaction doesn’t have anything to do with the stock selling off on the exchange.
Like many of the things with AMC, people on these vlogs know just enough to be dangerous. Some kernels of truth are spun into these elaborate conspiracies.
Anyway, good day Friday for the longs. Mondays have been strong since January, so hopefully it continues.
This post was edited on 6/12/21 at 5:00 pm
Posted on 6/12/21 at 8:34 pm to PennyPacker
quote:Dude, he bought $7.50 puts just before it surged to all-time highs! That's the last person I would take advice from.
Agreed... but the problem is you have taken your position and haven't moved even though short interest has risen, media/analysts are talking about AMC squeezing, the price rising, options becoming more bullish, etc. etc... unless I have missed it you just keep on with the anti-AMC sentiment, which is perfectly fine but don't act like you are open minded.
If I would've taken your position instead of following my own research I would've missed out on over 400% "unrealized returns"... only unrealized because I don't believe its over yet. So needless to say you were wrong and that's not even debatable!!
Posted on 6/12/21 at 8:45 pm to slackster
quote:
The short answer is no. The long answer is no.
Covering in dark looks isn’t giving the appearance of a sell off. Dark pool orders can be executed in private, but that transaction doesn’t have anything to do with the stock selling off on the exchange.
Like many of the things with AMC, people on these vlogs know just enough to be dangerous. Some kernels of truth are spun into these elaborate conspiracies.
Anyway, good day Friday for the longs. Mondays have been strong since January, so hopefully it continues.
As I said before, I think you are good people, even though we disagree a lot. That being said, I read your posts with an open mind.
As for dark pools, do you think manipulation is likely by running trades thru them considering they are extremely unregulated and invisible to most?
If so, is it feasible that the trades passed thru dark pool can easily be hidden in regards to pricing? Wouldn't that explain how inflow outweighs outflow, yet the price drops?
Lastly, wouldn't it be prudent, if WE truly want a free market, to do away with dark pools, prevent market makers from also having financial interest in a stock, and further regulate brokers who except huge amounts of money from market makers to pass trades thru them? Isn't that the prevailing thought of why Robinhood really stopped the buying of GME and AMC back in January? Me and you could sell any amount of those shares, but we were limited to buying a total of 5. If I can sell 10000 shares, who was buying them?
Posted on 6/12/21 at 10:20 pm to greygoose
I feel like this week people are going to refocus on AMC and it's going to sky rocket
Posted on 6/12/21 at 10:29 pm to Laffy Taffy Tiger
shite has taken over my YouTube. Every other video is some smooth brain talking AMC.
I got out last week, but I’m starting to FOMO pretty hard. This week will be wild for sure. The stock market has changed so much in a year. It’s fascinating.
I got out last week, but I’m starting to FOMO pretty hard. This week will be wild for sure. The stock market has changed so much in a year. It’s fascinating.
This post was edited on 6/12/21 at 10:30 pm
Posted on 6/13/21 at 8:16 am to Laffy Taffy Tiger
quote:It very should. I'm wary of shenanigans being pulled by brokers though.
I feel like this week people are going to refocus on AMC and it's going to sky rocket
Posted on 6/13/21 at 11:05 am to greygoose
quote:
As for dark pools, do you think manipulation is likely by running trades thru them considering they are extremely unregulated and invisible to most?
Likely? No, not really. Dark pools have a negative connotation but the vast majority of trades there are simply designed to spread out very large blocks efficiently.
quote:
If so, is it feasible that the trades passed thru dark pool can easily be hidden in regards to pricing? Wouldn't that explain how inflow outweighs outflow, yet the price drops?
They can be hidden until they’re disclosed, but someone if the $1500 leak is true, someone is paying 30x and someone is receiving 30x. Why on earth would 30 million shares cover at 30x when 300-500 million are trading all day for $50? Makes absolutely zero sense.
quote:
Lastly, wouldn't it be prudent, if WE truly want a free market, to do away with dark pools, prevent market makers from also having financial interest in a stock, and further regulate brokers who except huge amounts of money from market makers to pass trades thru them?
Dark pools need better marketing. The term has a really negative connotation but they’re not a bad thing. The serve a legitimate purpose, and they’re necessary IMO.
quote:
Isn't that the prevailing thought of why Robinhood really stopped the buying of GME and AMC back in January? Me and you could sell any amount of those shares, but we were limited to buying a total of 5. If I can sell 10000 shares, who was buying them?
Robinhood and others did that because of capital requirements. I know it’s not a great story, but it’s almost certainly the case. No different than you buying and selling in a day and having to clear funds by settlement in your own account. They had to raise a ton of extra capital from investors during that ordeal. They were about to be fricked. It wasn’t nefarious Citadel pressure or some BS.
