+Follow
BotaKal
No personal profile
3
Follow
1
Followers
0
Topic
0
Badge
Posts
Hot
BotaKal
2021-07-13
Shorted to heck ?
Sorry, the original content has been removed
BotaKal
2021-07-13
Goes BRRRRRRRR
8 Lies That Have Fueled the AMC Entertainment Pump-and-Dump Scheme
BotaKal
2021-07-08
Shorts
Why Virgin Galactic Stock Is Still Falling Today
Go to Tiger App to see more news
{"i18n":{"language":"en_US"},"userPageInfo":{"id":"4088158579984400","uuid":"4088158579984400","gmtCreate":1625055516777,"gmtModify":1625110146887,"name":"BotaKal","pinyin":"botakal","introduction":"","introductionEn":"","signature":"","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b639ab2e7f1ad569f0a031ac725a4d7e","hat":null,"hatId":null,"hatName":null,"vip":1,"status":2,"fanSize":1,"headSize":3,"tweetSize":3,"questionSize":0,"limitLevel":999,"accountStatus":4,"level":{"id":1,"name":"萌萌虎","nameTw":"萌萌虎","represent":"呱呱坠地","factor":"评论帖子3次或发布1条主帖（非转发）","iconColor":"3C9E83","bgColor":"A2F1D9"},"themeCounts":0,"badgeCounts":0,"badges":[],"moderator":false,"superModerator":false,"manageSymbols":null,"badgeLevel":null,"boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"favoriteSize":0,"symbols":null,"coverImage":null,"realNameVerified":"success","userBadges":[{"badgeId":"1026c425416b44e0aac28c11a0848493-2","templateUuid":"1026c425416b44e0aac28c11a0848493","name":"Senior Tiger","description":"Join the tiger community for 1000 days","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0063fb68ea29c9ae6858c58630e182d5","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/96c699a93be4214d4b49aea6a5a5d1a4","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/35b0e542a9ff77046ed69ef602bc105d","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2024.03.31","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1001},{"badgeId":"44212b71d0be4ec88898348dbe882e03-3","templateUuid":"44212b71d0be4ec88898348dbe882e03","name":"President Tiger","description":"The transaction amount of the securities account reaches $1,000,000","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/fbeac6bb240db7da8b972e5183d050ba","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/436cdf80292b99f0a992e78750ac4e3a","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/506a259a7b456f037592c3b23c779599","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2023.07.14","exceedPercentage":"93.48%","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1101},{"badgeId":"972123088c9646f7b6091ae0662215be-3","templateUuid":"972123088c9646f7b6091ae0662215be","name":"Legendary Trader","description":"Total number of securities or futures transactions reached 300","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/656db16598a0b8f21429e10d6c1cb033","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/03f10910d4dd9234f9b5702a3342193a","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0c767e35268feb729d50d3fa9a386c5a","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2022.04.15","exceedPercentage":"93.05%","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100},{"badgeId":"7a9f168ff73447fe856ed6c938b61789-1","templateUuid":"7a9f168ff73447fe856ed6c938b61789","name":"Knowledgeable Investor","description":"Traded more than 10 stocks","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e74cc24115c4fbae6154ec1b1041bf47","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d48265cbfd97c57f9048db29f22227b0","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/76c6d6898b073c77e1c537ebe9ac1c57","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.29","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1102},{"badgeId":"a83d7582f45846ffbccbce770ce65d84-1","templateUuid":"a83d7582f45846ffbccbce770ce65d84","name":"Real Trader","description":"Completed a transaction","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2e08a1cc2087a1de93402c2c290fa65b","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4504a6397ce1137932d56e5f4ce27166","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4b22c79415b4cd6e3d8ebc4a0fa32604","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.21","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100}],"userBadgeCount":5,"currentWearingBadge":null,"individualDisplayBadges":null,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"location":null,"starInvestorFollowerNum":0,"starInvestorFlag":false,"starInvestorOrderShareNum":0,"subscribeStarInvestorNum":0,"ror":null,"winRationPercentage":null,"showRor":false,"investmentPhilosophy":null,"starInvestorSubscribeFlag":false},"baikeInfo":{},"tab":"post","tweets":[{"id":142466621,"gmtCreate":1626169148863,"gmtModify":1703754715318,"author":{"id":"4088158579984400","authorId":"4088158579984400","name":"BotaKal","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b639ab2e7f1ad569f0a031ac725a4d7e","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4088158579984400","authorIdStr":"4088158579984400"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Shorted to heck ?","listText":"Shorted to heck ?","text":"Shorted to heck ?","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/142466621","repostId":"1129519319","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":393,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":142461595,"gmtCreate":1626169024617,"gmtModify":1703754713042,"author":{"id":"4088158579984400","authorId":"4088158579984400","name":"BotaKal","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b639ab2e7f1ad569f0a031ac725a4d7e","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4088158579984400","authorIdStr":"4088158579984400"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Goes BRRRRRRRR","listText":"Goes BRRRRRRRR","text":"Goes BRRRRRRRR","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/142461595","repostId":"2150580297","repostType":2,"repost":{"id":"2150580297","kind":"highlight","pubTimestamp":1626098100,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/2150580297?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-07-12 21:55","market":"us","language":"en","title":"8 Lies That Have Fueled the AMC Entertainment Pump-and-Dump Scheme","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2150580297","media":"Motley Fool","summary":"Misinformation is the basis for the bulk of AMC's rally.","content":"<p>There's arguably been no hotter stock on the planet in 2021 than movie theater chain <b>AMC Entertainment </b>(NYSE:AMC). It's gone from teetering on the brink of bankruptcy in early January to being valued at $23 billion, as of business close on July 7.</p>\n<p>At the heart of this rally are AMC's passionate army of retail investors, collectively known as \"apes\" -- an homage to <i>Rise of the Planet of the Apes</i>, where leader Caesar infers that apes are stronger together. This might sound like a feel-good story whereby retail is finally exacting its revenge on Wall Street, but the reality is that AMC has become a battleground pump-and-dump scheme driven higher almost entirely by the misinformation and lies spread by its retail investors.</p>\n<p>While I've previously covered some aspects of the misinformation campaign used as the foundation for the rally in AMC's stock, below are the eight most pervasive lies that have fueled this pump-and-dump scheme.</p>\n<h2>Lie No. 1: Hedge fund short-selling bankrupts companies</h2>\n<p>The whopper of all lies exchanged on message boards and via YouTube is the idea that hedge fund short-selling is somehow responsible for bankrupting businesses.</p>\n<p>The reality is that the operating performance of a company determines whether or not it thrives or goes under. There are plenty of companies whose share prices are under $1 that aren't bankrupt, and there are companies with share prices north of $1 that ultimately file for bankruptcy protection. Investors who choose to buy or short-sell stock are simply betting on an outcome. They don't control or influence how well or poorly the underlying business performs.</p>\n<p>Put another way, if I buy $1 billion worth of <b>Apple</b> stock tomorrow, I might help lift its share price, but I've not improved its sales or profit potential <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE\">one</a> iota. Likewise, if I short-sell Apple's stock tomorrow, I haven't hurt its sales potential or profitability at all. Why would this hypothetical scenario be any different with AMC? Hint: It's not.</p>\n<h2>Lie No. 2: Shorts have to cover</h2>\n<p>Another dose of misinformation from AMC's apes is that short sellers of the stock have to cover. Specifically, apes are implying that there's some level of urgency here and that the disorder from excessive covering will lead to the \"mother of all short squeezes.\"</p>\n<p>The truth is that short-sellers \"have to cover\" as much as apes \"have\" to sell their position. In other words, short-sellers can cover their position at their leisure.</p>\n<p>What's more, hedge fund assets under management jumped to $4.07 trillion in June 2021, according to BarclayHedge. For short-covering to be disorderly, a massive wave of margin calls would need to come into play. Since the vast majority of hedge funds are diversified, and they have well over $4 trillion in assets in their sails, the chance of a margin call wave forcing short covering is virtually nonexistent.