Warning: file_exists(): open_basedir restriction in effect. File(/var/www/vhosts/youtubersblog.com/public_html/wp-content/db.php) is not within the allowed path(s): (/var/www/vhosts/youtubersblog.com/:/tmp/) in /var/www/vhosts/youtubersblog.com/public_html/wp-includes/load.php on line 545
Illegal shorting: how can so many people own amc??? what it all means – Matt Kohrs

Surplus electronic parts : https://epartsconnect.com
Stock and Crypto AI Prediction : https://stocksignalslive.com

ILLEGAL SHORTING: How Can So Many People Own AMC???
What It All Means 🚀🚀🚀
Let me know your thoughts on AMC & GameStop in a comment below!
https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nscc-an/2021/34-91347.pdf
https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nscc-an/2021/34-91720.pdf
https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nscc-an/2021/34-91770.pdf
💎🙌🚀 Webull: http://bit.ly/MKohrsWebull
💎🙌🚀 Discord: https://www.patreon.com/MattKohrs
Get up to $250 FREE in Bitcoin: https://blockfi.com/matt
Safely Store Your Crypto: http://bit.ly/KohrsNanoX
💰Options Picker: http://bit.ly/Tiblio
💰Charting Software: http://bit.ly/TradingViewChartingSoftware
📈Ortex (7-day Trial): http://bit.ly/Ortex
👻Cyber Ghost VPN: https://bit.ly/MoonGangVPN
Socials:
🚀 YouTube Channel: http://bit.ly/MattKohrs
🦆 Twitter: https://twitter.com/matt_kohrs
📷 Insta: https://www.instagram.com/matt_kohrs/
Book Recommendations:
📖Technical Analysis: https://amzn.to/3p6QYk8
📖Trading Psychology: https://amzn.to/2Z3sjCM
📖Stock Operator: https://amzn.to/2N76K1j
📖Pit Bull: https://amzn.to/2Ndk4kV
Video As A Podcast:
🎧 Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/moon-money/id1550699494
🎧 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/6kdJCHY0VMqLzIxwCHU59A
#AMC #GameStop #MoonGang
Want to send me something:
900 N 19th St
PO Box #3267
Philadelphia, PA 19130
* Be sure to write my name on any package *
Please be sure to LIKE, SUBSCRIBE, and turn on them NOTIFICATIONS.
Let me know in the comments if there is anything I can improve on moving forward.
Thanks for Watching!
RISK WARNING: Trading involves HIGH RISK and YOU CAN LOSE a lot of money. Do not risk any money you cannot afford to lose. Trading is not suitable for all investors. We are not registered investment advisors. We do not provide trading or investment advice. We provide research and education through the issuance of statistical information containing no expression of opinion as to the investment merits of a particular security. Information contained herein should not be considered a solicitation to buy or sell any security or engage in a particular investment strategy. Performance results are hypothetical and all trades are simulated. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.
Links above include affiliate commission or referrals. I'm part of an affiliate network and I receive compensation from partnering websites. The video is accurate as of the posting date but may not be accurate in the future.
Video Topics:
gamestop, gamestop stock, gme, gamestop short squeeze, gamestop stock explained, gamestop explained, amc, amc stock, amc stock prediction, amc live, amc stock live, amc short squeeze, amc squeeze, amc price prediction, gme stock live, gme stock prediction, gme stock analysis, gme stock explained, gme stock short squeeze, gme stock news, tesla, tesla stock prediction, tesla stock analysis, tesla stock today, matt kohrs, matt kors, stocks, stock market, investing, trey trades

What is going on mooging? I have a very important video for you i'll be going over some of the newest scc rules. Then i'll be talking about the massive amount of individual share ownership as it relates to amc and then at the end of all that i'll be going over the most up-to-date short interest numbers for both amc and gamestop, but before we hop into that just so, you Know i'm filming this after the market closed today on wednesday may 5th amc closed out the day at 9 17, which was a drop of 2.34 and gme closed out the day at 159.48, which was a drop of 0.78. So now that you know how both of these stocks are positioned, let's hop right into it. Let's start off with some of these new scc rules.

So, let's just rewind a bit back on march 18th, the nscc, which is a part of the dtcc filed for this rule 801. Remember the options. Clearing corp had a different 801, so i don't want you to get those two confused. The nscc.

