22 Comments
User's avatar
Joe Bob 47's avatar

one of the best articles on the insanity of markets I have read in some time.

Expand full comment
Simon Lin's avatar

Thanks for the great article

Expand full comment
ChickemLittle's avatar

Mr. Doomberg, please write AMC Part Deux. The chickens are waiting.

Expand full comment
Ignorant Amateur's avatar

Great piece.

It’s just that a typo makes a small liability: "It’s current assets" should rather be "Its current assets".

Expand full comment
Jon Horvath's avatar

great analysis!

Expand full comment
Faraz's avatar

I'm not sure you understand the apes, and that makes sense: after all, you're a chicken.

This is an attempt to corner a market with the hopes of attracting shorts who will be unable to cover.

Sure there's people who talk about fundamentals, waging wars in memory of '08, blah, blah, bah. But the OG apes like to peddle that the fundamental investment thesis is manufacturing a short squeeze through buying every dip and holding. See @ReviewDork on YouTube/Twitter as chief evangelizer of this strategy: to him, fundamentals do not matter.

The $100K figure is born of this logic as well... how do you lure enough shorts that will be forced to cover at any price? How do you convince people to HODL till that moment?

Given the street is thirsty to short this sucker (I already did, and I'm out for now...), I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes overshorted once again, and the apes momentarily gain the upper hand. What makes me wary of staying short this down to $10 is how much of the float retail holds (60%+?!??!) and that the price has stayed at $30 despite the insane issuance.

Expand full comment
lordprime2's avatar

Exceptionally well written piece

Expand full comment
Andrew MacLean-Finney's avatar

In the 5 minutes it took me to read this, AMC lost $13,000.

Expand full comment
jackem's avatar

Another keeper from the chicken! Just one more data point required: presumably the Reddit crowd bought in because they are betting on a mother of all short squeezes, and not on any “Stupid Way” calculation. Has the blowout in newly issued stock weakened their case?

Expand full comment
Trenticles's avatar

👍

Expand full comment
coddiwomple's avatar

WOW - this was very good one and easy to understand

Expand full comment
goeojr's avatar

547M loss from operations should be last *six months. good article nonetheless….

Expand full comment
Doomberg's avatar

Great catch thank you! I hate that cash flow statements are ytd by convention. It doesn’t change their anticipated runway, as nobody files with zero cash.

Expand full comment
Doomberg's avatar

I fixed it in the article.

Expand full comment
Darren McCammon's avatar

No mention of a plethora of blockbuster movie's waiting in the wings to be released?

No mention of a potential Roaring 20's type of bounceback?

No mention of Net Debt and when debt is actually due?

No mention of EPR and other landlords potentially taking a % of receipts instead of just straight cash as rent?

No mention of the production companies needing theatres to survive in order to make their own business models work and thus likely to kick in if necessary?

No mention of AMC taking market share as other theatres fail before they do?

This is just a hit piece that chooses to ignore what is inconvenient to its thesis. The stock is way overpriced, the 2025 bonds are a deal with more than a 16% YTM.

Expand full comment
Joe Bob 47's avatar

there is a reason that 16% (or whatever it is today) is paid out. the level of risk is batshit lunatic level.

Expand full comment
Doomberg's avatar

I’ll assume you aren’t trolling and I’ll give you a thoughtful answer. In order: The box office numbers speak for themselves. Roaring 20s? Ok. Sure. There are better ways to express that belief than AMC. I mentioned the debt and the cash balance - that’s what net debt is. I also mentioned the cash burn and accurately portrayed their runway ahead. Your story on rent for AMC strengthens my case - it doesn’t weaken it. No production company has kicked in so far and it’s not like Aron didn’t beg them. The other theater operators are in much stronger shape than AMC, even now. I see you agree the stock is way overpriced. With respect to bonds, that’s a pretty intelligent market and I would hesitate to assume easy yield just sits around waiting for people who get riled up over a substack piece to waltz in and take everyone’s money. Good luck and thanks for reading!

Expand full comment
Neo Patel's avatar

@doomberg... please stop engaging these extreme views. I tried doing that with a believer on a thread for Lordstown and the dude is still thinking that company has the best shot at producing an electric truck (this is after Ford announced their electric F-150).

Expand full comment
Darren McCammon's avatar

I'm absolutely not trolling. I have real money invested and thus especially want to hear those with differing opinions. Sometimes they are right and it saves me money.

Expand full comment
Mr Risk's avatar

Nice takedown....AMC is posterchild, but who else deserves it, let me check other stocks Melvin Capital shorted...sounds like a useful proxy

Expand full comment
PE Bird's avatar

Pity that Blockbuster didn't make it to the Super Stonks Market Era, the apes would've taken it to the moon.

Expand full comment
Joe Bob 47's avatar

nope. to Mars.

Expand full comment