</p>\n<h2>Lie No. 3: The short squeeze is coming/around the corner</h2>\n<p>Just as they teach every salesperson, creating a sense of urgency with customers (i.e., potential new investors) is important. Apes are constantly hyping the idea that a short squeeze is imminent, or at worst right around the corner. Unfortunately, it's been five months since this ongoing claim began making its rounds, and there's nothing these retail folks can say to substantiate it.</p>\n<p>Aside from an institutional investor/hedge fund margin call wave being <i>highly</i> unlikely, history has also showed that short squeeze candidates have a poor track record of success. Earlier this year, I looked at the trailing three-month returns of 114 stocks with short interest above 20% and a market cap of at least $300 million. Only 9 of 114 stocks had gained 10% or more, while 94 of 114 had a negative three-month return.</p>\n<p>Apes need fresh capital to keep this pump-and-dump scheme going, but the data clearly shows that short squeezes rarely pay off.</p>\n<h2>Lie No. 4: Fundamentals don't matter</h2>\n<p>AMC's retail investors are also quick to dismiss anything having to do with concrete fundamental data. Whether it's the company's operating performance, industry ticket-sale trends, or AMC's balance sheet, they'll proudly proclaim it as FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) and remind you this isn't a fundamental play. They do this because AMC's operating performance and balance sheet are nothing short of a horror movie, and they damage the misinformation campaign being put forward on social media and YouTube.</p>\n<p>I'll let you in on an investing secret that tenured investors know: Fundamentals always matter. Purposefully telling new investors to ignore fundamentals is like telling a used car buyer not to inspect the engine and just trust that everything is OK.</p>\n<p>For instance, social media was buzzing about <b>Washington Prime Group</b>'s short squeeze potential over the weekend of June 12 and 13. The company filed for bankruptcy protection late Sunday night (June 13), halving investors' stakes the following morning. The engine (fundamentals) drives the car; not the other way around.</p>\n<h2>Lie No. 5: Hedge funds control the mainstream media</h2>\n<p>AMC's apes need to create the impression that anything negative said about their company's stock on television, radio, the internet, or print can't possibly be true, and telling the lie that hedge funds control the mainstream media (MSM) is the easiest way to accomplish that task. Again, this pump-and-dump scam needs fresh capital to keep moving higher, therefore presenting the media as evil is an easy way to try to rally new investors to the retail cause.</p>\n<p>But, as is all-too-common with the ape agenda, it's devoid of fact.</p>\n<p>It just so happens that Harvard University provided a painstakingly thorough look at MSM ownership for 176 of the most influential media companies/outlets in May 2021. The findings? Only five of the 176 outlets are controlled or majority-controlled by private hedge funds. Apes simply hate hearing bad things said about AMC and will go to any lengths necessary to obfuscate those facts, including lying about MSM.</p>\n<h2>Lie No. 6: \"You're obviously short\"</h2>\n<p>To build on the previous point, AMC's impassioned retail investors will also claim inherent ownership biases in the anchors, guests, authors, and so on, who rail against their stock. This is necessary to help recruit fresh capital to their cause by trying to create an \"us vs. them\" mentality.</p>\n<p>To offer an example, I've personally been told on social media many dozens of times that I'm \"obviously short\" or \"clearly losing a lot of money\" because of the journalistic position I've taken on AMC. While I can't speak for any other company, I can proudly claim that my stock holdings are public information, and they're updated daily if I make a move. To boot, article disclosures state any positions I, and my company, have for any stock mentioned. This <i>includes</i> short positions, as well as any options ownership. The icing on the cake is that I also publicly announce my trading activity on <b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TWTR\">Twitter</a></b>.</p>\n<p>Despite this transparent information, apes constantly and falsely insinuate a financial interest when none exists.</p>\n<h2>Lie No. 7: BlackRock and Vanguard buying AMC stock is bullish</h2>\n<p>This is <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a> I find particularly amusing, because apes are more than willing to welcome institutional investors with open arms <i>if</i> they happen to own shares of AMC.</p>\n<p>Retail investors regularly use <b>BlackRock</b>'s and Vanguard's ownership of AMC stock as a reason to promote optimism. However, this tells only a fraction of the real story. BlackRock and Vanguard are two of the largest institutional investment firms in the country, based on assets under management. As of their mid-May 13F filings, which detailed their holdings for the first quarter, BlackRock had close to 5,000 positions, with Vanguard chiming in with more than 4,000 positions. During Q1, BlackRock and Vanguard added to more than 3,900 and 3,200 of these stakes, respectively.</p>\n<p>Put another way, BlackRock and Vanguard have so many product offerings that they have a stake in virtually every stock listed in an index. Saying that BlackRock and Vanguard buying AMC is bullish is akin to saying you bought shares of <b>Ford</b> stock because you like red paint.</p>\n<p>As a percentage of shares outstanding, hedge fund <i>and</i> overall institutional ownership in AMC fell during the first quarter from the sequential fourth quarter. That's a fact!</p>\n<h2>Lie No. 8: Apes saved AMC</h2>\n<p>The eighth and final mammoth lie that AMC's retail investors rely on to coerce community compliance and bring in fresh capital is the idea that apes saved AMC. These folks genuinely believe that by purchasing shares of AMC they've somehow saved the company from going bankrupt.</p>\n<p>As I discussed with the first lie on this list, buying and selling stock has absolutely no influence on how well or poorly a company performs from an operating standpoint. Even if apes were to buy every share in existence, AMC could still go bankrupt if its operating performance doesn't improve. And based on its 2027 bonds trading well below par, bondholders aren't convinced that things will improve enough to save the company.</p>\n<p>What really saves companies from bankruptcy is their operating performance and the actions of management. In AMC's case, selling hundreds of millions of shares of stock an issuing high-interest debt last year and in early January gave it the financial lifeline needed to survive the worst of the pandemic. That's not apes saving AMC; that's the company's actions extending a lifeline.</p>\n<p>If anything, apes are purposely harming AMC by tying the hands of CEO Adam Aron and shooting down any additional opportunities for the company to raise capital and shore up its balance sheet.</p>\n<p>If this list of lies shows anything, it's the lengths apes will go to manipulate AMC's share price. However, history is very clear that all pump-and-dump schemes end in disaster. That's not FUD. It's a practical guarantee.</p>\n<p>Caveat emptor.</p>","source":"fool_stock","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>8 Lies That Have Fueled the AMC Entertainment Pump-and-Dump Scheme</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\n8 Lies That Have Fueled the AMC Entertainment Pump-and-Dump Scheme\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-07-12 21:55 GMT+8 <a href=https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/07/12/8-lies-that-fueled-the-amc-pump-and-dump-scheme/><strong>Motley Fool</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>There's arguably been no hotter stock on the planet in 2021 than movie theater chain AMC Entertainment (NYSE:AMC). It's gone from teetering on the brink of bankruptcy in early January to being valued ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/07/12/8-lies-that-fueled-the-amc-pump-and-dump-scheme/\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"AMC":"AMC院线"},"source_url":"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/07/12/8-lies-that-fueled-the-amc-pump-and-dump-scheme/","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2150580297","content_text":"There's arguably been no hotter stock on the planet in 2021 than movie theater chain AMC Entertainment (NYSE:AMC). It's gone from teetering on the brink of bankruptcy in early January to being valued at $23 billion, as of business close on July 7.\nAt the heart of this rally are AMC's passionate army of retail investors, collectively known as \"apes\" -- an homage to Rise of the Planet of the Apes, where leader Caesar infers that apes are stronger together. This might sound like a feel-good story whereby retail is finally exacting its revenge on Wall Street, but the reality is that AMC has become a battleground pump-and-dump scheme driven higher almost entirely by the misinformation and lies spread by its retail investors.\nWhile I've previously covered some aspects of the misinformation campaign used as the foundation for the rally in AMC's stock, below are the eight most pervasive lies that have fueled this pump-and-dump scheme.