This 801 refers more to basically daily and intraday checks for the sec to be able to look at these hedge funds and be like hey. It looks like that's pretty risky. We require more collateral that is going to be referred to as an sld, supplemental liquidity, deposit and basically it's just say, hey. This looks very risky.

You either have to give us more money to kind of cover that collateral or if you can't, you got to close the position, that's the best way. I could sum up 801 and remember this was filed on march 18th and then we were listening to comments. Basically, they were, there was a time period where, like all right, what are the comments and when that was happening, this actually came up on april 29th. This refers to 802, the nsc 802, and this is much more relating to lenders and members and they're, basically asking for a higher amount of credit and they're saying that they, it just provides more liquidity, and it very much seems like the nscc is kind of protecting Things just in case, like everything, hits the fan that they'll have some money to cover the overall situation.

To me, this is very similar to the options: clearing corp, the occ rule 801 and it's basically just kind of who's covering what in case everything hits the fan and what came out yesterday may 4th uh. If you go all the way to the bottom of this, and just so you know, i will link all three of these in the description below. I highly recommend that you do your own due diligence on this, because remember i'm not a financial advisor, i'm just sharing things to the best of my ability anyway. It is therefore notice, pursuant of section 806 of the clearing supervision act, that the commission does not object to advance notice of 4-801 and that the nscc is authorized to implement the proposed change.

As of the date of this notice or the date of any order by the commission, approving proposed rule change 002, whichever is later so, basically uh, they have accepted 801, which is very, very good for us and with that being said, we are just kind of like That that is the one where it's like the intraday daily check of, like hey your position's, getting out of hand, give us those supplemental liquidity deposits, or you have to close your position, so i'm very excited for this to kind of be. In effect. I honestly i was talking about this a bit ago, especially on the live stream. I'm surprised this isn't how our market already functioned.

So this is definitely definitely a positive and then kind of the same thing with o2. That's just a good way to make sure that if something does hit the fan, we have enough money to cover the overall situation. Just so you know. Obviously i covered this briefly.

There are many many other creators who go to in-depth describing all of these uh. I i highly recommend that you check those out if you want a better explanation of what's going on with these new sec rules for this video, i would like to focus much more on what unfolded yesterday. So basically, adam aaron early today amc rescheduled our annual meeting of shareholders to july 29th. Among other reasons, we did so to give our millions of current individual shareholders more time to let their voices be heard and cast their ballots on important shareholder matters.

I did post an update video on this yesterday, just to kind of share my thoughts on maybe some of the advantages of this situation. I do believe that it was pretty uh tactical of adam aaron and i think, if anything, it's neutral to bullish uh. I wouldn't in no way see them pushing off the shareholder meeting to july 29th being a bearish thing. But anyway did he say millions of shareholders.

Very very good question: yes, indeed that is right. Amc now has over 3 million individual shareholders amc's army. This came from adam aaron earlier today on may 5th. So if you kind of know the numbers of this situation, this is a big deal and i thought it would be interesting for me to run my own poll today.

Um, there's nine and a half thousand votes. If you're watching this feel free to vote yourself and we can update the stats, but this is significant for many statistical reasons - uh. Basically it's just. We have enough of a population to get kind of a fair distribution, and i just asked how many shares you own.

One to a hundred - and then i split it up in these categories - the numbers blew me away. I thought it would be more centered around 101 to 250, but instead, as you can see, the peak is actually 250 um, 251 to a thousand and then a thousand plus and whenever you're doing data like this uh. With this, the thousand plus i mean there's people ten thousand, fifty thousand a hundred thousand. So it's not going to be that bell curve data, there's gon na be a massive tail.

So if anything, this data is actually understating the situation of what's going on um. If anything, the way i try to do all this is be as conservative as i can and just prove the data. So anyway, shout out to this. This is one of my discord.

Members. All the props goes to him kind of figuring this mouth out, but basically, if he was taking the average of it, the number the vote, the minimum. Let's look at the minimum. Of course, you can look at the average and the maximum, but i'm saying it for the sake of this video, this discussion, if we're taking the minimum, we know everything else is better because this is like kind of a worst case scenario situation.

So if you do the minimum based on the number of votes and the shares that they would possibly have in those different tranches, that brings us up to 1.2 billion shares. Very very, very interesting, and obviously this is all just based on the average shares held per person and like where it possibly comes out to be based on these percentages that everyone voted so at a minimum if we're talking about 1.2 billion shares. Why is that so? Impactful well, as you can see here, the float for amc um - and this is also validated by these uh - this data from amc, the outstanding shares 450 million. If you look at the free throw we're around 418 million, that's exactly where you got this data.

