re: Holding AMC Thread- Diamond hands unite

quote:

---

Speaking of the topic at hand, what’s the next catalyst for AMC? Russell rebalancing on Friday?

AMC didn’t make the cut for the Russell 1000, but that’s probably a good thing. GME is going to likely face net selling pressure as it moves into the Russell 1000 due to how small it will be relative to the rest of the index. Far more money is benchmarked to the 1000 than the 2000, but you can afford to avoid GME in the 1000. In the 2000, you didn’t have much of a choice given how large the weighting had become.

As for AMC, it will be top dog by nearly 3x the second largest constituent of the 2000. Not owning it will mean your fund may deviate a decent bit from the benchmark. It will be interesting to see how active managers play it. Most have avoided the meme stocks.

---

Catalyst, you say? Several! Short are increasing their positions, in a weak attempt to drive the price down. Today, one hedge fund went under due to their short position in GME. 1st domino has dropped. There will be others, and no one wants to be the last one.

The flurry of new NSCC rules are why? Certainly not to protect hedges, or maybe they are, from themselves! Rule 002 goes into effect tomorrow. Volume jumped after noon central today, along with the price. Dark pool trading has had a massive spotlight shown on it recently, thanks to AMC. More than half of all trades have been routed through them, which leads people to ask why. Since they are extremely non-transparent, many believe nefarious dealings are the reason. Count me as one of those. I have mention it before here, and received no response, so I'll ask again. How does inflow exceed outflow and the price of a stock goes down?

Lastly, some of the "flys" here do not believe there are synthetic shares. I have a hard time understanding why that is. We all know that for a stock to be shorted, shares have to be borrowed. If that single share is borrowed multiple time, then a synthetic share is created. Retail owns 80% of all shares. Institutions and insiders hold the rest. Knowing these facts, how is it there is still doubt that naked shorting is occuring?

quote:

---

from what i read, its probably going to take a week or two before you see any results from 002.

Seeing something that the institutes must pay back around 720B they have borrowed by 06/24. Could explain why bitcoin and everything tanked recently. They need cash to pay back their debts.

Tic Toc, Tic Toc

---

Yes, that may be true, but it also explains the nose dive crypto is taking. Seems like someone is trying to raise capital, even if that means selling off assets, in order to get ahead of this.

On my greyparrot AMC Lingo Bingo Card I have "hedgies" but not "hedge funds".

Can I get a ruling? If it's alloweable I've got a bingo and will post my card.

I actually almost had it 4 ways

quote:

---

Seeing something that the institutes must pay back around 720B they have borrowed by 06/24.

---

That’s from people not understanding what they’re seeing/reading.

The Fed currently has 743B in reverse repurchase agreements that mature within 15 days. Reverse repos for the Fed pull cash out of the system. When they mature, they inject cash into the system. That number being floated around is money the Fed has to give back to primary dealers and other counter parties when those institutions return their Treasuries and other securities the Fed gave to them. The Fed owes them money, ot the other way around.

This is why reverse repos are listed as a liability on the Fed’s balance sheets:



It would be helpful for everyone to stop spreading this outright lie about the Fed recalling money. It’s the exact opposite of that.

Thanks slack and cgrand.

Another question: given the weight of the stock value, doesn’t that also basically encourage AMC to be bought as a big part of the index? Shouldn’t this drive the price higher?

And I’m not talking about da moon or any of that horseshite. But is triple digits an attainable possibility?

Do you have shares? If so, what’s ur average?

quote:

---

A lot to unpack here.

First, borrowing a share multiple times doesn’t equal naked shorting. Even if it’s the same share being borrowed, it’s not naked. Naked shorting is selling the stock without first securing it. Also, the only person who owns the voting rights of the stock that was borrowed multiple times is the final shareholder.

In other words, if you buy 100 shares of AMC on margin, your broker can loan it out. If that happens, you’re not eligible to vote on your 100 shares. The person in possession of those shares is the one who can vote. Institutions often loan out their shares too, so the amount of people who can vote and the amount of shareholders on Fintel and other sites is not an apples to apples comparison. If every institutional share is on loan, for example, then retail could own 100% of the voting rights without a single synthetic share existing. Being a shareholder and being eligible to vote are two different things entirely.

