This is one of those scenarios on reddit that i think, is an amazingly good, write-up uh. I believe. Okay, it's on amc stock and it's posted by with d raleigh's. If you want to check it out, it's called some proper statistical analysis and more realistic estimation of shares.

So before we get into this, let's set a premise: let's set what's going on, so just so, you know amc as of now as as i'm filming. This has reported about 513 million shares. It's in in its outstanding shares. That's how many shares can be owned.

Obviously that gets a little bit more complicated because whenever you short, that means that someone's loaning it and you buy it. You are bum, even though you bought it you're lending it out and then from there someone who borrows it sells it so there's a new owner, so you can go above that 513 million shares legally um. I don't want anyone out there to thinking that the max value is 513 million. That's that is not correct.

That is a misunderstanding. Um of rehypothecation, if you own it. If in a system there's five shares, i own all five shares. I loan it out someone who's shorting.

It sells it to someone else. Well now i still own five shares, but there's 10 shares because they sold it to someone else who ended up buying it. That is rehypothecation and it can daisy chain out literally until infinity and because of that, when we're talking about amc, the 513 million shares that is literally the minimum ownership. I know it's a weird concept to wrap your mind around, but whenever it comes to a stock, the minimum ownership is 100 and as soon as you have any legal or illegal naked shorts, you're gon na go above that number and the ownership is going to go Above a hundred percent um, so we just need to set some base.

I guess some base concepts for this conversation to make it a little bit more fruitful. So as of now, as i'm saying, this amc has 513 million shares and we know as of june 2nd when they did the share count. At that point there was 502 million, they added another 13.5 through an additional dilution, and we also know from that point at time. More than 80 percent of amc shares are held by a broad base of retail investors, with an average holding of around 120 shares.

The 4.1 million - that's not saying all retail is 4.1 million. That's saying how many unique entities owned - amc, that's including all of retail banks, institutions, hedge funds, 4.1 million. So for this it's probably gon na be easy, and this is an underestimation which is good to be conservative. But let's say it's about four million four million retail, because i don't think that there's a hundred thousand banks institutions insiders hedge funds, so we're going to be using four million for this once again, that's an underestimation because we want to show the point of this is To show that, even with the most conservative floor estimate, we are somehow just violating the laws of numbers and math and that it's not adding up if you can do that with the most conservative floor estimates when you come to like a reasonable average estimate, it gets Even worse, so that is why we're taking the conservative floor estimates.

So we know 400 million retail 4.1 million unique owners, including everyone as of early june, there's 120 shares per retail owner, and on top of that, we there was 5.502 million. But now there's about 513 million shares outstanding uh and at minimum 100 ownership. So this is where it comes in and gets interesting um for the august, 9th earnings call. They have put out this system, app.say technologies and you're allowed to vote, to vote and to post a question or do any of that stuff.

You have to register your account and when you register your account this, it allows you to see how many shares you have um. So it's a verified really running total of what all these votes have. So, for example, the big thing going on right now across social media is looking at this timothy b questions. Do you have any plans to offer a dividend again? This is not me at all, but some big wrinkly brain out there realized that if we get everyone to vote on this 31.6 000 people as of like 20 minutes ago, i haven't reloaded the page, because i want to keep my numbers consistent, unique individuals voted and In the aggregate that represented 38 million shares, people realize that on an individual question, as we get more and more people to vote, that could give us an interesting insight into how many shares are truly out there and if it can get to a certain degree of Like kind of saying hey, this is not possible and honestly, as i'm about to show you not only from my own math but from this very impressive piece of dd done on reddit, that, yes, these numbers do not add up and in fact we have more shares Than can possibly be explained so right now.

This is where it gets interesting. If you look at these shares the 37.9 million and you divide it by the 31.6 000 unique individuals who voted that comes out to 1 200 shares, and just so you know, i have the math here - the 31.6 000 divided by the 4.1 million unique individual entities That own it, that is about 0.77, so we're very close to one full percent and that might sound a bit weird to you of like hang on. If we don't even have a percent. How is that statistically significant, and this is going to get? I guess i don't want to get into the weeds of a deep statistical conversation, but with the magnitude of this many votes.

Yes, it is statistically significant, but maybe not statistically significant in the way that you think on this morning stream, honestly before, like i was reading this reddit and everything, i saw a lot of people doing some sort of average value they're like hang on. If we look at this and then multiply the 1 200 shares by the 4 million, the 4.1 million - that that's a multi-billion number, but that is not good math. That is not accurate, because i do not believe that the average retail owner owns 1 200 shares. I mean that is that's a 35 000 investment based on the current price of amc uh, especially given this past year.

I don't think that the average person out there, the average retail trader, has that kind of money laying around that they could invest into this stock. So what i think it is is you can't use that in any form of a normal distribution, or anything like that? I think we're in a scenario where it's in this is exactly what i was saying in the morning stream of it's referred to as a bimodal distribution, which basically is a fancy way to say that you have two different humps. You have some people who probably and the people who are going out of their way to vote, have thousands of shares on average over 1 000 shares and then you're gon na have most of your people, who don't have that many and that's perfectly okay. This is not fun.