That is three as in 3x, the possible float for amc. How is that possible matt? What does that mean? How can there be 300 of ownership? You can't own three more times three times more than something that's like in existence like i get it, our brains are all firing. How does this possibly happen and remember this is the minimum case average and max get even higher. So here's what i want to explain to you.

Let's say that person, a owns 1 million shares right a lends to b b shorts. Those 1 million shares to c c now owns 1 million shares and then continues this chain out c lens to d and just picture this continuing out as far as you want it so basically a owns, they lend it because why not lend it you get. You get paid that interest, it's a way to make extra money b's like hey. I want to short it.

I think it's going down, so they loan it from a then they short it because they short it. Someone has to buy it in this case, it's c. So this one million shares got cycled from a to b to c to d. You could see it just ping-ponging back and forth and in the end it's the same.

One million shares couple important things to discuss here. A and c are both legitimate owners. They both own a million shares yeah, it's the same million shares, and this is why i'm getting back to that 300. It's the same 1 million shares and they're both legitimate owners and this entire scenario.

I guess i should start with this. Everything i just explained here is completely legal. This is how our system works. This is how the stock market works right now, if you don't think that shorting should be allowed at all like.

Basically, these two steps right here, um, that's a completely different discussion. I'd be willing to have that, but in the end, what i just explained is completely legal and that's exactly how ownership and short interest exceed 100. It's because of this daisy chain effect. It is very, very important to understand, so what i just said is legal: how does it get illegal? Well, it becomes illegal when right here, a lends to b, if we just got rid of this, and for this would happen where uh basically b would call up a prime broker.

This hedge fund b would call up the prime broker and be like hey man. I want to short uh a million shares of whatever stock uh. Let me do it and they're like okay, yeah cool, you do it take that position and if that prime broker does not accurately locate those shares like if, if they were never properly borrowed, that, then, is when we're talking about naked shorts, um. So right here b, did it without those shares ever properly being borrowed.

Those shares were lent to c c thinks that they're the owner of legitimate shares, but in this situation they would be synthetic shares because they were never properly borrowed and you can see that this daisy chain continues. So here's the situation that we're dealing with let's go back to this minimum case of 1.2 billion shares the issue right now is we don't know like you, don't know how big these different daisy chains get? How far does a legitimate one go? How far does the naked short one go? They can split off. It's almost uh, statistically mathematically impossible to really track down, because even in that situation of the naked short those people beyond that, they might have thought they had actual shares, so they own it. They lend it and then that next guy shorting it he thinks that we don't know that the original cause like we don't know where the root of this tree system really starts.

So we don't know how to break it down. Are there naked shorts going on? Yes, are there legitimate shorts going on? Yes, the issue that we've gotten to is like and how we've gotten these huge ownership is like in the end. We don't know whatever one you want to take once again. I just keep referencing this minimum case because why not be as conservative as possible if we're talking about the 1.2 billion shares, we're at this moment in time, not really sure when like how to really track down? What's going on here, because even in this situation that a prime broker is loaning out the shares and um they never located them, and then a hedge fund took that short.

It was a naked short produced. A synthetic share it is, the onus is on that prime broker to buy them off the market, which is cool, but my argument is the damage is already done because, let's say the prime broker allowed this situation to happen without ever locating the shorts right and then It could prompt this situation where now person c thinks that they own a million shares. They lend it out to d, and the daisy chain continues so a couple days later, because it's t plus two potentially t t plus six and really there's other ways to do it once again, a whole standalone, video prime broker comes in and be like. Oh sorry, i messed that one up they buy a million shares off the market.

Well, they didn't stop the damage being done c, already led to d which led to e, which led to f, which led to g. So, even if they came in and did what they were supposed to, oh sorry, we made our mistake, then buying the shares by back off the market and letting them disappear into the ether does not solve our problem. Folks, because, like we don't know what entire like root system was really built off of these illegitimate shares, that's the situation we're dealing with. Is we just don't know? What's good, what's bad, we don't know the proportions of either and like it could be a bad bad situation.

Mathematically. Is it possible that 1.2 billion shares is a completely legitimate thing? Yes, mathematically it. It is in reality, though, is a decent portion of this probably naked shorts. Yes, uh, there's a point where i can say here: mathematically: yes, it could be a hundred percent, it could be zero percent, but in the end we also live in reality.

