저자: ThomasJames · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: 영상은 시타델 켄 그리핀의 고빈도거래 유동성 주장과 UBS의 크레디트스위스 인수 손실, 그리고 AMC 숏 스퀴즈 기대를 다루며, AMC 역액면분할을 긍정적으로 본다. [켄 그리핀·고빈도거래] 그리핀은 고빈도거래의 유동성 공급이 도덕적이라고 답했다고 전해진다. 발언자는 이를 가짜 유동성을 만들어 헤지펀드의 공매도를 키우는 조작으로 본다. [UBS·크레디트스위스] 기사에 따르면 UBS는 크레디트스위스 구제 인수로 약 170억 달러 손실을 예상한다. 인수가는 34억 달러 수준이라 발언자는 약 200억 달러 규모의 유해 부채 지급이 있을 것으로 추측한다. 유해 부채가 GME·AMC 숏 포지션이나 총수익스와프라면 공매도 측에 불리하다고 본다. [S&P500·시장 리스크] 2022년 하락 후 2023년 일부 회복했으나, 수 주 내 급락하면 헤지펀드 청산이 이어져 AMC·GME 스퀴즈가 거의 즉시 발생할 것이라 주장한다. 미국 부채한도 미증액·디폴트 가능성을 이 시나리오의 위험 요인으로 언급한다. [AMC·역액면분할] 발언자는 XCLA(5/15 역분할 후 하루 150% 상승, 2.96달러→약 8달러)와 Milan(역분할 후 대주 수수료 7.2%→324%, 최고 399%)을 근거로 제시한다. AMC 대주 수수료가 최고 약 5만%까지 오르면 숏 포지션이 연 수수료를 감당 못 해 즉시 청산될 것이라 주장한다. 역분할은 유통 주식수를 줄여 스퀴즈에 유리하다고 본다. [반대 의견 반박] 에이미(Amy)와 헨리(Henley)의 역분할 반대 논리가 모순된다고 비판한다. 두 사람이 스퀴즈를 믿지 않으면서 역분할은 나쁘다고 말한다는 것이다. 발언자는 이들을 매도를 유도하는 세력으로 본다. 아담 아론이 4억 주를 신규 발행하면 스퀴즈에 나쁘다고 덧붙인다. [출연자 전망] 영상 내 개인적 전망 요약: AMC 숏 스퀴즈 발생 가능성을 강하게 주장하며, 시장 급락 시 스퀴즈가 즉시 일어날 것이라 본다.
다듬은 글
today I want to talk about how Ken Griffin somehow justifies a legal shorting as if he's doing a good deed as if what he's doing is somehow good for the overall Market I also want to talk about how UBS is having an absolute nightmare with their Credit Suisse acquisition losses maybe they've got tons of toxic liabilities they need to deal with nazim tweet is saying one of the guests at Yale School of Management asks Ken Griffin from Citadel Securities if high frequency trading and liquidity creation is moral his answer is absolutely moral profits and how they are made in high frequency trading I don't know what to think of it um I get that it's legal but is it moral so it's absolutely moral because the trading activity that we do in the market increases liquidity and by increasing liquidity you bring down the cost of capital for Corporate America I'll give you a very simple thing to think about mutual fund managers institutional money managers when they think about how big of a position to own in a company they think about days of traded volume I'll own three days of traded volume I'll own five days of trade Divine it's used as a proxy a shorthand for how difficult it is to get into or out of a position and everybody thinks about liquidity and values liquidity so today Ken Griffin is trying to justify what he does by creating fake liquidity as good for the markets because it means that hedge funds can get in and out of positions easier but effectively Ken Griffin is just facilitating manipulation and synthetic short setting obviously by Ken Griffin creating this fake liquidity he's allowing these hedge funds to take a larger short position than they'd usually be able to usually a hedge fund may be able to short say 10 million shares of a stock but obviously with Ken Griffin's fake liquidity and his fake shares they can now show up say a hundred million shares of stock it's still only taking them say three days to get in and out of a trade as they're still only shorting three layers of volume but the only difference is that now they're shorting tons of Ken Griffin's fake shares it's effectively an infinite feedback loop for synthetic shorts so hedge fund wants to take a short position but they can only take a three-day short position which may only be 5 million shares Ken Griffin comes in to create some fake liquidity and this hedge fund abuses it by shorting every single share they possibly can to remedy that Ken Griffin goes and creates even more fake shares to satisfy that liquidity requirement and the hedge fund once again abuses it by shorting even more of Ken Griffin's fake shares that way they still may only be shorting three or five days of liquidity but now all of a sudden that liquidity and that total short position is even bigger than the company's flow what started as an idea to make trading easier has been very quickly manipulated into destroying American companies obviously Ken Griffin tries to see this as a good thing by saying he's making trading easier for these hedge funds which overall I think is a really deluded view because he knows that it is being abused but he just simply doesn't care because he's making tons and tons of money but someone that isn't making tons of money is UBS and their nightmare acquisition of Credit Suisse Genevieve tweeted saying UBS is taking a 17 billion dollar hit on its acquisition of Credit Suisse but how can that be possible because they only spent 3.4 billion to acquire credit Suites the math doesn't work this article from CNBC says obviously that UBS expects a 17 billion dollar hit from the Credit Suisse rescue and flags some Hasty due diligence clearly they've paid 3.4 billion dollars for Credit Suisse which must have significantly larger toxic liabilities obviously something around the region of 20 billion dollars clearly UBS are expecting some kind of 20 billion dollar payment to obviously