\nLie No. 1: Hedge fund short-selling bankrupts companies\nThe whopper of all lies exchanged on message boards and via YouTube is the idea that hedge fund short-selling is somehow responsible for bankrupting businesses.\nThe reality is that the operating performance of a company determines whether or not it thrives or goes under. There are plenty of companies whose share prices are under $1 that aren't bankrupt, and there are companies with share prices north of $1 that ultimately file for bankruptcy protection. Investors who choose to buy or short-sell stock are simply betting on an outcome. They don't control or influence how well or poorly the underlying business performs.\nPut another way, if I buy $1 billion worth of Apple stock tomorrow, I might help lift its share price, but I've not improved its sales or profit potential one iota. Likewise, if I short-sell Apple's stock tomorrow, I haven't hurt its sales potential or profitability at all. Why would this hypothetical scenario be any different with AMC? Hint: It's not.\nLie No. 2: Shorts have to cover\nAnother dose of misinformation from AMC's apes is that short sellers of the stock have to cover. Specifically, apes are implying that there's some level of urgency here and that the disorder from excessive covering will lead to the \"mother of all short squeezes.\"\nThe truth is that short-sellers \"have to cover\" as much as apes \"have\" to sell their position. In other words, short-sellers can cover their position at their leisure.\nWhat's more, hedge fund assets under management jumped to $4.07 trillion in June 2021, according to BarclayHedge. For short-covering to be disorderly, a massive wave of margin calls would need to come into play. Since the vast majority of hedge funds are diversified, and they have well over $4 trillion in assets in their sails, the chance of a margin call wave forcing short covering is virtually nonexistent.\nLie No. 3: The short squeeze is coming/around the corner\nJust as they teach every salesperson, creating a sense of urgency with customers (i.e., potential new investors) is important. Apes are constantly hyping the idea that a short squeeze is imminent, or at worst right around the corner. Unfortunately, it's been five months since this ongoing claim began making its rounds, and there's nothing these retail folks can say to substantiate it.\nAside from an institutional investor/hedge fund margin call wave being highly unlikely, history has also showed that short squeeze candidates have a poor track record of success. Earlier this year, I looked at the trailing three-month returns of 114 stocks with short interest above 20% and a market cap of at least $300 million. Only 9 of 114 stocks had gained 10% or more, while 94 of 114 had a negative three-month return.\nApes need fresh capital to keep this pump-and-dump scheme going, but the data clearly shows that short squeezes rarely pay off.\nLie No. 4: Fundamentals don't matter\nAMC's retail investors are also quick to dismiss anything having to do with concrete fundamental data. Whether it's the company's operating performance, industry ticket-sale trends, or AMC's balance sheet, they'll proudly proclaim it as FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) and remind you this isn't a fundamental play. They do this because AMC's operating performance and balance sheet are nothing short of a horror movie, and they damage the misinformation campaign being put forward on social media and YouTube.\nI'll let you in on an investing secret that tenured investors know: Fundamentals always matter. Purposefully telling new investors to ignore fundamentals is like telling a used car buyer not to inspect the engine and just trust that everything is OK.\nFor instance, social media was buzzing about Washington Prime Group's short squeeze potential over the weekend of June 12 and 13. The company filed for bankruptcy protection late Sunday night (June 13), halving investors' stakes the following morning. The engine (fundamentals) drives the car; not the other way around.\nLie No. 5: Hedge funds control the mainstream media\nAMC's apes need to create the impression that anything negative said about their company's stock on television, radio, the internet, or print can't possibly be true, and telling the lie that hedge funds control the mainstream media (MSM) is the easiest way to accomplish that task. Again, this pump-and-dump scam needs fresh capital to keep moving higher, therefore presenting the media as evil is an easy way to try to rally new investors to the retail cause.\nBut, as is all-too-common with the ape agenda, it's devoid of fact.\nIt just so happens that Harvard University provided a painstakingly thorough look at MSM ownership for 176 of the most influential media companies/outlets in May 2021. The findings? Only five of the 176 outlets are controlled or majority-controlled by private hedge funds. Apes simply hate hearing bad things said about AMC and will go to any lengths necessary to obfuscate those facts, including lying about MSM.\nLie No. 6: \"You're obviously short\"\nTo build on the previous point, AMC's impassioned retail investors will also claim inherent ownership biases in the anchors, guests, authors, and so on, who rail against their stock. This is necessary to help recruit fresh capital to their cause by trying to create an \"us vs. them\" mentality.\nTo offer an example, I've personally been told on social media many dozens of times that I'm \"obviously short\" or \"clearly losing a lot of money\" because of the journalistic position I've taken on AMC. While I can't speak for any other company, I can proudly claim that my stock holdings are public information, and they're updated daily if I make a move. To boot, article disclosures state any positions I, and my company, have for any stock mentioned. This includes short positions, as well as any options ownership. The icing on the cake is that I also publicly announce my trading activity on Twitter.\nDespite this transparent information, apes constantly and falsely insinuate a financial interest when none exists.\nLie No. 7: BlackRock and Vanguard buying AMC stock is bullish\nThis is one I find particularly amusing, because apes are more than willing to welcome institutional investors with open arms if they happen to own shares of AMC.\nRetail investors regularly use BlackRock's and Vanguard's ownership of AMC stock as a reason to promote optimism. However, this tells only a fraction of the real story. BlackRock and Vanguard are two of the largest institutional investment firms in the country, based on assets under management. As of their mid-May 13F filings, which detailed their holdings for the first quarter, BlackRock had close to 5,000 positions, with Vanguard chiming in with more than 4,000 positions. During Q1, BlackRock and Vanguard added to more than 3,900 and 3,200 of these stakes, respectively.\nPut another way, BlackRock and Vanguard have so many product offerings that they have a stake in virtually every stock listed in an index. Saying that BlackRock and Vanguard buying AMC is bullish is akin to saying you bought shares of Ford stock because you like red paint.\nAs a percentage of shares outstanding, hedge fund and overall institutional ownership in AMC fell during the first quarter from the sequential fourth quarter. That's a fact!\nLie No. 8: Apes saved AMC\nThe eighth and final mammoth lie that AMC's retail investors rely on to coerce community compliance and bring in fresh capital is the idea that apes saved AMC. These folks genuinely believe that by purchasing shares of AMC they've somehow saved the company from going bankrupt.\nAs I discussed with the first lie on this list, buying and selling stock has absolutely no influence on how well or poorly a company performs from an operating standpoint. Even if apes were to buy every share in existence, AMC could still go bankrupt if its operating performance doesn't improve. And based on its 2027 bonds trading well below par, bondholders aren't convinced that things will improve enough to save the company.\nWhat really saves companies from bankruptcy is their operating performance and the actions of management. In AMC's case, selling hundreds of millions of shares of stock an issuing high-interest debt last year and in early January gave it the financial lifeline needed to survive the worst of the pandemic. That's not apes saving AMC; that's the company's actions extending a lifeline.\nIf anything, apes are purposely harming AMC by tying the hands of CEO Adam Aron and shooting down any additional opportunities for the company to raise capital and shore up its balance sheet.\nIf this list of lies shows anything, it's the lengths apes will go to manipulate AMC's share price. However, history is very clear that all pump-and-dump schemes end in disaster. That's not FUD. It's a practical guarantee.\nCaveat emptor.