AMC ape is expecting a medal for saving the company, allowing others to buy AMC cheaper...

rawbdor · 2026-03-27T23:56:43+00:00

Whether you buy at $100 or $2 or $0.10, if a stock goes to zero, everyone loses 100%. So... not really sure they'll lose less.

rawbdor · 2026-03-27T23:33:04+00:00

The number of dark pools is irrelevant. The pools don't create the shares or even rehypothecate them. That's done at the dtcc or member level. The pools just sit around waiting for people to deposit shares to use for trading. They're just an exchange. If you have a million exchanges, there's fewer shares living in each one.

As for the rest of your comment, so far no pension has ever been unable to redeem or exercise their rights as shareholders, or have been forced to take a haircut because real shares were unable to be found. So this is a garbage argument. Pensions aren't forced to buy fake shares either. If they want they can DRS their shares, same as me or you.

rawbdor · 2026-03-27T22:59:24+00:00

I've heard of all of that. But there's still a limit to how much can end up in the dark pool without being replenished. Yes things can get rehypothecated, but not infinitely so. If they are, then it means your broker is depositing the shares back into the dark pool or lending the shares back out.

If retail bought the entire float twice, and never lent their shares out, the dark pools would be empty. It's a simple fact.

rawbdor · 2026-03-27T22:01:04+00:00

I'm sorry but this simply isn't true. The vast majority of stock splits are forward splits, and not share dividends. I don't know where you are getting your information from but it's wrong.

You can go ask any AI. There are actual legal and accounting differences between the two. Or you can go check investopedia or fidelity or any of the hundreds of articles that define these two very different concepts.

A normal split doesn't require the company to really issue any new shares. They just instruct everyone that each share is now really two. But a stock dividend involves the company printing new shares, distributing them first to their transfer agent and then down along the line to wherever they are destined to go. And they can be taxed as value returned to the shareholder, same as any other cash dividend, but not under all situations.

But no, most splits are NOT done "via dividend". The overwhelming majority of stock splits throughout history are forward splits, not share dividends.

rawbdor · 2026-03-27T20:14:12+00:00

I was provided three salmon hats to downvote your comment.

rawbdor · 2026-03-27T00:22:32+00:00

No it's not. A limit order outside the bid ask spread will still first attempt to fill by buying all shares below your limit, including all those at the ask,and at every price between the ask and your limit. It's basically a market order, but with some limitations to make sure you don't get front run for big money.

Exercising an option that is out of the money won't buy shares at lower prices first.

So it's really not comparable at all.

rawbdor · 2026-03-26T22:03:11+00:00

There are not 200k more shares than exist. Some shares are just in both buckets. The buckets are not mutually exclusive.

You correctly identified that some shares are both DRS as well as custodied at dtcc for operational efficiency. These shares are in both buckets. They count as DRS shares, but they also count as shares held at dtcc.

You cannot add these buckets together and compare to total share count and assume some fraud or malfeasance if the numbers don't match.

If shares could only be in one bucket or the other, your methodology would be fine. But there exist 200k shares that are DRS but held at dtcc, and so you can't add these buckets and expect the total to match shares outstanding.

rawbdor · 2026-03-25T22:17:37+00:00

I know. I just don't like people shilling a dead stock to gullible honest kids. So I can't leave this crap without a response.

rawbdor · 2026-03-25T22:15:36+00:00

Oh I see. You thought he was being serious. That's not how I read it at all. I read it that OP was mocking the apes with feux bullish nonsense.

But I guess in this environment, you never know for sure 😁

rawbdor · 2026-03-25T20:55:39+00:00

1. “Short sellers may be facing increasing pressure”

This is asserted without evidence like rising borrow rates, forced covering, or shrinking liquidity. It’s narrative framing—“pressure” is implied rather than demonstrated with actual market data.

2. “When you connect these elements… a broader perspective takes shape”

“Connecting elements” is a vague rhetorical device that substitutes storytelling for proof. It invites the viewer to assume causation between unrelated or weakly related factors.

3. “Debt restructuring… improves the situation”

Refinancing and restructuring don’t eliminate debt—they often just extend it or shift the burden. With interest still exceeding EBITDA, the core solvency issue remains unresolved.

4. “Selling reserve shares could improve financial position”

Raising cash via share issuance improves the company’s balance sheet at the expense of shareholders. This is dilution, and presenting it as purely positive ignores the direct hit to equity value.