Let me just stick with me for a second while i explain this math and actually graphically, let's go through um raleigh's. First, and just i mean this is a very good explanation right here, where you have less of a spike around a couple thousand, but then you also have this gigantic spike, that of people representing that they own a smaller amount of shares. Once again, this is a bimodal distribution and it's way better than just averaging it and multiplying it by the 4 million. This is more accurate and it's more reasonable.

Like honestly, you could say that when people are just averaging it and multiplying it by the four million, that's not mathematically, accurate by any means. If you see someone doing that, it doesn't really tell you anything: it's not valid data. So, first of all, let me set this up for you and then kind of explain their math, where i agree where i disagree and really their explanation and my explanation, even though we disagree sometimes in the middle. The conclusion is still the same.

That mathematically. We cannot explain in excess of hundreds of millions of shares so anyway, let's hop into the key point of this as a phd holder in a hard science, it was really grinding my gears to see bad uninformed statistics just taking the average from voting and multiplying by 4.1 million 100 agree with that. That is bad statistics. You should not be doing this.

What i thought was unique about this. The big thing is: when you have the bimodal distribution, the big question is: what weighting do you give the two spikes, for example uh in real life, where you see a bimodal distribution uh, it was taught to me in restaurants in restaurants, you see a spike in The morning and then maybe a spike at night for breakfast and dinner, while in the midday it might not be there. You see this a lot. Another example is um.

Speeding. Tickets, i believe, is another example. So throughout the u.s you're going to see a lot, a lot of speeding tickets right above 30 and 35, because there's so many, i guess highly policed areas that the speed limit is 25 and then another one is highways around 60 65. 70.

Something like that. So if you were look to look at where speeding tickets are given in terms of how fast they're going you're gon na see spikes at certain values and that's exactly where we're i'm hypothesizing that we're going to see an ownership of amc, a huge spike around 100 120 shares we got that information from adam aaron and then a smaller spike around the multi thousand dollar or multi thousand share ownership and that's kind of what we're seeing here very, very important stuff. And the question is: how much do you weight those two different spikes? So what i think is big brain and very cool about this particular hypothesis and thesis is they're using the pareto principle of the 80 20 rule. If you've never heard of the pareto principle, it's basically saying that there's a natural phenomena that really you're gon na see this split a lot.

So, for example, if you own a business, there's a very good chance that 20 of your employees are doing 80 percent of your work. There's um! You could use it so much of there's a good chance that, on a basketball team, 20 of the players are scoring 80 of the points you you see this phenomena throughout many many things in life and that's why i think it's pretty unique to say that they're Applying this pareto principle, the also the 80 20 rule um to this particular situation. I don't know if it's the most accurate mathematical way to approach this, but it is close enough. I think the the deviation of how it could be wrong is so minuscule that we might as well ride forward with this.

So what it's saying - and you could read this - i will here i'm gon na post it in chat right now. Just so you guys can read it yourself right here: okay, so i posted it there. What it's saying is that out of this ape community, we can roughly apply 80 or in that big spike. Around 120 share ownership, while 20 are more of let's call them.

Sizable apes, owning around 1 200 plus shares and that's how we're getting this average so 80 in the first chunk 20 percent. In the other chunk, i think it's a big big brain way to apply it. So what this author did of this one is. Eighty percent of vipes have an average of hundred twenty shares and twenty percent have an average of one thousand one hundred eighty five.

If they were to redo the number right now, it would be slightly higher, but blah blah blah. This is graphically how it looks if you do that, math out, they laid it out. This is a bimodal distribution and the way you would get the total ownership is adding up all the area. Under this, when this author did it, they came up with 1.48 billion shares, so 1.48 billion matt.

What are we possibly gon na do with that number? What number do we need to get above that it violates something and the sec should look into it, i'm so happy! You asked young duckling, let's look at it this way, so amc right here we know - has 513 million shares well before when i was talking about blah blah blah re-hypothecation. What is the number like if we're above 513 million? Is that the number that things are bad? No, in fact it's not, we have to go a little bit higher. You have to look at all the shares on loan because that could theoretically be added onto it where, like okay, there is still a reasonable explanation, so, right now, let's call it 100 million. Let's overestimate so we're more conservative, so that brings us up to 613 million.

But it's not done there because we know that there's about 85 all market volume covered by ortex. So, let's just overestimate it and let's say that - there's another 15 million, because we know we're underestimating by about 15. So right there for the ease of math. Let's add on another 15 million.

That brings us to 628 million and let's just go out of our way and be insanely insanely conservative and, like honestly, the numbers don't even say this, but let's be as conservative as possible. The golden number really it's 628, but let's just notch it up and, let's just say, 650 million, just in case we're missing for something. That's the golden number right. There, 650 million shares.

If we see anything above 650 million outstanding shares does not account for it, and rehypothecation does not count for it anything above 650 million. If we cannot come up with a reasonable explanation, that means that something is going on that honestly. In my opinion, someone needs to look into anything above 650. That's when the red flag should be popping off and we should be saying what in the world is possibly be going on so right there.