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":316,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":149682976,"gmtCreate":1625722750595,"gmtModify":1703747134773,"author":{"id":"4088158579984400","authorId":"4088158579984400","name":"BotaKal","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b639ab2e7f1ad569f0a031ac725a4d7e","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"4088158579984400","authorIdStr":"4088158579984400"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Shorts","listText":"Shorts","text":"Shorts","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/149682976","repostId":"2149313257","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2149313257","kind":"highlight","pubTimestamp":1625714950,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/2149313257?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-07-08 11:29","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why Virgin Galactic Stock Is Still Falling Today","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2149313257","media":"Motley Fool","summary":"Sir Richard Branson will fly to space in four days! (Investors yawn.)","content":"<h2>What happened</h2>\n<p>Yesterday's downgrade from UBS took <b>Virgin Galactic Holdings</b> (NYSE:SPCE) stock's latest price spike and cut it off at the knees -- limiting the space tourism pioneer's gains to just 3% Tuesday.</p>\n<p>Responding rapidly, analysts at Truist bank -- the former BB&T -- rushed out a note assuring investors that when Sir Richard Branson flies to space on Sunday, it will be a \"positive catalyst\" for the stock (reports TheFly.com). Then Virgin Galactic <i>itself</i> released a promotional TikTok clip showing its founder talking on the phone and commenting \"I'd love to go to space... in fact, I think I'll go Sunday!</p>\n<blockquote>\n Watch this space... @VirginGalactic is now on @tiktok_us! Follow us here; https://t.co/SYMnxWbShk pic.twitter.com/VZtXVX42VY— Virgin Galactic (@virgingalactic) July 7, 2021\n</blockquote>\n<p>But it was all for naught. Virgin Galactic stock is in free fall today -- down 6.5% as of 10:40 a.m. EDT.</p>\n<h2>So what</h2>\n<p>The good news is that there's no bad news to explain the stock's sudden unpopularity. The bad news, though, is that even great news might not be able to sustain Virgin Galactic stock at its current, elevated stock price.</p>\n<p>As UBS explained in its note yesterday, there are certainly catalysts coming up that could support Virgin Galactic's current $10 billion-plus market capitalization. Nevertheless, the simple fact of the matter is that with Virgin Galactic's shares up 170% from their lows just two months ago, most of the good news that Virgin Galactic might report in the months and quarters ahead is already priced in to the stock.</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9b6cc0ef6f0c6027db0b6f1c231785d3\" tg-width=\"700\" tg-height=\"393\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p>\n<p>Image source: Virgin Galactic.</p>\n<h2>Now what</h2>\n<p>And here's the thing: With neither profit nor even revenue to provide a valuation argument in favor of its stock price at present, Virgin Galactic's shares basically trade on good news. Until that changes -- until Virgin Galactic begins flying paying customers to space, and reporting the results of those trips as revenue -- the lack of any positive \"surprises\" on the news front could keep a lid on the stock price going forward.</p>","source":"fool_stock","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why Virgin Galactic Stock Is Still Falling Today</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy Virgin Galactic Stock Is Still Falling Today\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-07-08 11:29 GMT+8 <a href=https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/07/07/why-virgin-galactic-stock-is-still-falling-today/><strong>Motley Fool</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>What happened\nYesterday's downgrade from UBS took Virgin Galactic Holdings (NYSE:SPCE) stock's latest price spike and cut it off at the knees -- limiting the space tourism pioneer's gains to just 3% ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/07/07/why-virgin-galactic-stock-is-still-falling-today/\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPCE":"维珍银河"},"source_url":"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/07/07/why-virgin-galactic-stock-is-still-falling-today/","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2149313257","content_text":"What happened\nYesterday's downgrade from UBS took Virgin Galactic Holdings (NYSE:SPCE) stock's latest price spike and cut it off at the knees -- limiting the space tourism pioneer's gains to just 3% Tuesday.\nResponding rapidly, analysts at Truist bank -- the former BB&T -- rushed out a note assuring investors that when Sir Richard Branson flies to space on Sunday, it will be a \"positive catalyst\" for the stock (reports TheFly.com). Then Virgin Galactic itself released a promotional TikTok clip showing its founder talking on the phone and commenting \"I'd love to go to space... in fact, I think I'll go Sunday!\n\n Watch this space... @VirginGalactic is now on @tiktok_us! Follow us here; https://t.co/SYMnxWbShk pic.twitter.com/VZtXVX42VY— Virgin Galactic (@virgingalactic) July 7, 2021\n\nBut it was all for naught. Virgin Galactic stock is in free fall today -- down 6.5% as of 10:40 a.m. EDT.\nSo what\nThe good news is that there's no bad news to explain the stock's sudden unpopularity. The bad news, though, is that even great news might not be able to sustain Virgin Galactic stock at its current, elevated stock price.\nAs UBS explained in its note yesterday, there are certainly catalysts coming up that could support Virgin Galactic's current $10 billion-plus market capitalization. Nevertheless, the simple fact of the matter is that with Virgin Galactic's shares up 170% from their lows just two months ago, most of the good news that Virgin Galactic might report in the months and quarters ahead is already priced in to the stock.\n\nImage source: Virgin Galactic.\nNow what\nAnd here's the thing: With neither profit nor even revenue to provide a valuation argument in favor of its stock price at present, Virgin Galactic's shares basically trade on good news. Until that changes -- until Virgin Galactic begins flying paying customers to space, and reporting the results of those trips as revenue -- the lack of any positive \"surprises\" on the news front could keep a lid on the stock price going forward.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":397,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"hots":[{"id":149682976,"gmtCreate":1625722750595,"gmtModify":1703747134773,"author":{"id":"4088158579984400","authorId":"4088158579984400","name":"BotaKal","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b639ab2e7f1ad569f0a031ac725a4d7e","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4088158579984400","idStr":"4088158579984400"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Shorts","listText":"Shorts","text":"Shorts","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/149682976","repostId":"2149313257","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":397,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":142466621,"gmtCreate":1626169148863,"gmtModify":1703754715318,"author":{"id":"4088158579984400","authorId":"4088158579984400","name":"BotaKal","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b639ab2e7f1ad569f0a031ac725a4d7e","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4088158579984400","idStr":"4088158579984400"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Shorted to heck ?","listText":"Shorted to heck ?","text":"Shorted to heck ?","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/142466621","repostId":"1129519319","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1129519319","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1626164343,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1129519319?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-07-13 16:19","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Carver Bancorp: Looking For Evidence Of Market Top? This May Be It","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1129519319","media":"seekingalpha","summary":"Summary\n\nIn four decades of banking, I have never seen anything as looney as this: A “Triple F” bank","content":"<p><b>Summary</b></p>\n<ul>\n <li>In four decades of banking, I have never seen anything as looney as this: A “Triple F” bank soared 141% during the past week and 308% YTD.</li>\n <li>Knowing a good thing when he sees it, the third largest shareholder sold all his shares last week in this marginally unprofitable bank.</li>\n <li>When the stock prices of the market’s least profitable companies act weird and big shareholders prudently exit large positions, we may be seeing evidence of a market top.</li>\n <li>Record-high market valuations have spooked me for a while.</li>\n <li>When a perennially underperforming bank sees its valuation match industry leaders, it is time for me to reduce equity exposure and take profits in non-taxable accounts.</li>\n</ul>\n<p><b>Stock Price Action - Carver Bank</b></p>\n<p>Having been in the banking industry 41 years, I thought I saw everything until this past week.</p>\n<p>Check out two price charts for Carver Bancorp, Inc. (CARV). On July 7th, this $676 million New York City bank closed around $10 a share. By July 9th, the stock jumped to over $40 a share before closing the day at $26.50, up 21% for the day and 141% for the week.</p>\n<p>Year-to-date Carver is up 308% after ending 2020 at $6.49 a share.