Investing megathread extravaganza

[DaFace]

A place to talk about investing stuff.

[Rain Man]

The nice thing about investing debates is that a winner is eventually declared from the numbers.

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by MTG#10

Please dont discuss a topic without doing your research on it. The overall manipulation is in a LOT more places than Reddit. Google it for Christ sakes, I'm not doing the DD for you.

I can't tell if you're just trolling or you actually are this dense, but here the **** goes.

I did do some googling, here's what I found.

https://www.thebalance.com/trading-d...prices-1031026

Why isn't the actual demand shown in the bid/ask?

THAT is why I'm not reading/refuting your dumb**** "DD".

[TwistedChief]

Originally Posted by MTG#10

Still waiting for one of you stock guru doubters to go through that Reddit link and debunk every piece of info that guy found and show why every other piece of damning evidence out there is wrong. I have shit to do now, but I'll eagerly come back tomorrow to see why I've wasted thousands of dollars (even though I've already made thousands being a gullible schmuck).

Okay, I'll bite.

Rather than going through and debunking "every piece of info," I'd just like to ask you some questions since you seem to take so much from this. Just basic stuff for starters and let's have some discussion. My expertise is fixed income, particularly interest rates, but I'll go down this rabbit hole because I've seen markets in all shapes and colors and seen several shades of manipulation in my day.

What significance does a bid ~$160 below the market have? Does that change what anyone thinks about the stock? Similarly, by the looks of his ladder, there's a 5,000 offer from IEXG, several thousand points above market. What nefarious purpose explains that order and does that do anything to manipulate the stock? And why are his alarm bells not ringing with that offer?

Why does the category 'z' have significance here? Was this order designated as a 'z'? Do you know what "removing liquidity" actually means? How does an order that far away from market remove liquidity?

I look forward to your response tomorrow when you have more time. You have my attention. Let's learn together.

[TwistedChief]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

The nice thing about investing debates is that a winner is eventually declared from the numbers.

I want to be very clear: I am not in any investing debate. I don't follow or care about these stocks. They play no role in my life and never will. I care about people here who continue to make baseless claims based on internet spam that only serves to rope others into it based on their incessant cheerleading rather than their genuine due diligence.

[lewdog]

Originally Posted by MTG#10

Everyone said Roaring Kitty's DD's were a conspiracy too until hedge funds had to bail each other out of bankruptcies in late Jan/early Feb because of GME. Nobody thought AMC would/could go from 5-70 in a matter of months either. Damn all those gullible schmucks who made thousands and even millions of dollars!

Still waiting for one of you stock guru doubters to go through that Reddit link and debunk every piece of info that guy found and show why every other piece of damning evidence out there is wrong. I have shit to do now, but I'll eagerly come back tomorrow to see why I've wasted thousands of dollars (even though I've already made thousands being a gullible schmuck).

I told you why. The market isn’t fair and just because something should happen, doesn’t mean it won’t. If no one decides to investigate, those synthetic shares could just magically vanish.

Good luck.

[eDave]

Originally Posted by Hog's Gone Fishin

Jesus Christ ,I'm lost with your expertise. I'm thinking with what I've learned is that you just buy low and sell high.

tl/dr: Dark Pool utilization does not affect market pricing.

[eDave]

Originally Posted by TwistedChief

I want to be very clear: I am not in any investing debate. I don't follow or care about these stocks. They play no role in my life and never will. I care about people here who continue to make baseless claims based on internet spam that only serves to rope others into it based on their incessant cheerleading rather than their genuine due diligence.

So very true. But there are also a lot of guys with real stuff. In the Wallstreet bets, AMC, GME, superstonk reddits it's a witch hunt. If you are not posting rockets and apes, you are a shill. I can't last 2 minutes in there.

One nice thing about the cryptocurrency sub is that you are rewarded with moon coins for content. I've gained quite a few moons just posting. I think they are worth about .30 each at the moment.