A lot of the confusion comes from conflating different terms. Adam Aron knows what he’s doing with the way he worded the press release a few weeks ago. If these synthetic shares existed, he’d come out and say it. There is no downside. His stock would moonshot. Instead, he goes the plausible deniability route. Genius.

---

I agree, there is a lot to unpack here. I'll try to do it point by point.

quote:

---

First, borrowing a share multiple times doesn’t equal naked shorting. Even if it’s the same share being borrowed, it’s not naked. Naked shorting is selling the stock without first securing it. Also, the only person who owns the voting rights of the stock that was borrowed multiple times is the final shareholder.

---

Directly from Investopdedia: "What Is Naked Shorting
Naked shorting is the illegal practice of short selling shares that have not been affirmatively determined to exist. Ordinarily, traders must borrow a stock or determine that it can be borrowed before they sell it short. So naked shorting refers to short pressure on a stock that may be larger than the tradable shares in the market."

"Despite being made illegal after the 2008–09 financial crisis, naked shorting continues to happen because of loopholes in rules and discrepancies between paper and electronic trading systems."

How do you "borrow" the same share twice?

quote:

---

In other words, if you buy 100 shares of AMC on margin, your broker can loan it out. If that happens, you’re not eligible to vote on your 100 shares. The person in possession of those shares is the one who can vote. Institutions often loan out their shares too, so the amount of people who can vote and the amount of shareholders on Fintel and other sites is not an apples to apples comparison. If every institutional share is on loan, for example, then retail could own 100% of the voting rights without a single synthetic share existing. Being a shareholder and being eligible to vote are two different things entirely.

---

You really lost me here. If I buy on margin, I'm borrowing shares? All this time, I thought I was borrowing money to purchase shares. I really have no idea about voting rights, so I will concede that point. I've never ran across that issue, as I have either covered or sold.

quote:

---

A lot of the confusion comes from conflating different terms. Adam Aron knows what he’s doing with the way he worded the press release a few weeks ago. If these synthetic shares existed, he’d come out and say it. There is no downside. His stock would moonshot. Instead, he goes the plausible deniability route. Genius.

---

We disagree about a lot of things, but this may be the apex. Adam Aron knows how many shares have been issued. He does not know who owns them. He relies on the brokerages to provide that information. With a market maker being able to route orders, and take positions, do you think it's plausible for one to hide that position thru dark pools? We all know there is very little transparency there. So, when 500 million shares are officially issued, and 700 million are traded A DAY for several days, does that not raise an eyebrow? Especially considering that over half of those trade are routed thru dark pools that even the SEC is not privy to?

quote:

---

If the brokerages came back with more owners than there were shares outstanding, the synthetic shares theory would have a point. That clearly didn’t happen or else it would have been from and center on the press release.

---

Since when did market makers start going thru brokerages for their trades? Hmmmmmm.........dark pools anyone?

quote:

---

Slackman, seriously, at what price point will you concede that your last 6+ months of posting in this thread, was wrong?

---

I've already conceded, many pages ago, that I was wrong on the price action of AMC.

I'll concede I was wrong on the short squeeze when it happens. I've been told many times in this thread that squeeze hasn't happened yet. I'll concede I was wrong on the synthetic shares when a single, unambiguous bit of proof is provided.

Like it or not, many of the other things that I've said in this thread are already correct. Lots of "apes" have sold and continue to do so - that's a fact. The BlackRock and Vanguard purchases back in the day were passive investments. They HAD to buy the stock, they weren't making a call on the future of AMC. Remember your whole "hundreds of millions of shares will have to be bought within a couple days" after their earnings call in March? Yeah, woof. Fed reverse repo stuff is actually a bit embarrassing for folks that are peddling it. And so on and so forth.

BUT, none of that matters one iota because of the first thing I said in this post. I was wrong about the price action of the stock. Doesn't matter how many times you or others have been wrong about the why, you've got the what in your favor. Congrats, seriously.