</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/86748046ac35874a5689436bbe62a34b\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"377\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p>\n<p>What's the Story?</p>\n<p>The story is there is no story.</p>\n<p>At least not a compelling one for investors.</p>\n<p>According to www.thestreet.com, the catalyst for Carver's climb was asubreddit called r/carvstock that described Carver as \"blasting up\" and \"$CARV to the moon\" as two reasons to buy shares in this this small bank with 3.468 million shares.</p>\n<p><b>Carver Since 1994</b></p>\n<p>The moon is 238,855 miles from earth which is about as far as Carver's stock price has fallen since 2003 when it peaked at $397.50 compared to $26.50 at market close on July 9.</p>\n<p><b>A Rare \"Triple F\" Bank</b></p>\n<p>Regular readers of my articles know that I focus on banks.</p>\n<p>As a rule, I write about great banks and deliberately avoid writing about poor performers. Life is too short to own a bank that cannot produce a consistent and durable return on equity that exceeds its cost of capital.</p>\n<p>While I would prefer to not write about underperforming banks that persistently fail to achieve returns sufficient to cover their cost of capital, I need to make an exception with Carver given its crazy recent price action.</p>\n<p>Carver's soaring stock price may be telling a much bigger story than what meets the eye. We may be seeing evidence of what happens to a high-flying market when an industry's habitually worst performers see their valuations inflate five times over historic average.</p>\n<p>In my database of 274 banks that have traded publicly since 2004, Carver is one of only three banks to earn a \"Triple F\" for Risk-Adjusted Return on Equity over 16 years, 10 years, and 5 years. To qualify for this distinction, a bank must be among the bottom 5% of all banks in Risk-Adjusted Return on Equity for all three timeframes.</p>\n<p>Here is a chart reflecting FDIC data showing the quarterly Net Income after Taxes and Return on Equity for Carver since 2003. During the past year it has lost $3 million, past 10 years $28 million, and since 2003, $38 million. The bank's average Return on Equity since 2003 is -3.7%, and for the past ten years it has an average Return on Equity of -4.6%. Profitability has not improved during the past year or for the quarter ending March 31, 2021. During the past decade the bank has paid no taxes; in fact, it shows $26,000 in net refunds during this time.</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/baef357c501228f4a509573678ff45af\" tg-width=\"556\" tg-height=\"323\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p>\n<p>Net Interest Margin trends are unfavorable. Net Interest Margin is shrinking as Yields have declined at a faster rate than the improvement in Cost of Funds. Net Interest Margin as of quarter ending March 31, 2021, is 78 basis points below the average since 2003. The big drop is driven by a 166 basis point decline in the Yield of its assets.</p>\n<p>The bank's Efficiency Ratio is improving but remains among the worst among all US banks. See the orange line in the chart below. A principal drag on the poor Efficiency Ratio is the bank's Non-Interest Expenses (blue line) which remain unfavorably elevated in comparison to peers.</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8ea34d130fdc70914245f355c5e43623\" tg-width=\"555\" tg-height=\"332\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p>\n<p>There is good news as Net Loan Charge-offs have stabilized over the past decade as seen below from the blue line. Before getting too excited about improving credit quality, there are reasons to think the charge-off ratio could go south soon.</p>\n<ul>\n <li>The bank's Texas Ratio hit a five-year high at the end of Q1 2021 (29.6 per Bankregdata)</li>\n <li>The percentage of Non-Performing Assets at the end of the recent quarter was the highest in three years (2.12% per Bankregdata).</li>\n <li>Total delinquent loans were 7.13% on March 31; not good.</li>\n</ul>\n<p>I could go on and review other factors that raise concern (like percentage of brokered deposits, loan mix that tips heavy to non-owner real estate, commercial real estate concentration), but I will stop here.</p>\n<p>Lofty Valuation Not Justified</p>\n<p>As of July 9, CARV is selling at a Price to Tangible Book Value of 3.46, up from 1.34 at the end of June and .65 as of September 30, 2020. These numbers compare to about 2.0 Price to TBV for the industry, a number rich in my view but in line with the 20-year average. On a good day, Carver's fair value is 1.0 to 1.2 Price to TBV. Good times are almost certain to not last for the shareholders who jumped on CARV this past week; a reversion to the historic average valuation seems inevitable.</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/7e94e76b99ac2f0ca0f0f3f7669ec338\" tg-width=\"553\" tg-height=\"332\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p>\n<p>Carver's 3rd Largest Shareholder Sells</p>\n<p>Carver’s third largest shareholder knows that the bank's days of lofty valuations are temporary. On July 8 he filed anSEC reportshowing he no longer owns any CARV shares. AJune SEC filingindicated he owned 153,438 shares, equivalent to about 5% of the company.</p>\n<p><b>Risk Tolerance, Final Thoughts</b></p>\n<p>My favorite macro-charts flash market valuation warnings:</p>\n<ul>\n <li>Market Cap to GDP (Buffett's preferred market valuation chart)</li>\n <li>S&P 500 dividend yield/earnings yield</li>\n <li>Shiller CAPE ratio</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Each investor needs to draw his or her own conclusion about their appetite for risk in today's lofty market. Individual equity selection and portfolio construction require extra due diligence when stock indices consistently reach new highs.</p>\n<p>Specific to Carver, the risk of an imminent collapse in valuation appears high. Of course, it is remotely possible that Carver is on the brink of a major announcement that has leaked into the market, but that is a dubious proposition. Even a merger would not produce a valuation close to where Carver ended the day on July 9.</p>\n<p>As for me, I do not want to exaggerate the influence of one small bank on my tolerance for risk, but at the same time, when viewed across the landscape of record and near-record market valuations, Carver Bank's nutty recent jump in price is one more factor forcing me to ask if the market is about to run out of gas?</p>\n<p>It has been a great run since March of last year. I plan to cash in some chips this week in my non-taxable accounts and prepare for a correction that may or may not occur later this year.</p>","source":"seekingalpha","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Carver Bancorp: Looking For Evidence Of Market Top? This May Be It</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nCarver Bancorp: Looking For Evidence Of Market Top? This May Be It\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-07-13 16:19 GMT+8 <a href=https://seekingalpha.com/article/4438815-carver-bancorp-this-may-be-evidence-of-market-top><strong>seekingalpha</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Summary\n\nIn four decades of banking, I have never seen anything as looney as this: A “Triple F” bank soared 141% during the past week and 308% YTD.\nKnowing a good thing when he sees it, the third ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4438815-carver-bancorp-this-may-be-evidence-of-market-top\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"CARV":"卡弗储蓄"},"source_url":"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4438815-carver-bancorp-this-may-be-evidence-of-market-top","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/5a36db9d73b4222bc376d24ccc48c8a4","article_id":"1129519319","content_text":"Summary\n\nIn four decades of banking, I have never seen anything as looney as this: A “Triple F” bank soared 141% during the past week and 308% YTD.\nKnowing a good thing when he sees it, the third largest shareholder sold all his shares last week in this marginally unprofitable bank.\nWhen the stock prices of the market’s least profitable companies act weird and big shareholders prudently exit large positions, we may be seeing evidence of a market top.\nRecord-high market valuations have spooked me for a while.\nWhen a perennially underperforming bank sees its valuation match industry leaders, it is time for me to reduce equity exposure and take profits in non-taxable accounts.\n\nStock Price Action - Carver Bank\nHaving been in the banking industry 41 years, I thought I saw everything until this past week.\nCheck out two price charts for Carver Bancorp, Inc. (CARV). On July 7th, this $676 million New York City bank closed around $10 a share. By July 9th, the stock jumped to over $40 a share before closing the day at $26.50, up 21% for the day and 141% for the week.\nYear-to-date Carver is up 308% after ending 2020 at $6.49 a share.\n\nWhat's the Story?\nThe story is there is no story.\nAt least not a compelling one for investors.\nAccording to www.thestreet.com, the catalyst for Carver's climb was asubreddit called r/carvstock that described Carver as \"blasting up\" and \"$CARV to the moon\" as two reasons to buy shares in this this small bank with 3.468 million shares.