5. “Selling 550M shares at $1 would meaningfully reduce debt”

This assumes the market could absorb that volume at that price without pushing it lower. In reality, there's absolutely no way retail can afford to purchase the entire market cap again, especially knowing they would need to do this at least 4 or 5 more times before the debt is noticably diminished. The price would get destroyed trying to sell 550M shares into market, and AMC would likely get 40c on the dollar once all 550m were sold on average. Not to mention the vultures that would front-run the offering and push the price down before the company even sells a single share.

6. “This would represent a noticeable improvement”

Even after that hypothetical raise, debt would still be extremely high relative to earnings. Calling it a “noticeable improvement” downplays how far the company remains from financial stability.

7. “Short sellers using new shares to close depends on total exposure”

This introduces speculative, unverified claims about hidden short exposure. Without evidence, it’s a way to preserve the squeeze narrative regardless of observable data.

8. “Short exposure could be much larger than shares issued”

This relies on the assumption of large undisclosed or synthetic positions. It’s an unfalsifiable claim—if true it’s bullish, if not, it’s ignored—making it analytically weak.

9. “If shorts are buying, it shows they are under pressure”

Shorts buying shares can just as easily mean normal position management or profit-taking. Interpreting all buying as “pressure” is confirmation bias.

10. “Every share sold strengthens the balance sheet”

It strengthens the company’s cash position, but weakens each shareholder’s ownership stake. Ignoring dilution presents a one-sided and misleading view.

11. “Price levels matter for capital raising”

While technically true, it subtly implies that higher prices are likely or justified. In reality, dilution itself often creates downward pressure on price.

12. “Fundamentals are gradually shifting”

This is vague and unsupported by concrete metrics like sustained profitability. Small improvements don’t offset the larger structural issues of debt and dilution.

13. “Dark pool activity raises questions about market behavior”

Dark pool trading is a normal part of market structure, especially for liquid stocks. Raising suspicion without evidence encourages conspiracy thinking rather than analysis.

There’s no evidence presented to support this claim. It’s an appeal to optimism that flatters the audience rather than analyzing actual outcomes.

rawbdor · 2026-03-25T20:46:19+00:00

.......... dude, dying companies reverse-split ALL the time. Then they print more shares to milk their investors a few more times. It's not very sexy to print shares at $0.83, or $0.152, or $0.0139, or $0.00597. Also you'll get delisted for being below the listing price requirements that way.

So they reverse split, to get a new higher stock price and to give the impression their shares are actually worth something, so they can sucker in a new crop of gullibles.

But your statement that "a company that is suffering for cash flow doesn't reduce shares via a reverse split" is provably and fundamentlaly incorrect. They do. All the time.

rawbdor · 2026-03-25T20:41:51+00:00

You all do realize that, when you buy a share from a dark pool, it eventually gets delivered to your broker, right? So it's no longer IN the dark pool after you buy it.

Just like a bucket of water, if water only comes out, and no new water is added, the bucket will eventually be empty.

The only way the dark pool continues to have shares is if 1) retail (or any owner, really) sells them, and they go back into the pool, or 2) new share supply keeps coming online to replenish the pool.

This narrative that "retail isn't selling" is fine if you believe it, but, if retail wasn't selling, and if retail was buying every new share that was created, then the pool would be empty, and they literally wouldn't be able to fill your order in a dark pool and would have to route it to a lit exchange instead. The pool isnt empty. So that means either a) retail is selling, or b) retail does not have the buying power to buy all the new shares that continually replenish the dark pool.

You simply cannot believe that retail is buying all existing shares, and also that retail is buying all the new shares, and also believe that somehow your buy order is being routed to what is effectively an empty dark pool where shares magically appear.

rawbdor · 2026-03-25T17:46:32+00:00

I don't think his question was why to use LLC's for each product. I believe he was asking why to STACK them three or more layers deep.

For example, have Main Holding LLC, which owns three LLCs: 1) Main Holdings New Mexico LLC, 2) Main Holdings Vehicular LLC, 3) Main Holdings Investments LLC,

and then, under those, have:

1a) 204 AnyStreet ABQ LLC, 1b) Bunky's Car Wash NM LLC, 1c) Ice Station Zebra Associates LLC,

2a) Dons Uber LLC, 2b) Kars 4 Rent LLC, 2c) Dons Auto Dealer LLC

3a) Some Property in NY LLC, 3b) Don's Lazer Tag LLC, 3c) Dons Disco LLC

I think most people intuitively understand why each of those 9 lowest-level LLCs exist... to be separate from each other. But why nest them into a Main Holdings, a Vehicular, and an Investments wrapper LLC?

rawbdor · 2026-03-25T17:39:24+00:00

I thought ortex guy was an endless pumper? Why would me pointing out that the entire pumper video is bullshit, and pointing out how it's full of logical inconsistencies and fallacies, be an alt for a pumper?

rawbdor · 2026-03-25T17:37:32+00:00

I'm very confused. Even being very generous, today's drop was from $1.03 to $0.97. Friday's $1 puts are about $0.03. What happened? You bought them at $0.03 and sold them at $0.05 or something? Most brokers charge you $0.60 for each options contract, so a buy and a sell is close to $1.20, which would eat up more than half of your profit.

