Oh, you are 100% right 
but I thought @Submarinex1 was having a giggle. 
3 Likes
Is it having a giggle or only coming to the thread to poo poo on people? Itâs why a lot of people start off with a bad attitude and snotty posts. Theyâve read a few pages up 
(banned accounts like myself aside)
Just kidding I knew its not going anywhere.
You donât need to be rocket scientist.
I do feel bad for people as I said before people buying these when price had been up based on hype.
This is correct but the real irony is that the retail crowd that have âsavedâ AMC now basically prevent it from being able to issue new shares.
A shorted AMC might have a slightly reduced capacity to raise funds, but currently they have almost no ability to do so. They could have cleared their $5bn debts for ~25% dilution now but the vote wonât go through, for context they spent 350% dilution for just ~$1bn over winter.
4 Likes
Saw that on a video and how people with no long term interest had stopped amc making the most of the popularity when they could cleared more debit to help going forward.
Whatâs everyoneâs take on the high dark pool usage?
Unsurprising. The only people crazy enough to buy AMC shares are âapeâ retail investors, and these investors typically use modern share platforms which route buys/sells through the hedge funds (or at least not via NYSE).
1 Like
I was thinking that, the high dark pool usage could be down to PFOF by Robinhood. so itâs the Apes themselves who are taking one side of all the dark pool trades 
Itâs not exactly what they were designed to do. Surely itâs one of the easiest ways to suppress or control price if over 70% of trades in a day go via the dark pools?
I agree, but to play devilâs advocate, the only reason 70%+ of trades are able to go through dark pools is because normal investors donât want to go anywhere near the stock because they think itâs overvalued (or at least unstable).
Surely the price of a stock should reflect supply and demand. As I understand it, AMC has been the number one bought stock on several days this week across the world but this isnât reflected in the price - nothing to do with investors not wanting to touch it.
2 Likes
Thereâs a seller for every buyer though
1 Like
Not if the buy is neutral and thatâs my point. Do you honestly believe there is only the 510million float out there? Jan 27th saw it trade 1.3 billion shares (and the float was smaller then). Did they really trade the whole float three times over on that day?
1 Like
That can happen, you can buy and sell a stock multiple times in a day. Especially if High Frequency trading bots are involved.
For every share that is bought someone sold it, whether that was a short seller or an ordinary trader doesnât really make a difference. The price is ~$37 because someone is selling at that price
4 Likes
With that many retail investors who wanted to buy and hold? You canât surely think thatâs true?
Which bit donât you think is true? Who are you buying shares off if no one is selling?
2 Likes
Of course it is true. Why would you think it wasnât?
Perhaps the story of so many people wanting to buy and hold is just that a storyâŠ.
There is so much confirmation bias in so many of these discussions where people discount alternative (simpler) explanations in favour of more complex explanations that âsupportâ a particular narrative. Iâm sure if you scroll up through the last few weeks youâll see very similar discussions.
3 Likes
Can you show me many examples of a stockâs free float being traded three times over in one day?
1 Like
People have seen the stat that 80% is held by retail and immediately jumped to the conclusion that 80% of holders are Apes who will hold till the bitter end. there is no evidence to support that
2 Likes
That want quite my statement or my question