\nCarver Since 1994\nThe moon is 238,855 miles from earth which is about as far as Carver's stock price has fallen since 2003 when it peaked at $397.50 compared to $26.50 at market close on July 9.\nA Rare \"Triple F\" Bank\nRegular readers of my articles know that I focus on banks.\nAs a rule, I write about great banks and deliberately avoid writing about poor performers. Life is too short to own a bank that cannot produce a consistent and durable return on equity that exceeds its cost of capital.\nWhile I would prefer to not write about underperforming banks that persistently fail to achieve returns sufficient to cover their cost of capital, I need to make an exception with Carver given its crazy recent price action.\nCarver's soaring stock price may be telling a much bigger story than what meets the eye. We may be seeing evidence of what happens to a high-flying market when an industry's habitually worst performers see their valuations inflate five times over historic average.\nIn my database of 274 banks that have traded publicly since 2004, Carver is one of only three banks to earn a \"Triple F\" for Risk-Adjusted Return on Equity over 16 years, 10 years, and 5 years. To qualify for this distinction, a bank must be among the bottom 5% of all banks in Risk-Adjusted Return on Equity for all three timeframes.\nHere is a chart reflecting FDIC data showing the quarterly Net Income after Taxes and Return on Equity for Carver since 2003. During the past year it has lost $3 million, past 10 years $28 million, and since 2003, $38 million. The bank's average Return on Equity since 2003 is -3.7%, and for the past ten years it has an average Return on Equity of -4.6%. Profitability has not improved during the past year or for the quarter ending March 31, 2021. During the past decade the bank has paid no taxes; in fact, it shows $26,000 in net refunds during this time.\n\nNet Interest Margin trends are unfavorable. Net Interest Margin is shrinking as Yields have declined at a faster rate than the improvement in Cost of Funds. Net Interest Margin as of quarter ending March 31, 2021, is 78 basis points below the average since 2003. The big drop is driven by a 166 basis point decline in the Yield of its assets.\nThe bank's Efficiency Ratio is improving but remains among the worst among all US banks. See the orange line in the chart below. A principal drag on the poor Efficiency Ratio is the bank's Non-Interest Expenses (blue line) which remain unfavorably elevated in comparison to peers.\n\nThere is good news as Net Loan Charge-offs have stabilized over the past decade as seen below from the blue line. Before getting too excited about improving credit quality, there are reasons to think the charge-off ratio could go south soon.\n\nThe bank's Texas Ratio hit a five-year high at the end of Q1 2021 (29.6 per Bankregdata)\nThe percentage of Non-Performing Assets at the end of the recent quarter was the highest in three years (2.12% per Bankregdata).\nTotal delinquent loans were 7.13% on March 31; not good.\n\nI could go on and review other factors that raise concern (like percentage of brokered deposits, loan mix that tips heavy to non-owner real estate, commercial real estate concentration), but I will stop here.\nLofty Valuation Not Justified\nAs of July 9, CARV is selling at a Price to Tangible Book Value of 3.46, up from 1.34 at the end of June and .65 as of September 30, 2020. These numbers compare to about 2.0 Price to TBV for the industry, a number rich in my view but in line with the 20-year average. On a good day, Carver's fair value is 1.0 to 1.2 Price to TBV. Good times are almost certain to not last for the shareholders who jumped on CARV this past week; a reversion to the historic average valuation seems inevitable.\n\nCarver's 3rd Largest Shareholder Sells\nCarver’s third largest shareholder knows that the bank's days of lofty valuations are temporary. On July 8 he filed anSEC reportshowing he no longer owns any CARV shares. AJune SEC filingindicated he owned 153,438 shares, equivalent to about 5% of the company.\nRisk Tolerance, Final Thoughts\nMy favorite macro-charts flash market valuation warnings:\n\nMarket Cap to GDP (Buffett's preferred market valuation chart)\nS&P 500 dividend yield/earnings yield\nShiller CAPE ratio\n\nEach investor needs to draw his or her own conclusion about their appetite for risk in today's lofty market. Individual equity selection and portfolio construction require extra due diligence when stock indices consistently reach new highs.\nSpecific to Carver, the risk of an imminent collapse in valuation appears high. Of course, it is remotely possible that Carver is on the brink of a major announcement that has leaked into the market, but that is a dubious proposition. Even a merger would not produce a valuation close to where Carver ended the day on July 9.\nAs for me, I do not want to exaggerate the influence of one small bank on my tolerance for risk, but at the same time, when viewed across the landscape of record and near-record market valuations, Carver Bank's nutty recent jump in price is one more factor forcing me to ask if the market is about to run out of gas?\nIt has been a great run since March of last year. I plan to cash in some chips this week in my non-taxable accounts and prepare for a correction that may or may not occur later this year.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":393,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":142461595,"gmtCreate":1626169024617,"gmtModify":1703754713042,"author":{"id":"4088158579984400","authorId":"4088158579984400","name":"BotaKal","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b639ab2e7f1ad569f0a031ac725a4d7e","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"4088158579984400","idStr":"4088158579984400"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Goes BRRRRRRRR","listText":"Goes BRRRRRRRR","text":"Goes BRRRRRRRR","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/142461595","repostId":"2150580297","repostType":2,"repost":{"id":"2150580297","kind":"highlight","pubTimestamp":1626098100,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/2150580297?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-07-12 21:55","market":"us","language":"en","title":"8 Lies That Have Fueled the AMC Entertainment Pump-and-Dump Scheme","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2150580297","media":"Motley Fool","summary":"Misinformation is the basis for the bulk of AMC's rally.","content":"<p>There's arguably been no hotter stock on the planet in 2021 than movie theater chain <b>AMC Entertainment </b>(NYSE:AMC). It's gone from teetering on the brink of bankruptcy in early January to being valued at $23 billion, as of business close on July 7.</p>\n<p>At the heart of this rally are AMC's passionate army of retail investors, collectively known as \"apes\" -- an homage to <i>Rise of the Planet of the Apes</i>, where leader Caesar infers that apes are stronger together. This might sound like a feel-good story whereby retail is finally exacting its revenge on Wall Street, but the reality is that AMC has become a battleground pump-and-dump scheme driven higher almost entirely by the misinformation and lies spread by its retail investors.</p>\n<p>While I've previously covered some aspects of the misinformation campaign used as the foundation for the rally in AMC's stock, below are the eight most pervasive lies that have fueled this pump-and-dump scheme.</p>\n<h2>Lie No. 1: Hedge fund short-selling bankrupts companies</h2>\n<p>The whopper of all lies exchanged on message boards and via YouTube is the idea that hedge fund short-selling is somehow responsible for bankrupting businesses.</p>\n<p>The reality is that the operating performance of a company determines whether or not it thrives or goes under. There are plenty of companies whose share prices are under $1 that aren't bankrupt, and there are companies with share prices north of $1 that ultimately file for bankruptcy protection. Investors who choose to buy or short-sell stock are simply betting on an outcome. They don't control or influence how well or poorly the underlying business performs.</p>\n<p>Put another way, if I buy $1 billion worth of <b>Apple</b> stock tomorrow, I might help lift its share price, but I've not improved its sales or profit potential <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE\">one</a> iota. Likewise, if I short-sell Apple's stock tomorrow, I haven't hurt its sales potential or profitability at all. Why would this hypothetical scenario be any different with AMC? Hint: It's not.</p>\n<h2>Lie No. 2: Shorts have to cover</h2>\n<p>Another dose of misinformation from AMC's apes is that short sellers of the stock have to cover. Specifically, apes are implying that there's some level of urgency here and that the disorder from excessive covering will lead to the \"mother of all short squeezes.\"</p>\n<p>The truth is that short-sellers \"have to cover\" as much as apes \"have\" to sell their position. In other words, short-sellers can cover their position at their leisure.</p>\n<p>What's more, hedge fund assets under management jumped to $4.07 trillion in June 2021, according to BarclayHedge. For short-covering to be disorderly, a massive wave of margin calls would need to come into play. Since the vast majority of hedge funds are diversified, and they have well over $4 trillion in assets in their sails, the chance of a margin call wave forcing short covering is virtually nonexistent.