pay out these toxic liabilities and toxic short positions while that's obviously bad for Credit Suisse to take a giant 17 billion dollar hit that's Obviously good but whoever holds these toxic liabilities that's going to receive 20 billion dollars in return and again if those toxic liabilities are the suspected GameStop and AMC short positions or Total return swaps that's brilliant news for us and speaking of giant squeezers and shorts being screwed could you imagine the stench that would come as a result of this happening in the S P 500 obviously we know the S P 500 was moving downwards all the way through 2022 but has seen somewhat of a recovery through 2023 so far but could you imagine a stench and the amount out of hedge funds going bankrupt if over the space of only a few short weeks the S P 500 took an absolute nosedive we'd surely see hedge funds being liquidated and going bankrupt not just in their tens not just in their hundreds but in their thousands this would obviously cause tons of hedge funds to have to bail out of their long positions dumping the market further and closing out of all of their short positions too I think in this scenario you'd see an AMC and GameStop squeeze pretty much guaranteed pretty much instantaneously and it's actually scary enough is something that could indeed happen if the US does not increase the debt ceiling and ends up defaulting on its debt now I also wanted to quickly recap two recent reverse splits both in xcla and in Mallon as well now xcla performed the reverse split back here on Monday the 15th but yesterday alone saw over a 150 percent gain in One Singular trading Day post split the stock ran from around 2.96 or from around 3 dollars all the way to its peak at nearly eight dollars per share now that's actually a fairly decent post reverse split game again now looking at Milan we can also see the cost of borrow feed per month has been absolutely skyrocketing since they're ever split pre-split back here on the 8th of May the fee was only around 7.2 percent to borrow money shares but since the reverse split that cost to worry if B has now skyrocketed to 324 the cost to buy a maximum at its highest hit 399 if post reverse split the AMC cost to borrow rate jumps by 50 times which is the increase from around seven percent up to around 350 percent that would be a huge huge deal for AMC shorts the cost to borrow fee for AMC already ranges between 100 close to a thousand percent but could you imagine if that jumped to its highest at around 50 000 fifty thousand percent is the same as the shorts paying 500 times they their total short position just in annual borrowing fees that is obviously something the shorts would not be able to handle on a fairly small one billion dollar short position that's 500 billion dollars in annual shorting fees if that did happen these shorts would pretty much have to instantaneously close out of their short positions as they would not be able to afford the borrowing fees now finally I just wanted to touch on those people that are against the reverse split and explain how their logic doesn't really make sense now we know that Amy is against the reverse split but it's also tweeted saying that she's a retail investor and someone that does not get mixed up into squeeze Place therefore she's obviously against the reverse split and also does not believe that AMC will squeeze she said there was a time to trade rubbish stock Source squeezable stocks and that time was in 2020 and 2021.
she said do I think the system is perfect nope however I think fraudulent social media furus that spread misinformation are far more dangerous so therefore clearly Amy's against the reverse split and also does not think that AMC will squeeze and she said the time for trading AMC was back in 2020 or 2021 as Henley's tweeted he said imagine saying that you believe in the mother of all short squeezes and that the shorts are trapped but then also turning around and saying that when fundamentals go positive the shorts will just leave at low low prices and he had it by saying but how can they leave at low low prices if the mother of all short squeezes had them trapped it really confuses me how people are against a reverse split and say the reverse split is bad for the squeeze but then in the next sentence say they don't believe in the squeeze that the squeeze will never happen and the shorts will just simply cover on the chip and that is why I still believe that those people that are against the reverse split are just chills trying to convince you to sell your shares and that's why as I explained in my previous video the reverse split is not inherently bad it's actually good for the squeeze as it reduces the flow the only thing that would be bad for the squeeze is if Adam Aaron decides to issue 400 million new AMC shares which supposedly he said he's not going to do but 'll put a new video cheers
Comments 0