Where we know it's not a hundred percent, we know it's not zero and we just don't know how out of hand these naked shorts got um. So i just want to explain that yeah, the 1.2 billion mathematically theoretically functionally could those all be legitimate. Yes, is that probably reality, i highly highly doubt it. In fact, i'd bet any amount of money that some considerable portion is um naked synthetic shares, whatever you want to call them illegitimate shares that got out of hand.

That's just my own opinion. Um, obviously make sure you do your own due diligence on it, but that is how i'm interpreting this situation. So if you have any questions about that and how this daisy chaining happens, uh drop it on a live stream. Leave a comment below i'll do my best to respond to all of you, so with all that out of the way, let's get into the numbers specific to amc uh.

Today there was a net increase of 2.6 million shares, so that means that our shares on loan are probably just under 150 million. This is how we started today off just under 147.. So with that increase, i bet we're close to 150 once again um the utilization started today off at 99.75. After today, i bet we're either at or very, very close to 100 and the estimated short interest is 23.14.

Just so, you know the days to cover based on the two week: training average trading volume we're at 3.4 days and the cost to borrow is slightly down and we are at 13.73 once again. That is all for amc and in terms of gme, the borrow change. Uh pretty much net neutral, not much of a change. The estimated short interest is 23.56 percent utilization.

Fifty nine point one eight percent and the as of now the days to cover on that two week. Average is two point three eight days and i just i like to illustrate that difference in the cost of borrow gmes is way way, lower one point, six, three percent, and that's just because the shares are much much easier to find um with the utilization having 40 Percent more to go. That means that they're easy to track down. Hence the cost to borrow is 1.63, while, on the other hand, this pie is almost completely filled, we are almost at a hundred percent.

Hence why the cost to borrow now is almost 14 previously was up to 25. Amc is pretty much the definition of hard to borrow and they're just tough for the brokers to locate when they're tough to locate the fees go higher. And this is the point where i stray a little bit more away from the data and just pitching my own theories. I it makes sense to me that in scenarios where your utilization is very high, i would assume that's when you see the spikes in failures to deliver and the spikes in naked shorts, because right there, it is very, very tough for brokers to locate shares.

That can be borrowed and when they're tough to locate if they're still allowing shorts. Well, i would assume this is the environment where we see naked shorts. Once again, i don't necessarily have the data to support it, but in my mind, that theory makes a lot of sense that you would see a spike in failures to deliver and naked shorts when your utilization is this close to 100 percent um. That's my going theory right now: i'd love to know your thoughts on that in a comment below.

In fact, i would love to know your thoughts on this entire thing of what's going on amc and jimmy in a comment below if you enjoyed this video and you think it has some value to the rest of the community, i would appreciate it if you could Drop a like leave a comment and hit that subscribe button, because that type of engagement really does help with promoting this video to other people uh through the youtube algorithm. I appreciate you spending the time to check this out. I'd love to know your thoughts below and until i catch you next time from me and chair best of luck in the markets, you.

20 thoughts on “Illegal shorting: how can so many people own amc??? what it all means”
  1. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars DareYou2Resist says:

    Buy the ask and hodl apes, that's it. Nothing more, nothing less. $500k
    floor/$1,000,000 ceiling, let's go to the moon apes! Checkout Lou vs
    WallStreet for actual good DD and you won't need any of these other
    boring Youtubers who aren't talking about anything new. Same
    regurgitated information as these other clowns. Otttoooo the line is
    going this way! lmfao

  2. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Armand Morin says:

    EXCELLENT way of putting it, Us retailers have shares that were shorted that were never PROPERLY borrowed. I always wondered what would happen if we called in for our physical stock certificates. It would be like a Bank Run wouldn't it?

  3. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Karl M. says:

    Very smooth brain ape here, so I'm at the bottom of the learning curve. Very new at this so don't have all of the terminology down yet, so please be a little lenient if I don't have the correct labels for all the different items/stages. What I'd like to do however, is to try to fill in something that isn't often talked about. I might be all wrong, so, if I am, hopefully someone will add a bit of a wrinkle to my brain.

