32
posted ago by 8thGenPatriot ago by 8thGenPatriot +32 / -0

A thought struck me today. There's a big debate on whether AMC is a legit short squeeze or just a distraction. Could it be both?

In wildland firefighting, it's important to establish a firebreak. Sometimes, this means a controlled burn. When the wildfire reaches that area, it can't spread because everything is already burned.

Obviously, there is some risk to this strategy, because if you lose control, you just have a 2nd wildfire on your hands.

I think this is what we're seeing with AMC. HFs have been using AMC as a firebreak, but the conditions are so volatile that they nearly lost control this week.

Maybe I'm right; maybe I'm wrong. With all the lies and manipulation flying around, the wrinkle brains will spend years trying to sort all this out.

Comments (19)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
10
anesPEDEsia 10 points ago +11 / -1

GME has over 70 million outstanding shares. AMC has over 500 million outstanding shares. Seems like it is much easier for apes to own the float on GME.

Also, AMC seems like a dying brand trying desperately to save itself. GME is a historically successful company with a new CEO, board of directors, and is in the process of transforming the company into a forward-thinking institution with larger market share, and lower overhead cost.

To compare these companies. Yes they both might squeeze. But they are very different businesses, with different operating models. Different management. Different products. And different future outlooks. Only one of them appears successful in the long term to me.

5
Fact 5 points ago +5 / -0

I favor GME also but China has a stake in AMC so I don't think AMC is dying. China will do anything to keep its tendrils into American media alive and well, including dumping infinite money into it or producing entirely cooked books for it.

6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0