</p>\n<h2>Lie No. 3: The short squeeze is coming/around the corner</h2>\n<p>Just as they teach every salesperson, creating a sense of urgency with customers (i.e., potential new investors) is important. Apes are constantly hyping the idea that a short squeeze is imminent, or at worst right around the corner. Unfortunately, it's been five months since this ongoing claim began making its rounds, and there's nothing these retail folks can say to substantiate it.</p>\n<p>Aside from an institutional investor/hedge fund margin call wave being <i>highly</i> unlikely, history has also showed that short squeeze candidates have a poor track record of success. Earlier this year, I looked at the trailing three-month returns of 114 stocks with short interest above 20% and a market cap of at least $300 million. Only 9 of 114 stocks had gained 10% or more, while 94 of 114 had a negative three-month return.</p>\n<p>Apes need fresh capital to keep this pump-and-dump scheme going, but the data clearly shows that short squeezes rarely pay off.</p>\n<h2>Lie No. 4: Fundamentals don't matter</h2>\n<p>AMC's retail investors are also quick to dismiss anything having to do with concrete fundamental data. Whether it's the company's operating performance, industry ticket-sale trends, or AMC's balance sheet, they'll proudly proclaim it as FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) and remind you this isn't a fundamental play. They do this because AMC's operating performance and balance sheet are nothing short of a horror movie, and they damage the misinformation campaign being put forward on social media and YouTube.</p>\n<p>I'll let you in on an investing secret that tenured investors know: Fundamentals always matter. Purposefully telling new investors to ignore fundamentals is like telling a used car buyer not to inspect the engine and just trust that everything is OK.</p>\n<p>For instance, social media was buzzing about <b>Washington Prime Group</b>'s short squeeze potential over the weekend of June 12 and 13. The company filed for bankruptcy protection late Sunday night (June 13), halving investors' stakes the following morning. The engine (fundamentals) drives the car; not the other way around.</p>\n<h2>Lie No. 5: Hedge funds control the mainstream media</h2>\n<p>AMC's apes need to create the impression that anything negative said about their company's stock on television, radio, the internet, or print can't possibly be true, and telling the lie that hedge funds control the mainstream media (MSM) is the easiest way to accomplish that task. Again, this pump-and-dump scam needs fresh capital to keep moving higher, therefore presenting the media as evil is an easy way to try to rally new investors to the retail cause.</p>\n<p>But, as is all-too-common with the ape agenda, it's devoid of fact.</p>\n<p>It just so happens that Harvard University provided a painstakingly thorough look at MSM ownership for 176 of the most influential media companies/outlets in May 2021. The findings? Only five of the 176 outlets are controlled or majority-controlled by private hedge funds. Apes simply hate hearing bad things said about AMC and will go to any lengths necessary to obfuscate those facts, including lying about MSM.</p>\n<h2>Lie No. 6: \"You're obviously short\"</h2>\n<p>To build on the previous point, AMC's impassioned retail investors will also claim inherent ownership biases in the anchors, guests, authors, and so on, who rail against their stock. This is necessary to help recruit fresh capital to their cause by trying to create an \"us vs. them\" mentality.</p>\n<p>To offer an example, I've personally been told on social media many dozens of times that I'm \"obviously short\" or \"clearly losing a lot of money\" because of the journalistic position I've taken on AMC. While I can't speak for any other company, I can proudly claim that my stock holdings are public information, and they're updated daily if I make a move. To boot, article disclosures state any positions I, and my company, have for any stock mentioned. This <i>includes</i> short positions, as well as any options ownership. The icing on the cake is that I also publicly announce my trading activity on <b><a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/TWTR\">Twitter</a></b>.</p>\n<p>Despite this transparent information, apes constantly and falsely insinuate a financial interest when none exists.</p>\n<h2>Lie No. 7: BlackRock and Vanguard buying AMC stock is bullish</h2>\n<p>This is <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a> I find particularly amusing, because apes are more than willing to welcome institutional investors with open arms <i>if</i> they happen to own shares of AMC.</p>\n<p>Retail investors regularly use <b>BlackRock</b>'s and Vanguard's ownership of AMC stock as a reason to promote optimism. However, this tells only a fraction of the real story. BlackRock and Vanguard are two of the largest institutional investment firms in the country, based on assets under management. As of their mid-May 13F filings, which detailed their holdings for the first quarter, BlackRock had close to 5,000 positions, with Vanguard chiming in with more than 4,000 positions. During Q1, BlackRock and Vanguard added to more than 3,900 and 3,200 of these stakes, respectively.</p>\n<p>Put another way, BlackRock and Vanguard have so many product offerings that they have a stake in virtually every stock listed in an index. Saying that BlackRock and Vanguard buying AMC is bullish is akin to saying you bought shares of <b>Ford</b> stock because you like red paint.</p>\n<p>As a percentage of shares outstanding, hedge fund <i>and</i> overall institutional ownership in AMC fell during the first quarter from the sequential fourth quarter. That's a fact!</p>\n<h2>Lie No. 8: Apes saved AMC</h2>\n<p>The eighth and final mammoth lie that AMC's retail investors rely on to coerce community compliance and bring in fresh capital is the idea that apes saved AMC. These folks genuinely believe that by purchasing shares of AMC they've somehow saved the company from going bankrupt.</p>\n<p>As I discussed with the first lie on this list, buying and selling stock has absolutely no influence on how well or poorly a company performs from an operating standpoint. Even if apes were to buy every share in existence, AMC could still go bankrupt if its operating performance doesn't improve. And based on its 2027 bonds trading well below par, bondholders aren't convinced that things will improve enough to save the company.</p>\n<p>What really saves companies from bankruptcy is their operating performance and the actions of management. In AMC's case, selling hundreds of millions of shares of stock an issuing high-interest debt last year and in early January gave it the financial lifeline needed to survive the worst of the pandemic. That's not apes saving AMC; that's the company's actions extending a lifeline.</p>\n<p>If anything, apes are purposely harming AMC by tying the hands of CEO Adam Aron and shooting down any additional opportunities for the company to raise capital and shore up its balance sheet.</p>\n<p>If this list of lies shows anything, it's the lengths apes will go to manipulate AMC's share price. However, history is very clear that all pump-and-dump schemes end in disaster. That's not FUD. It's a practical guarantee.</p>\n<p>Caveat emptor.</p>","source":"fool_stock","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>8 Lies That Have Fueled the AMC Entertainment Pump-and-Dump Scheme</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\n8 Lies That Have Fueled the AMC Entertainment Pump-and-Dump Scheme\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-07-12 21:55 GMT+8 <a href=https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/07/12/8-lies-that-fueled-the-amc-pump-and-dump-scheme/><strong>Motley Fool</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>There's arguably been no hotter stock on the planet in 2021 than movie theater chain AMC Entertainment (NYSE:AMC). It's gone from teetering on the brink of bankruptcy in early January to being valued ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/07/12/8-lies-that-fueled-the-amc-pump-and-dump-scheme/\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"AMC":"AMC院线"},"source_url":"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/07/12/8-lies-that-fueled-the-amc-pump-and-dump-scheme/","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2150580297","content_text":"There's arguably been no hotter stock on the planet in 2021 than movie theater chain AMC Entertainment (NYSE:AMC). It's gone from teetering on the brink of bankruptcy in early January to being valued at $23 billion, as of business close on July 7.\nAt the heart of this rally are AMC's passionate army of retail investors, collectively known as \"apes\" -- an homage to Rise of the Planet of the Apes, where leader Caesar infers that apes are stronger together. This might sound like a feel-good story whereby retail is finally exacting its revenge on Wall Street, but the reality is that AMC has become a battleground pump-and-dump scheme driven higher almost entirely by the misinformation and lies spread by its retail investors.