    On Matt's example with B selling "borrowed" shares to C, my smooth brain interpretation is that B is fiscally responsible to C regardless if B actually borrowed real shares or just used "naked" (synthetic shares) to sell to C. So, at the end, B would either have to come up with actual shares to transfer/cover C, or, if C sells their shares, B would have to come up with the cashola $$$ to cover the "shares" that C sells at whatever the dollar amount of those shares would have been worth on the market at the time that C sold. So, in my logic, theoretically, C should still get their money (or shares) from B, as it would be B's responsibility to make C whole, however they do it. Which if the price goes up, and B doesn't actually have the shares by the time C sells, can cost B a lot of money to cover C.

    I think this would move down the line as the entity that "sells" the "shorted" shares is fiscally responsible to those that they sell the "shorted" shares to. The entity that the shares are borrowed from, probably has immunity from fiscal responsibility since that entity believes they own "real" shares, and probably doesn't really have any way to know if they do or not, unless they request actual stock share certificates. IF that can be done.

    This is what probably got a lot of the hedgies in trouble in the last few months. So, if they didn't have the actual shares and their "clients" decided to sell shares that the hedgies shorted to them, as the price spiked, the hedgie would have to pay their client for the number of shares that the client sold, at whatever market value was for the stock at the time of sale. Which means that since the hedgie was "shorting" those shares they'd have to either buy shares and then sell them, or, dig into their piggy bank and pull out the $$$ to pay the client. And that's where the liquidity issues come into play. If the hedgie doesn't have the $$$ in their piggy bank, they're going to have to liquidate other assets (stocks, bonds, etc.) to come up with that cash. And if the hedgies liquidity ratio isn't to the liking of who the hedgie is buying their stocks from, that entity can "margin call" the hedgies and FORCE the hedgies to sell assets to bring their liquidity into an acceptable range.

    I don't know if individual investors can sell "short" shares. I think it's the "brokers" that can do that. However, you have to remember, that as you move up to the level of investor that deals directly with hedge funds, the rules might be different for investors at that level. The requirements, as I understand it, to become an investor in hedge funds are pretty high.

  4. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars mark kilpatrick says:

    Thank you Matt for such an informative video. How do I know if the AMC shares I bought with my Fidelity account are real shares or lent out shares from someone else? Or is it only the hedge funds that are working with borrowed shares?

  5. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Anfernee Perry says:

    I advice you all to look up lou vs wallstreet. He knows what is going on with all the fake shares madness. At this point none of that even matters and I don’t rely on SEC or NSCC to save us. The squeeze is inevitable at this point they are just trying to prepare for their losses and manage the squeeze. Just buy and hold simple as that. Lou videos will cure amc anxiety I promise you.

  6. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars rob happe says:

    To be fair your community is probably a very bullish bunch on amc. Based on watching the bid/ask during volatile moments in amc I think its more like 2million people own 100 or less and 1million own 1000 or more. Basically the same average but a very different story. I have 10 gme and 75 amc at the moment but buying below 8.5 and 145 respectively. I use the rest to play tiblio options and have just as much in crypto as I do the market.

  7. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Evil Spyke says:

    too many people shorting stocks, in my opinion, has taken the focus away from what the stock market was created for. i think, if shorting wasnt allowed, the stocks would be based more on what a business was doing, not what traders can make from trading it. EDIT: with that said, im starting to look into shorting myself. why not play both sides, right?

  8. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars To Nick says:

    Can we say the legal shorting has been reflected by the short interest say 95M shares right?

    So all these 95M shares was shorted once n being bought by a new investor, thus creating 95M “new” shares. In this case, the total shares “in the market” should be just 450M + 95M = 545M which is 121%

    I even wonder if the short interest is probably recording the actual number of stocks being shorted.
    And should the naked shorts be counted towards the short interest number also? I have no ideas.

  9. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Matt Taylor says:

    Hey Matt, if it is clearly so difficult to track the naked shorts, how is this ever going to unravel properly? Like how are these shares going to be proven to exist and then need to be covered?

  10. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Neurotica says:

    Trying to wrap my brain around all this, what happens if a, b ,c ,d, e, etc… all decide to sell their same 1 mil shares at the same time? Is that even possible??? 🤷‍♀️

  11. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Dadstruction says:

    I'm in the 1000+ category (missed the poll though, so you can add me lol). My biggest question right now is how do we know that the authorities will require that the counterfeit shares we bought be honored? If you find you have a counterfeit bill, you eat the loss. At this point, this seems like the only way that we could be cheated out of our gains.

    I guess the one difference is that there's no way to know what's a real share and what's counterfeit. Hopefully that makes all the difference. There'd be riots in the streets if they just say "the brokers have the real shares, and you apes paid for nothing."