Look, I’m no fan of payment for order flow. I think Robinhood is a net negative and ultimately hurts retail investing long term, but that’s a story for another day. I’m no fan of hedge funds either. I have said time and time again I want y’all to kill it. I truly do, even if I think your logic is loopy.
Posted on 6/13/21 at 11:47 am to slackster
quote:So the hidden nature of those trades, and the ability of MMs to route those trades thru a hidden, and unregulated system does not bother you? Not dark pool, but some MMs were fined for processing their trades before retail, even though the retail orders originated first. If they have the ability to do that, thereby manipulating pricing, then holy shite, dark pools are on on a whole other level!
Likely? No, not really. Dark pools have a negative connotation but the vast majority of trades there are simply designed to spread out very large blocks efficiently.
If the true price is $1500, and it is being hidden thru dark pools, I can easily see why they would do this, especially in case of a stock that is 80% owned by retail. Imagined the FOMO if the stock was just at $100. They are currently routing half of all trades thru dark pools at the current level. IMO, every trick in the book will be used to keep the price down, and lower it. The alternative is Armageddon for them.
quote:
Robinhood and others did that because of capital requirements. I know it’s not a great story, but it’s almost certainly the case. No different than you buying and selling in a day and having to clear funds by settlement in your own account. They had to raise a ton of extra capital from investors during that ordeal. They were about to be fricked. It wasn’t nefarious Citadel pressure or some BS.
Look, I’m no fan of payment for order flow. I think Robinhood is a net negative and ultimately hurts retail investing long term, but that’s a story for another day. I’m no fan of hedge funds either. I have said time and time again I want y’all to kill it. I truly do, even if I think your logic is loopy.
This is where I 100% disagree. Their was a reason why congressional hearings were called. The move to restrict buying during an upswing, stunk to high Heaven. Especially considering that RH's major source of revenue was from institutions like Citadel who had extremely and substantial losses if people continued to have the ability to buy. Did you also forget that Vlad gave different excuses on different days, during the outcry? He finally settled on the "capital requirements" excuse.
At the end of the day, you have MM's like Citadel, who had a large investment that was going south. They also had the ability to influence brokers who they were paying for order flow. At the very least, an MM should not be in this kind of conflict of interest. It's telling that you have politicians like AOC, Maxine Waters, AND Ted Cruz on the same side of an issue.
Posted on 6/13/21 at 12:14 pm to greygoose
quote:
This is where I 100% disagree. Their was a reason why congressional hearings were called. T
I thing Congress is far worse than financial institutions, so forgive me for erring on the side of the latter.
quote:
So the hidden nature of those trades, and the ability of MMs to route those trades thru a hidden, and unregulated system does not bother you?
It’s not unregulated. Not sure how that misunderstanding came to be. Anonymity =/= unregulated.
quote:
f the true price is $1500, and it is being hidden thru dark pools, I can easily see why they would do this, especially in case of a stock that is 80% owned by retail. Imagined the FOMO if the stock was just at $100. They are currently routing half of all trades thru dark pools at the current level. IMO, every trick in the book will be used to keep the price down, and lower it. The alternative is Armageddon for them.
But that’s ignoring the dynamics of the current market prices and volumes. Plenty in this very thread have sold already. Hedges that are covering could have easily bought from them.
Where the conspiracy really loses any validity it may have had is the failure to explain why everyone under the sun wouldn’t take advantage of this, if true. Why wouldn’t institutions and other hedges obliterate this inefficiency and arbitrage the shite out of it? Why wouldn’t all the long money out there drive up the price (from their demand) in the open market and then sell it in these dark pools? Thats why the theory is hogwash IMO - if they’re having to cover at $1500/shr in dark pools, and retail owns so much but isn’t selling (which is obviously BS too), then the price on the open market would very quickly reach equilibrium.
Vlogs are really trying to float this idea that shorts are covering at $1500/shr while John Doe is happily selling his AMC shares on Robinhood for $45. That makes zero sense. The stock wouldn’t trade for $45-$50 all week if there was an opportunity to sell it in high volumes on another exchange for $1500.
This post was edited on 6/13/21 at 12:26 pm
Posted on 6/13/21 at 12:24 pm to greygoose
quote:
Especially considering that RH's major source of revenue was from institutions like Citadel who had extremely and substantial losses if people continued to have the ability to buy. Did you also forget that Vlad gave different excuses on different days, during the outcry? He finally settled on the "capital requirements" excuse.
Robinhood nearly failed. Plain and simple. The fact they tried to hide it isn’t surprising. Drew down their credit lines and raised a billion in additional investments in order to keep the doors open. You don’t do that if it’s simply a matter of Citadel putting pressure on you.