[lewdog]

Originally Posted by TwistedChief

I want to be very clear: I am not in any investing debate. I don't follow or care about these stocks. They play no role in my life and never will. I care about people here who continue to make baseless claims based on internet spam that only serves to rope others into it based on their incessant cheerleading rather than their genuine due diligence.

I love the phrase DD everyone uses now.

Even when they haven’t found anything good or hold onto some meaningless PR possibility.

[eDave]

Originally Posted by lewdog

I love the phrase DD everyone uses now.

Even when they haven’t found anything good or hold onto some meaningless PR possibility.

I use TA. As best I can, which is mostly grooving to the flow.

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by lewdog

I love the phrase DD everyone uses now.

Even when they haven’t found anything good or hold onto some meaningless PR possibility.

I love that the term DD comes from the forum that draws dicks on chart patterns and calls it DD.



The fact that these dudes use DD while totally disregarding the term DUE diligence is ****ing wild. Like, can't make this shit up ironic.

[MTG#10]

Originally Posted by DaFace

And why did it go from 5-70?

Hint: it had nothing to do with hedge funds.

Ahh **** it, my shit can wait. No, you are 100% absolutely wrong but I'd love to hear your take on it.

And since you stock guru doubters are too damn lazy to do any research yourself I'll post some recent articles for you.

Jim Simons' RenTech fund tripled its AMC stake last quarter - and slashed its Tesla holdings by 75%

Renaissance Technologies, one of the biggest and best-performing hedge funds in history, more than tripled its stake in AMC Entertainment and slashed its Tesla holdings by 75% in the second quarter.
RenTech, founded by the former NSA codebreaker and MIT math professor Jim Simons, held about 516,000 AMC shares at the end of March this year. It raised its bet on the cinema chain - a firm favorite of meme-stock traders - to 1.8 million shares last quarter, regulatory filings show.
The value of RenTech's AMC stake ballooned almost 20-fold to $103 million in the three months to June 30. That reflected the fund's share purchases, as well as the movie-theater group's stock price jumping almost 500% to $57.
RenTech may have warmed to AMC last quarter, but it cooled on Tesla. It cut its position in Elon Musk's electric-vehicle company from about 827,000 shares to 204,000 shares, reducing the value of its stake from $553 million to $138 million.

AMC Stock: Why One Famous Investor Just Tripled His Bet on AMC Entertainment

Renaissance Technologies, one of the largest hedge funds in the U.S., is really banking on the success of AMC, much to the chagrin of institutional short sellers. Jim Simons’ investing giant held over 500,000 shares of AMC in March, just as the stock’s short squeeze saga was getting started. Today, though, things have changed drastically. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings show Simons’ group upped its position in AMC to over 1.8 million shares.

To do this, RenTech had to trim some fat from its portfolio. Maybe even more surprising than the huge increase in its AMC stock staking is where it dropped some of the weight; the hedge fund cut its holdings in Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) down 75%.

All in all, the news is helping AMC to bulk itself up yet again. The stock finished out the day with a near 7% gain, although it traded far below its average trading volume of over 174 million.

RenTech is all about losing money, I'm sure that's why they tripled their AMC stake recently.


Swiss National Bank Scooped Up AMC Stock. It Also Bought Uber and Lyft

Switzerland’s central bank recently made some major changes in its U.S.-listed investments.

The Swiss National Bank more than quadrupled its stake in AMC Entertainment Holdings (ticker: AMC), bought more Uber Technologies (UBER) shares, initiated an investment in Lyft (LYFT) stock, and cut back on its McDonald’s (MCD) investment. The bank disclosed the stock trades in a form it filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The bank said it doesn’t comment on individual positions of its assets. As of Dec. 31, the Swiss National Bank had total assets of $1.1 trillion.

The bank bought 637,100 additional AMC shares in the second quarter to increase its investment in the movie-theater chain to 832,741 shares.

