35
Comments (19)
sorted by:
4
Hattmall 4 points ago +4 / -0

So how does that work if the short interest is only 100,000,000??

Also why would this indicate mooning??

3
Lurking_Waiting 3 points ago +3 / -0

501,000,000 outstanding shares in the stock. By the math, who owns the company?

7
Dony2529 [S] 7 points ago +7 / -0

Retail does BABY , going to cash in on those bananas finally

5
TheRealPizzaPope 5 points ago +5 / -0

AMC Now-showing: APES IN SPACE

3
8thGenPatriot 3 points ago +3 / -0

Source for this?

Not that I don't trust you, but if we've learned anything, it's that we can't trust anything.

2
Kekistan_United 2 points ago +2 / -0

how does the CEO talking about selling more new shares affect the liability of
those that are in the 74% borrowed-overage counter?

2
Auroraalpha 2 points ago +2 / -0

Wait, I thought they just said no more new stock sales?

Basically if GME issues new stock, it dilutes the % downwards by increasing the denominator. Assuming no other actions take place of course.

2
Kekistan_United 2 points ago +2 / -0

i thought this as well. but theres also the notion that it adds value and thereby makes the company more valuable; should make our shares go up?

im just an ape

1
Auroraalpha 1 point ago +1 / -0

Adding aggregate value doesnt increase the price of the shares. Also, that depends on how much demand exists when said shares get sold. Ultimately it places downward pressure on the hedgies, since the new shares will get sold at a specified list price and our strategy relies on them caving to sharply increasing prices due to low supply. Increasing said supply pushes prices down.

In short, the general trend is down, barring any other factor.

1
Kekistan_United 1 point ago +1 / -0

good to know, thanks

1
james43552352345 1 point ago +1 / -0

That's the traditional business logic being used. The idea is maybe you dilute the shares a little by say 500M then you use the 500M to do something (acquisition, expansion, new factory etc.).....the new asset then increases revenue/cash flow etc and makes the overall business better so even though your shares are diluted each individual share is worth more because the bigger company has more revenue/profits etc.

If you are trying to do short squeeze then share dilution is like getting a nuclear bomb dropped on you. It completely fucks you over.

1
Kekistan_United 1 point ago +1 / -0

i hear you.

so what im going to do is buy MOAR

1
james43552352345 1 point ago +1 / -0

i'm going to short the stock then :)

2
poconopede 2 points ago +2 / -0

we're gonna wreck it. This could also be catastrophic lol have a read.

https://www.reddit.com/r/amcstock/comments/nwc6vx/amc_gme_squeeze_will_be_apart_of_the_next/

2
8thGenPatriot 2 points ago +2 / -0

Okay, I hate to burst the bubble, but ot looks like this guy made a slight error in transcribing the data. The numbers still don't add up, but it isn't quite as dramatic as it looks at first glance.

The shorts should be added to the total shares, not the ownership. In theory, you shouldn't have more people claiming ownership than there are real+borrowed shares.

It also looks like there was something funny going on with the major holders+insider number, so let's discount that for the moment.

Retail+insiders should equal total shares+shorts. It doesn't.

Retail+insider=657,587,479

Total shares+(reported)shorts=601,780,420

That means there are a bare minimum of 56 million naked shorts on top of the 100 million reported.

3
ChubbyHubby 3 points ago +3 / -0

It looks a little off, but only slightly. BUT in reality, with dark pools, call options, and other AMC derivatives, the real number is probably closer to 300% ownership of shares outstanding.

3
8thGenPatriot 3 points ago +3 / -0

Definitely. Consider the fact that I omitted one line of data because there's a question of double counting insiders. Even when you remove one line of data, it looks like 35% shorts.

2
Dony2529 [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

I just threw up quick estimates, look up the data yourself if your a non-believer

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0