If i'm saying 650, is the number well right there we're? Clearly. I mean we're um we're not three exit but we're 2.5 exit. 100 1.5 billion shares, obviously in xx of 650. That is bad uh, quick note.

This is a lower floor, uh for assuming the wide standard deviations and throwing out shareholders for over a hundred thousand. So basically it's a this number was a lower floor and uh. I think there were some interesting interesting edits right here that we should dive into of interest to note, even if you took away the 80 of the 4.1 million shareholders, as in the 80 percent, who own the 120 shares on average, with the 120 average, you would Still get 980 million shares, so i think this is actually crazy. Um when i did the math out.

If you look at that, the pareto principle of just 20 of the apes who are representing this size - and then you multiply that by the current, just updated math of 1 200 shares - that is, that alone. That alone, not even counting the apes that own the smaller amount. That alone is 960 million shares, which is pretty much in line with the 980 post and this this was posted yesterday. So obviously it's a bit of a dynamic situation so right there, 960 980.

Let's just take the middle 970., it doesn't matter 970 that alone. That alone folks is violating our number of 650, but wait, wait: matt you're still assuming the 20. What if it isn't that? Well boy, oh boy, let's, let's get even more conservative call me conservative cores! You cut that in half, let's go 10, let's cut our number in half now we're at 480 million, but don't forget we are still not accounting for the other. 120 shares the let's not even do 120 shares.

Let's call it 100 shares. I am bending over backwards. I feel like a gymnast to do this flexibility i feel like i should be a yoga master. I am chopping off numbers to explain anything.

I can possibly, let's cut that number in half 480 million okay matt that 480. That sounds like it's below your 650 number. Well, don't forget, we still have that other 80 trunk and then i'm just through 10 out the window in case i'm completely wrong and instead of 120. Why am i using 120? Because we got it right here from madame erin, you know what i'll cut off 20 from that, let's do 100 million or a hundred shares for the leftover 80.

That's another 320 million shares right there. I i threw everything out i possibly could and that still adds up to 700 million. Where am i getting 700 million the 480 million, where i just cut a number in half and then the hundred shares, where i just cut out 20 shares and multiplied it by the left over 80 - completely discounting really 10 of it. That is 480 plus 320, which adds up to 700 million, still we're over by 50 million, and the way i got there was throwing numbers out.

I said this doesn't matter this doesn't matter and i still couldn't beat the number down to a realistic explanation and then, if you were to do the other way around, you still like. Let's, just if i cut that number in half the 320, like let's say that the average shareholder didn't have 100 shares, let's say that people lost enthusiasm and really were like. You know what i'm done with amc. Let's cut it down to 50..

You get 480, where i just chopped off 10 that i couldn't come up with and then i chopped the other number in half that adds up to 640 million and right there. I was saying that the magic number that i overestimated previously was 650, but hang on, you know what isn't counted in this is all of institutions. We know blackrock has 30 million, we know vanguard, has 30 million. I went out of my way to cut every number in half and disregard other numbers and the worst i could get.

It was 640, and even that was not mathematically legitimate in any way, because i just threw too much out and i discounted literally every single hedge fund and the still the lowest i could get. It was 640 and then, by the time you add in what we know of legal ownership from blackrock from vanguard, you're over it. You cannot explain the numbers going on right now now. Do i think that it's many many billions? No, that's not what my math is.

Adding up to it could be that i don't know, but i'm saying if you come in in the most absurd conservative manner possible, you can still not explain the numbers we're seeing on amc. It's literally mathematically impossible to explain what is going on right now. I went over, i just chopped numbers i threw numbers out. I said.

Ah, let's cut this in half, i was underestimating on everything i could and then i just threw numbers out and i still could not come up to a number. That properly explains what we are seeing based on the numbers from this say technology thing: these are people who have legitimate verified votes. This isn't them just answering a poll on social media. This is them verifying the brokerage.

It simply does not add up folks uh. Let's read this last thing before i go off too much for an extreme floor. Let's consider the following: currently, there are 26.6 000 amps we're more than that voting on the question. 31.5 million shares between them.

This gives an average of 1 185 shares plus or minus 0.6. I'm going to postulate that this represents 10 of people that are active apes and having the higher share average. So this becomes 266 000, which is 6.5 of the total shareholders, meaning 93.5 percent uh have an average of 120 shares using my above analysis. That means that we are at a bare minimum of 840 million shares if we double that amount of activates that gives us 1.15 billion shares.

So no matter what obviously some of the math in between there's assumptions going on between me and between raleigh's. I still 100 love the tactic that this author approach it with. I recommend everyone read this because it is very, very good. I went out of my way just for this portion to chop off even more numbers to still illustrate and highlight the point that it's just not explained this to me.

I strongly strongly believe these two little numbers right here is the strongest evidence we have seen in the past six months that there are illegal, naked shorts going on creating synthetic shares. Counterfeit shares fandom shares whatever you want to call them. This to me is the strongest evidence we have that there is currently malpractice going on in the stock market as it relates to amc, and i see no other thing that would properly explain it. I mean you saw my math.

You saw this person's math, this author's math and across the board. There is no explanation. Besides illegal nefarious, illegitimate practices going on against amc, there is no other way to put it. You.