\nWhile I've previously covered some aspects of the misinformation campaign used as the foundation for the rally in AMC's stock, below are the eight most pervasive lies that have fueled this pump-and-dump scheme.\nLie No. 1: Hedge fund short-selling bankrupts companies\nThe whopper of all lies exchanged on message boards and via YouTube is the idea that hedge fund short-selling is somehow responsible for bankrupting businesses.\nThe reality is that the operating performance of a company determines whether or not it thrives or goes under. There are plenty of companies whose share prices are under $1 that aren't bankrupt, and there are companies with share prices north of $1 that ultimately file for bankruptcy protection. Investors who choose to buy or short-sell stock are simply betting on an outcome. They don't control or influence how well or poorly the underlying business performs.\nPut another way, if I buy $1 billion worth of Apple stock tomorrow, I might help lift its share price, but I've not improved its sales or profit potential one iota. Likewise, if I short-sell Apple's stock tomorrow, I haven't hurt its sales potential or profitability at all. Why would this hypothetical scenario be any different with AMC? Hint: It's not.\nLie No. 2: Shorts have to cover\nAnother dose of misinformation from AMC's apes is that short sellers of the stock have to cover. Specifically, apes are implying that there's some level of urgency here and that the disorder from excessive covering will lead to the \"mother of all short squeezes.\"\nThe truth is that short-sellers \"have to cover\" as much as apes \"have\" to sell their position. In other words, short-sellers can cover their position at their leisure.\nWhat's more, hedge fund assets under management jumped to $4.07 trillion in June 2021, according to BarclayHedge. For short-covering to be disorderly, a massive wave of margin calls would need to come into play. Since the vast majority of hedge funds are diversified, and they have well over $4 trillion in assets in their sails, the chance of a margin call wave forcing short covering is virtually nonexistent.\nLie No. 3: The short squeeze is coming/around the corner\nJust as they teach every salesperson, creating a sense of urgency with customers (i.e., potential new investors) is important. Apes are constantly hyping the idea that a short squeeze is imminent, or at worst right around the corner. Unfortunately, it's been five months since this ongoing claim began making its rounds, and there's nothing these retail folks can say to substantiate it.\nAside from an institutional investor/hedge fund margin call wave being highly unlikely, history has also showed that short squeeze candidates have a poor track record of success. Earlier this year, I looked at the trailing three-month returns of 114 stocks with short interest above 20% and a market cap of at least $300 million. Only 9 of 114 stocks had gained 10% or more, while 94 of 114 had a negative three-month return.\nApes need fresh capital to keep this pump-and-dump scheme going, but the data clearly shows that short squeezes rarely pay off.\nLie No. 4: Fundamentals don't matter\nAMC's retail investors are also quick to dismiss anything having to do with concrete fundamental data. Whether it's the company's operating performance, industry ticket-sale trends, or AMC's balance sheet, they'll proudly proclaim it as FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) and remind you this isn't a fundamental play. They do this because AMC's operating performance and balance sheet are nothing short of a horror movie, and they damage the misinformation campaign being put forward on social media and YouTube.\nI'll let you in on an investing secret that tenured investors know: Fundamentals always matter. Purposefully telling new investors to ignore fundamentals is like telling a used car buyer not to inspect the engine and just trust that everything is OK.\nFor instance, social media was buzzing about Washington Prime Group's short squeeze potential over the weekend of June 12 and 13. The company filed for bankruptcy protection late Sunday night (June 13), halving investors' stakes the following morning. The engine (fundamentals) drives the car; not the other way around.\nLie No. 5: Hedge funds control the mainstream media\nAMC's apes need to create the impression that anything negative said about their company's stock on television, radio, the internet, or print can't possibly be true, and telling the lie that hedge funds control the mainstream media (MSM) is the easiest way to accomplish that task. Again, this pump-and-dump scam needs fresh capital to keep moving higher, therefore presenting the media as evil is an easy way to try to rally new investors to the retail cause.\nBut, as is all-too-common with the ape agenda, it's devoid of fact.\nIt just so happens that Harvard University provided a painstakingly thorough look at MSM ownership for 176 of the most influential media companies/outlets in May 2021. The findings? Only five of the 176 outlets are controlled or majority-controlled by private hedge funds. Apes simply hate hearing bad things said about AMC and will go to any lengths necessary to obfuscate those facts, including lying about MSM.\nLie No. 6: \"You're obviously short\"\nTo build on the previous point, AMC's impassioned retail investors will also claim inherent ownership biases in the anchors, guests, authors, and so on, who rail against their stock. This is necessary to help recruit fresh capital to their cause by trying to create an \"us vs. them\" mentality.\nTo offer an example, I've personally been told on social media many dozens of times that I'm \"obviously short\" or \"clearly losing a lot of money\" because of the journalistic position I've taken on AMC. While I can't speak for any other company, I can proudly claim that my stock holdings are public information, and they're updated daily if I make a move. To boot, article disclosures state any positions I, and my company, have for any stock mentioned. This includes short positions, as well as any options ownership. The icing on the cake is that I also publicly announce my trading activity on Twitter.\nDespite this transparent information, apes constantly and falsely insinuate a financial interest when none exists.\nLie No. 7: BlackRock and Vanguard buying AMC stock is bullish\nThis is one I find particularly amusing, because apes are more than willing to welcome institutional investors with open arms if they happen to own shares of AMC.\nRetail investors regularly use BlackRock's and Vanguard's ownership of AMC stock as a reason to promote optimism. However, this tells only a fraction of the real story. BlackRock and Vanguard are two of the largest institutional investment firms in the country, based on assets under management. As of their mid-May 13F filings, which detailed their holdings for the first quarter, BlackRock had close to 5,000 positions, with Vanguard chiming in with more than 4,000 positions. During Q1, BlackRock and Vanguard added to more than 3,900 and 3,200 of these stakes, respectively.\nPut another way, BlackRock and Vanguard have so many product offerings that they have a stake in virtually every stock listed in an index. Saying that BlackRock and Vanguard buying AMC is bullish is akin to saying you bought shares of Ford stock because you like red paint.\nAs a percentage of shares outstanding, hedge fund and overall institutional ownership in AMC fell during the first quarter from the sequential fourth quarter. That's a fact!\nLie No. 8: Apes saved AMC\nThe eighth and final mammoth lie that AMC's retail investors rely on to coerce community compliance and bring in fresh capital is the idea that apes saved AMC. These folks genuinely believe that by purchasing shares of AMC they've somehow saved the company from going bankrupt.\nAs I discussed with the first lie on this list, buying and selling stock has absolutely no influence on how well or poorly a company performs from an operating standpoint. Even if apes were to buy every share in existence, AMC could still go bankrupt if its operating performance doesn't improve. And based on its 2027 bonds trading well below par, bondholders aren't convinced that things will improve enough to save the company.\nWhat really saves companies from bankruptcy is their operating performance and the actions of management. In AMC's case, selling hundreds of millions of shares of stock an issuing high-interest debt last year and in early January gave it the financial lifeline needed to survive the worst of the pandemic. That's not apes saving AMC; that's the company's actions extending a lifeline.\nIf anything, apes are purposely harming AMC by tying the hands of CEO Adam Aron and shooting down any additional opportunities for the company to raise capital and shore up its balance sheet.\nIf this list of lies shows anything, it's the lengths apes will go to manipulate AMC's share price. However, history is very clear that all pump-and-dump schemes end in disaster. That's not FUD. It's a practical guarantee.\nCaveat emptor.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":316,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"lives":[]}