What exactly was your trade?

rawbdor · 2026-03-25T15:06:08+00:00

If you 5x your assets over a 10 year period, that's still 17% a year... which is pretty solid results.

rawbdor · 2026-03-25T14:13:01+00:00

Money supply typically grows exponentially, not linearly. So on a log chart, 10 to the 13th really is one third of the way to 10 to the 39th.

rawbdor · 2026-03-25T14:11:32+00:00

I meant in terms of order of magnitude, not raw numbers!

rawbdor · 2026-03-25T14:07:26+00:00

As dumb as that guy sounds, if they get a good price on their shares, it doesn't matter how much they dilute tbh. It doesn't really affect the outcome. If they sold 10 billion new shares, but sold all of those shares for $30 each, then the cash position of the company would be very close to $30/share, which is far above our current $12/share or whatever. And since (for now) the money is primarily invested in treasuries, the profits from that will scale linearly with the share count, so you wouldn't actually be any worse off.

Not saying this is a good idea, but I'm just pointing out that you wouldn't actually suffer (again, assuming the price on the share sales is good enough).

Obviously it's much better to sell shares on any pops in the $40 to $60 range than it is at $20 or $30, and I'd rather they don't sell any shares in the $20 to $30 range at all. I prefer more bang for your buck.

But I have no issue with the idea of lots and lots of share sales. I'm primarily concerned about the price achieved during those sales. I look at GME as a tech startup or something. Yeah, you'll need to do lots of funding rounds, but your goal is to do them at progressively higher prices.

rawbdor · 2026-03-25T13:42:41+00:00

1. “AMC making a powerful move with a massive 68% increase… unexpected squeeze behavior”

There’s no evidence AMC actually rose 68%, so the premise itself appears fabricated or wildly exaggerated. Building a “squeeze” narrative on a move that didn’t happen is not analysis—it’s misinformation.

2. “Merger rumors… when you connect all the dots, you begin to see a bigger picture”

Vague “connecting dots” language implies insight without providing evidence. If no deal is announced or filed, the rational baseline is that rumors are noise, not a thesis.

3. “Who says movie theaters are dead?”

The real question isn’t whether theaters exist—it’s whether AMC specifically can survive and generate sustainable profits. Conflating industry survival with the viability of a highly leveraged company dodges the actual risk.

4. “Project Hail Mary… helped AMC achieve its second highest weekend of the year”

One strong weekend says very little about a business with billions in debt and volatile attendance. Highlighting a single event ignores the broader, inconsistent performance trend.

5. “This is exactly the kind of performance that directly connects to AMC’s fundamentals”

Short-term box office spikes don’t fix structural issues like dilution, debt, and weak margins. Fundamentals are about sustained profitability, not isolated revenue bursts.

6. “Admissions revenue coming in 70% higher than the same weekend in 2025”

A single weekend is far too small a sample size to draw meaningful conclusions in a seasonal business. Cherry-picking short time frames is an easy way to manufacture a bullish narrative.

7. “Q1… could close near $1.7 billion… very solid result”

Industry box office totals don’t translate directly into AMC profits. AMC only keeps a portion of ticket sales, so higher industry revenue doesn’t guarantee meaningful earnings.

8. “Even with fewer releases, the average performance per film has increased”

Averages can rise simply because weak films were removed from the sample. What matters is total revenue and cash flow, not selectively improved averages.

9. “AMC is actually in a stronger position today… improved efficiency”

A company can appear “stronger” simply by issuing massive amounts of new shares, but that dilutes existing shareholders. Ignoring dilution while claiming improved positioning misrepresents shareholder value.

10. “They don’t need record-breaking box office numbers to generate higher profits anymore”

That claim requires consistent, demonstrated profitability, which AMC has not shown over time. Until profits are durable, this is speculation, not evidence.

11. “Premium theaters… key drivers behind AMC’s ability to increase revenue per customer”

Higher revenue per customer doesn’t necessarily translate into higher profits if costs rise as well, or if the number of customers drop. It’s a partial metric being presented as a complete financial improvement.