  12. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars MrMillander says:

    I think the reason this is happening is because they know they’re not going to be held accountable. Unfortunately for us and the market will freeze if and squeeze happens again so it won’t be like it was before. The SEC are on their side.

  13. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Jose Ortiz says:

    When this is all over regardless if AMC SQUEEZES or not I’m going to join MoonGang and become a Duck. Including all AMC YouTubers that are informing me, I’m new to this and I learn so much from you guys ! I’ve been putting every little money that I have in AMC that’s why I haven’t joined(I’m just floating by, it’s money im okay with loosing) but honestly you guys are heroes to me, especially Chair lol. But damn Matt this is crazy!!!!!! Also I will for sure keep and support AMC always, AA knows what he’s doing, he knows most of us will keep AMC at the end of the day because it(hopefully) made us financially stable and we APES stay together. This is the way!!!

  14. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Vin Ashley says:

    MATT:
    Todd Barker, the head of Surveyor Capital at Citadel, is retiring after 16 years at the hedge fund firm and will be replaced by his deputy Phillip Lee.
    Mr. Barker, 42, joined the $38 billion firm in 2004 as an analyst and has led Surveyor, one of Citadel's three stock-picking units, for the last five years. He will continue as a special adviser to the firm, said Kenneth C. Griffin, Citadel’s founder, CEO and co-chief investment officer, on Wednesday.

  15. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars dobss714 says:

    Love the info Matt, you explain everything very well. My question is im trying to do more research on these daisy chains. But what happens on the legal daisy chains yes legal ones. If the first person asks for thier shares back because they are getting liquidated. Learning lots from ya thanx matt

  16. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Pothead Reviews says:

    I’m all in AMC, utilization 100% The retail investor has been manipulated by hedge funds since the beginning of the market until now. This is only the second inning buy for freedom and because they’re trying cheat the system with restrictions and limiting buying, Wall Street only caused a sell off making the little guy only sell or get burnt, while hedge funds get to play by different rules. Saying time for the little guy to sit out. Burn the dirty hedge funds betting against us to the ground or at least bankrupt them. We need everyone’s help, this is a war. We will win… AMC will be going parabolic but keep holding because Diamond 💎 Hands. The longer we hold, the more hedges have to cover huge. Making the sky the limit. SPREAD THE WORD PLEASE Check out that beautiful short interest we’re about to beat GameStop and Volkwagen hold on tight don’t be manipulated by news media’s using everyone as pawns we will win. Keep buying this outstanding float. We will be rewarded heavily for our service. HEDGE FUNDS ARE NAKED SHORTING AND SHORT LADDERING AMC TO KEEP US DOWN BUT ONLY POSTPONES Beautiful SQUEEZE BECAUSE THEY WILL HAVE TO COVER IN BLOCKS TO MAKE UP FOR RECOGNIZED LOSSES. BUY IN ON THIS GOLD MINE OPPORTUNITY, EVERYDAY WE BUY AND HOLD SHORT SELLERS HAVE ACCRUING MARGINAL INTEREST AND BORROWING FEES. HEDGE FUNDS WILL BE MARGIN CALLED AND LIQUIDATED. WHICH IS INCREASING VERY RAPIDLY, DO NOT MISS THIS ONCE IN A LIFETIME OPPORTUNITY. YOU WILL KICK YOURSELF LATER. I will keep finding more ways to buy. 🙌🏻
    🚀✨🌙🎁🧨🍀🤑

  17. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars C B. says:

    My broker used to use an example often. If you keep compressing a spring, sooner or later it's going to pop and go flying up. Same with a stock, like AMC! We're consolidating between $8 and $12. The POP could happen very soon. I'm loading up more in anticipation of that!!

  18. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Dracollin says:

    This might just prove that when it comes time, Robinhood, Fidelity, TD Ameritade, Webull, none of them will be able to afford to make us all rich and the squeeze will crash the market. lol

  19. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars cocolefleur says:

    The poll has a huge bias though. A lot of people who own between 1-100 shares aren't going to be following you on Twitter. I don't think there is much value in the poll results at all.

  20. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Joel Williams says:

    Matt I would actually like to see a Bear analysis of AMC stock. Not to make fun of it but just to see what, if there is one, the argument against AMC is. I can't see why someone would short this stock legitimately right now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.