It had extremely high short interest, and likely a significant amount of naked shorting. There was no fundamental data that came out that would result in a 6x increase in market cap / valuation. I have no idea if this is just the beginning or if it's the end.
Another important point - this squeeze has taken place over the course of a week. Closing prices: from May 24:
$13.68, $16.41, $19.56, $26.52, $26.12, $32.04... where will it end today?
A lot of you point to increasing short interest. But given the level of trading activity, it's very possible that these are new shorts, and that existing ones are being closed. Steady or increasing short interest is no indicator of what's going on here, as far as I can see.
AMC is trading a multiple of its float every day now. That level of trading activity means you can have shorts covering, while have new shorts open positions.
It's ok if you disagree with me. I'm just expressing an opinion, I'm not advocating for anyone to take any action on it. Just explaining how one trader sees the action. And like I said, I have no idea if this is A squeeze, THE squeeze or maybe just the beginning. Who knows?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Something is rotten in these highly shorted names.
The more the general public learns about short selling abuses, short sale mismarking, FTDs and the complete lack of regulatory enforcement and oversight, the angrier they're getting.
There is an informed and fascinating discussion and level of research taking place in a decentralized way on social media. I don't think the SEC & FINRA have any understanding of the public disgust and upheaval, and if they think it'll eventually go away they're sorely mistaken.
This is building on the disgust of the bailouts and lack of criminal charges in the wake of the GFC. Now they're seeing companies being shorted and attacked, and retail investors are organizing and fighting back.
It provided an excellent historical overview of efforts in AI, & why the current advances we have been witnessing are not really are impressive as they may seem on the surface
I found the paper to be very approachable & would recommend it even to those who aren't steeped in AI.
There may be some confirmation bias here, as I've written before about the fallacy of focusing on system accuracy and veneration of deep learning: urvin.ai/when-artificia…
Deep learning has become the bedrock of AI, & frankly has become the hammer that makes most AI scientists think each problem is a nail. As Mitchell points out, this is problematic because deep learning is a limited and brittle technique that has difficulty adapting to real world.
There are some really great points in this writeup from @AlexanderGerko, much of which I agree with. Nearly all retail trading today is internalized by a duopoly whose incentives are not to ensure best execution for retail clients.
This does several things to markets, but one of those things is to take that flow away from lit markets and open competition. Markets should encourage open competition - how is that even controversial? Get retail flow on lit markets.
If Citadel and Virtu are truly providing best execution, they'll still be on the other side of the trade! If they're not, others will step in. Retail brokers SHOULD charge commissions, instead of hiding those costs in securities lending, PFOF and margin interest.