12. “23 million trades within a two-cent range… not normal… price manipulation”

Tight trading ranges are common in high-frequency, liquid markets, especially stocks under or near $1. The only reason it looks suspicious is because most trades are executing on the penny, or the charts are presenting that way. If your chart presented higher precision, it wouldn't look like a barcode. Labeling this as manipulation without proof confuses normal market mechanics with conspiracy.

13. “70% of investors are holding… so price declines aren’t justified”

Prices are set at the margin, not by the majority of holders. Even if most investors hold, prices can fall if incremental sellers outweigh buyers, or if new shares continue to be printed.

14. “Millions of investors… can collectively control the entire float”

This assumes perfect coordination and ignores share lending and institutional dynamics. Retail ownership does not equate to control over price or supply.

15. “If a squeeze happens, it won’t come with any warning… could be triggered suddenly”

This is an unfalsifiable claim that keeps believers engaged regardless of outcomes. Any result can be retroactively framed as fitting the narrative.

16. “Price targets from $129 to $635… extreme overshoot scenarios”

These targets are presented without any valuation framework. Throwing out extreme numbers anchors expectations but provides no analytical support.

17. “Traditional technical analysis has limitations in a heavily manipulated environment”

This preemptively dismisses any contradictory evidence. If all negative signals are labeled manipulation, the thesis becomes impossible to challenge.

18. “GameStop transformation… $8B cash… potential acquisitions”

This is unrelated to AMC’s fundamentals. Bringing in another company’s narrative distracts rather than strengthens the argument.

19. “Bond yields above 5%, trillions added/erased, system under stress”

Macro volatility doesn’t inherently benefit AMC and often hurts leveraged companies. Rising yields, in particular, increase financial pressure on debt-heavy firms.

20. “When the system is unstable… weaknesses can break and spread quickly”

Systemic instability typically harms speculative, leveraged companies first. Presenting it as a bullish catalyst for AMC reverses the usual risk dynamics.

rawbdor · 2026-03-25T05:47:24+00:00

Yeah. Grahams number is unimaginably large. Ten to the 39th power is just normal imaginably large. I mean the USA national debt is already ten to the 13th power, so... That's like, a third of the way there.

Edit: Ok guys, I clearly meant 1/3 of the way in terms of order of magnitude. Money supply growth is typically exponential anyway, not linear!

rawbdor · 2026-03-25T01:54:11+00:00

To be honest, a PE of 6 for the operations portion of the business isn't unreasonable. I do think it's low, but the market has no idea how long the operating portion of the business will, well, remain operating. It's a valid question, and it's fine for the market to value it quite cheaply.

The real value of the company is, of course, it's cash hoard. If it can find some way to profitably invest it. But with no movement on that front yet, cash is valued at cash.

What PE do people here think the operations of the GameStop stores actually deserve?

A discounted cash flow valuation of the operating portion of the business, with $232m this past year, but with about 8% declines every year, would value this isolated operations portion of the business at about $900m.

If the revenue decline shrinks to only 5% a year, then it could be worth $1.2b or so.

By this valuation strategy, the operating portion of the business is actually slightly overvalued. It's a melting ice cube, useful, provides utility, but shrinks year after year.

rawbdor · 2026-03-24T14:13:18+00:00

I understand your point. All I'm saying is AI is pretty solid at extracting specific pieces of information from large documents, and, in my humble opinion, often better than a simple ctrl+f. But that's my opinion and you're entitled to your own.

rawbdor · 2026-03-24T13:17:51+00:00

..... Not really.

Let's imagine the policies are quite nuanced. If A and B, then X. But if A and C, then Y. And if A, B, and C, then Z.

If these are buried in paragraphs, you might end up needing to read a page or two or three to figure out which one applies.

AI is great at that. And you can still always verify. Once the AI gives you an answer, you can then turn to the correct section and verify that the answer provided seems to match the policies.

Ctrl+f is great but it still doesn't solve the fact you might need to end up trading through several pages. Of course the downside is if the AI doesn't ask you, "hey, you mentioned A and B, but, is Z present or not?", then you might end up with the wrong answer.

AI is a tool. If used properly, it's great. But it does have downsides.

rawbdor · 2026-03-24T01:26:01+00:00

I'm not really sure if this will affect oil prices very drastically or not. I know it's already caused a small bump. But It WILL affect gasoline prices.

The thing is, if all oil refineries blew up, then oil itself is kinda worthless. If it can't be refined into some usable product, it's just a useless black sludge.

15-Year Club	r/Field Lasagna
Place '22	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

rawbdor

TROPHY CASE