I'm sure they just like to gamble, dumb Swiss just don't know any better.


A Giant Fund Scooped Up AMC Stock, Bought More Tilray and Carnival

New Jersey’s underfunded state pension recently made major changes in its U.S.-traded stock investments.

State of New Jersey Common Pension Fund D, the pension’s largest fund by assets, initiated a position in AMC Entertainment Holdings (ticker: AMC) stock, increased investments in marijuana producer Tilray (TLRY) and cruise giant Carnival (CCL), and slashed its investment in Chinese internet giant Alibaba Group Holding (BABA) in the second quarter.

AMC is way overpriced and is destined to tank so why would they do this? Dumbasses.


Top 10 Owners of AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc and Their Recent Buy/Sell Activity




Why would all of those hedge funds/investor firms recently increase their positions by so many shares at $30+ per of a dying company? Because they're all no-names that nobody has heard of and don't know what they're doing, that's why.

[MTG#10]

Originally Posted by TwistedChief

Okay, I'll bite.

Rather than going through and debunking "every piece of info," I'd just like to ask you some questions since you seem to take so much from this. Just basic stuff for starters and let's have some discussion. My expertise is fixed income, particularly interest rates, but I'll go down this rabbit hole because I've seen markets in all shapes and colors and seen several shades of manipulation in my day.

What significance does a bid ~$160 below the market have? Does that change what anyone thinks about the stock? Similarly, by the looks of his ladder, there's a 5,000 offer from IEXG, several thousand points above market. What nefarious purpose explains that order and does that do anything to manipulate the stock? And why are his alarm bells not ringing with that offer?

Why does the category 'z' have significance here? Was this order designated as a 'z'? Do you know what "removing liquidity" actually means? How does an order that far away from market remove liquidity?

I look forward to your response tomorrow when you have more time. You have my attention. Let's learn together.

That's exactly what I was expecting...a question answered with a question. You should be a politician.

Do some research into the dark pool trading of AMC and the ongoing SEC investigation into it. Shits going to hit the fan sooner or later.

[eDave]

YOu might enjoy this MTG. I bought some Doge at .41 based on something you said then the crypto market crashed. Lost over half of that. I finally just said **** it at .21 and pulled it in search of something better, even if it was to put it back into ADA and stake for 5.5% for an eventual gain back to even. Soon afterwards, as per usual, it shot up to .34.

****ing Doge, man. BTW, Elon and Cuban are looking to manipulate that again so there's a short term play there for you.

[MTG#10]

Originally Posted by eDave

YOu might enjoy this MTG. I bought some Doge at .41 based on something you said then the crypto market crashed. Lost over half of that. I finally just said **** it at .21 and pulled it in search of something better, even if it was to put it back into ADA and stake for 5.5% for an eventual gain back to even. Soon afterwards, as per usual, it shot up to .34.

****ing Doge, man. BTW, Elon and Cuban are looking to manipulate that again so there's a short term play there for you.

I was wrong about Coinbase mooning Doge, not denying that. I thought for sure it would help the price out by making it so much easier to trade. But if I've learned anything in crypto its if you are patient your investment will (almost) always come back eventually. I never sold, I'm still in for about a grand at .43 I believe...maybe a bit lower.

[TwistedChief]

Originally Posted by MTG#10

And since you stock guru doubters are too damn lazy to do any research yourself I'll post some recent articles for you.

Renaissance has a number of trend-following strategies that were likely triggered. It's what they do. There is no part of their business that is lauded as a quality assessor of fundamental value.

Vanguard, Blackrock, etc run a number of funds that track the market and have stakes in everything.

Since you enjoy internet links as DD, this was a nice one:

https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/...d-dump-scheme/

Lie No. 7: BlackRock and Vanguard buying AMC stock is bullish
This 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.

Retail 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.

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 Ford stock because you like red paint.

As 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!

MTG 10 likes red paint, everyone! He can also paint by number!