Your point about the conflicts of interest that exist is sound, but this was essentially an administrative issue. You like to talk about the DTCC, and this was that. The alternative could/would have been far worse for retail traders.
Posted on 6/13/21 at 12:55 pm to greygoose
And one last thing…
If retail owns 80% or the stock and, at best, 30% is short (even accounting for made up math/naked shorts), how does this work? How do all of the current retail shareholders sell their shares to far fewer buyers than there are sellers? There aren’t enough unhedged options, short sellers, etc out there for everyone to get out orderly. This is the elephant in the room that no one seems to want to address.
The entire thesis was blown up with the share count. You may be able to sell high, but the majority of you (retail) cannot do so without selling it to other retail. I’m genuinely impressed that no one seems to give a shite about that very inconvenient truth.
quote:
especially in case of a stock that is 80% owned by retail.
If retail owns 80% or the stock and, at best, 30% is short (even accounting for made up math/naked shorts), how does this work? How do all of the current retail shareholders sell their shares to far fewer buyers than there are sellers? There aren’t enough unhedged options, short sellers, etc out there for everyone to get out orderly. This is the elephant in the room that no one seems to want to address.
The entire thesis was blown up with the share count. You may be able to sell high, but the majority of you (retail) cannot do so without selling it to other retail. I’m genuinely impressed that no one seems to give a shite about that very inconvenient truth.
Posted on 6/13/21 at 1:54 pm to greygoose
Trey’s Trades - the king ape, he of CNBC and Fox Business guest appearance fame, and often cited here - just dropped a 15 minute video where he proceeds to completely misunderstand what Fed reverse repos are. He couldn’t be more incorrect. He thinks Fed reverse repos are going to create margin calls on institutions when the truth is a Fed reverse repo is institutions giving the Fed cash because they have nothing else better to do with it. Hell, his first example shows the reverse repos are counteracting the QE program in the damn caption.
This is the lead talking head for the apes and he couldn’t be more incorrect. Much like his tweet where he lied about the timing of that stock sale. However, because AMC is up, folks think he knows what he’s discussing.
This is the lead talking head for the apes and he couldn’t be more incorrect. Much like his tweet where he lied about the timing of that stock sale. However, because AMC is up, folks think he knows what he’s discussing.
Posted on 6/13/21 at 2:52 pm to slackster
quote:
Trey’s Trades
Good kid, means well I am sure but I can't watch him.
I just watched his video because you mentioned it... yeah that was pretty damn bad. I checked the comments and people were calling him out on the reverse repo. Glad someone decided to correct him... he should do a follow-up up correction video.
Bottom line is, you can't blindly trust any one with investment info. You have to do your own research without a doubt.
Posted on 6/13/21 at 3:29 pm to PennyPacker
quote:
Good kid, means well I am sure but I can't watch him.
I just watched his video because you mentioned it... yeah that was pretty damn bad. I checked the comments and people were calling him out on the reverse repo. Glad someone decided to correct him... he should do a follow-up up correction video.
Yeah I check him out periodically because I assume those discussions will be brought here eventually. He typically does just enough research to be dangerous. Fills in the gaps with some wild speculation and people obviously eat it up. He wouldn’t have much of a base if he told the full story, so I get it.
Can’t imagine we’ll see a retraction - he didn’t issue one when was flat out wrong about the stock issuance a couple weeks ago either.
quote:
Bottom line is, you can't blindly trust any one with investment info. You have to do your own research without a doubt.
Precisely. I don’t expect someone like he or the other resources mentioned in here to issue a retraction or be very accurate - they’re entertainers, but people definitely forget that. They’re highlighting a couple investopedia definitions so they think they understand how to apply it to any situation. It’s a bit suspect that they never seem to have a negative thing to say about AMC share price prospects or dynamics.
Hell, even as negative as I am on AMC on the whole, I will point out promising things when they happen.
Posted on 6/13/21 at 4:31 pm to PennyPacker
thats the type of koolaid that im talking about, everyone is drinking up his energy & dropping money hoping he's right.....
At the 8 minute mark he talks about how "if you invest a million dollars in amc & it goes up 10% in a month, you will have a million dollars in that months timeframe.....
His math is wrong!
LINK
At the 8 minute mark he talks about how "if you invest a million dollars in amc & it goes up 10% in a month, you will have a million dollars in that months timeframe.....
His math is wrong! LINK
This post was edited on 6/13/21 at 4:34 pm
Posted on 6/13/21 at 9:14 pm to PennyPacker
I thinking that tommorow we push 60+, minimum.
Posted on 6/13/21 at 9:21 pm to greygoose
Lulz more like in the $30’s
Page 211 of 276
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News