Originally Posted by :
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.
Originally Posted by :
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.
Originally Posted by :
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.
Originally Posted by :
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.
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. [Reply]
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. [Reply]
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. [Reply]
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. [Reply]
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:
Originally Posted by :
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! [Reply]
I do like to mumble **** your name when I look at it. But that's just for fun and I'm like that. I discovered Kucoin Lending and that's going to fix the issue. And quite frankly, that capability is the best thing I've ever discovered.
Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
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:
Originally Posted by MTG#10:
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.
Nope. This isn't dodging anything. I'm engaging you on a reddit thread that you posted that you felt was particularly meaningful. Let's go through it together and I want you to explain to me what I think of as nonsense and obvious misdirection/red herring you place high value on.
It seems to me that you might be moving the goalposts if you're not willing to engage in a serious discussion despite making many bold claims. [Reply]
Okay, I can't take anything you say in regards to the stock market seriously again. Deuces.
The difference is I've traded with both Vanguard and Blackrock thousands of times in my life when they were clients of mine. I know how they operate and who they are and their sophistication level. I'm able to gauge what they're doing based on the type of accounts they are and could've answered that without the article link. But I figured without an internet link, you wouldn't believe it as it wouldn't represent the high quality 'DD' you are accustomed to.
Next time I'll search for some random guy on reddit and link to that. Noted. [Reply]
Look dude, you're the one who popped in to shit on the Reddit link I posted. Debunk what the guy found and explain what all of that information he stumbled onto really means or stfu.
And there are a hell of a lot more players on that list than Vanguard and Blackrock but you missed the point anyway...its not the total amount of shares all of those firms own, it's the significant increase of their buys AFTER the price shot up. The Motley Fool (appropriately named) article you linked wasn't even in the ballpark of how many shares those two own, Vanguard is now in over 43 mil and Blackrock almost 27 mil..that's a hell of a lot more than Fool's claims of 5k and 4k. But nice try champ. [Reply]
Originally Posted by MTG#10:
Look dude, you're the one who popped in to shit on the Reddit link I posted. Debunk what the guy found and explain what all of that information he stumbled onto really means or stfu.
And there are a hell of a lot more players on that list than Vanguard and Blackrock but you missed the point anyway...its not the total amount of shares all of those firms own, it's the significant increase of their buys AFTER the price shot up. The Motley Fool (appropriately named) article you linked wasn't even in the ballpark of how many shares those two own, Vanguard is now in over 43 mil and Blackrock almost 27 mil..that's a hell of a lot more than Fool's claims of 5k and 4k. But nice try champ.
Okay.
First, 'champ,' your reading comprehension is embarrassing for an allegedly critically-thinking adult. The Fool's claim of 5k and 4k were the numbers of stocks these two institutions owned. It said nothing of their positions in any of the stocks you traffic in. But, good on you for spending time to read through a short blurb of information I provided you and not being able to grasp its simple meaning. It doesn't bode well for your ability to decipher the more complex topics we're going to move onto.
Blackrock and Vanguard have a number of funds and managed accounts that track indices. Do you know what happens when the price of these shares goes up relative to other stocks in the index? Hint: they become a larger part of the index. Then, funds like Blackrock and Vanguard buy more of the shares to reduce tracking error versus the index.
So, there's no mystery or surprise why those funds would be buying. It says nothing of their value or lack thererof.
As for the reddit thread, it's difficult for me to get past the first part:
Originally Posted by :
Do this infuriate you? It Should....
Why would placing a bid ~$160 below the market infuriate you? Why would that influence the price of a security?
If you told me that someone was placing a very large order to sell one of your meme stocks right around the close at a price just slightly higher than the market in order to scare people into selling, I can see why you might feel that has meaning. But an order far away from the market has no bearing on the price of the security. If you feel different, explain why.
Second, MEMX. It was created by a consortium of banks who were tired of being overcharged by the larger exchanges (NYSE, etc). I realize you think that banks are cabal and everything they do is evil, but sometimes they do things just to save money. They created this exchange with that idea in mind over the longer run.
This guy looks at the exchange codes and singles out 'z' to be 'most disturbing.' Why? Because it REMOVES LIQUIDITY. Sounds scary, right? Wrong. Any market order 'removes liquidity' because it's immediately executed. Non-market orders add liquidity. If you spent time looking at the fee schedule, it's what you'd think. They charge fees when you remove liquidity (i.e., price taking) and rebate you when you add liquidity by showing prices. They are attempting to encourage market participants to show bids and offers and even paying to do so to develop critical mass. This is how competitive markets with start-ups work in all forms of life.
This 'z' code specifically though mentions that it both removes liquidity and is routed to another market. Does that sound scary? I'm not 100% sure how this exchange is set up, but you'll notice that this 'z' order where you essentially buy/sell at market and it's routed to another exchange incurs a cost that is 6x more expensive (which is *a lot*) than one where you buy/sell at market on MEMX. My guess is that's meant to encourage the members to trade on MEMX and not to use it to route the order to other exchanges, and thus the very punitive rate.
So, knowing all that, are you infuriated? Or is it more likely this guy posted a bunch of stuff without connecting dots or really understanding what he was doing and you just took him at his word that you should be infuriated rather than doing your own DD and realizing what he meant?
I don't care if you champion meme stocks. I don't care if you make or lose money in meme stocks. People make money in bad trades all the time just as people lose money in great trades - it's the nature of the market.
I only care that you continue to post the same stuff over and over again about hedge fund manipulation as if you have any clue what you're talking about. [Reply]
