POWGON的个人主页 - 老虎社区

POWGON

POWGON

暂无个人介绍

IP属地：未知

4关注

0粉丝

0主题

0勋章

2021-06-24

Cool

Luminar rose 12% in morning trading<blockquote>Luminar早盘上涨12%</blockquote>

2021-06-24

Too expensive. Can't even think of it. Hahahaha....

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-23

When is the weakest. Hahaha

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-22

Only need to know it should go up. Hahahaha....

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-21

$$$

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-21

Nice

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-20

Politics.... *Shake head

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-19

Hope it is true

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-19

Interesting article

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-06-18

Hm... Another article to say "Stay away"

AMC: Danger Signals For Investors And Speculators<blockquote>AMC：投资者和投机者的危险信号</blockquote>

2021-06-17

Hm... Has been saying for quite some time

Why a crash in meme stocks AMC and GameStop looks more likely now<blockquote>为什么模因股票AMC和游戏驿站现在看起来更有可能崩盘</blockquote>

2021-06-15

Money money money

Quad-Witch Quandary: How Will Friday's $2 Trillion Gamma Expiration Impact Markets<blockquote>四女巫困境：周五2万亿美元伽马到期将如何影响市场</blockquote>

2021-03-05

Bubble?

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-03-04

Sometimes wondering about these numbers game. Do all these people get a proper job match? A retrench person who earn $10k a month previously now earning $1.5k a month. *Think *think

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-03-03

Hope it goes well

抱歉，原内容已删除

2021-03-03

Hope it goes well

抱歉，原内容已删除

去老虎APP查看更多动态

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"userPageInfo":{"id":"3572395270903152","uuid":"3572395270903152","gmtCreate":1609302849741,"gmtModify":1622685756779,"name":"POWGON","pinyin":"powgon","introduction":"","introductionEn":"","signature":"","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0f434116081b7609a6b51e9402a0ae47","hat":null,"hatId":null,"hatName":null,"vip":1,"status":2,"fanSize":0,"headSize":4,"tweetSize":16,"questionSize":0,"limitLevel":999,"accountStatus":4,"level":{"id":1,"name":"萌萌虎","nameTw":"萌萌虎","represent":"呱呱坠地","factor":"评论帖子3次或发布1条主帖（非转发）","iconColor":"3C9E83","bgColor":"A2F1D9"},"themeCounts":0,"badgeCounts":0,"badges":[],"moderator":false,"superModerator":false,"manageSymbols":null,"badgeLevel":null,"boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"favoriteSize":0,"symbols":null,"coverImage":null,"realNameVerified":null,"userBadges":[{"badgeId":"e50ce593bb40487ebfb542ca54f6a561-3","templateUuid":"e50ce593bb40487ebfb542ca54f6a561","name":"偶像虎友","description":"加入老虎社区1500天","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8b40ae7da5bf081a1c84df14bf9e6367","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f160eceddd7c284a8e1136557615cfad","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/11792805c468334a9b31c39f95a41c6a","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLinkType":null,"redirectLink":null,"redirectLinkValidityFrom":null,"redirectLinkValidityTo":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2026.04.22","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1001,"isScarce":0,"effectConfig":null,"effectEnabled":0,"plateImgUrl":null,"plateColors":null,"validityTo":null,"wearingSort":0},{"badgeId":"228c86a078844d74991fff2b7ab2428d-1","templateUuid":"228c86a078844d74991fff2b7ab2428d","name":"投资经理虎","description":"证券账户累计交易金额达到10万美元","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c8dfc27c1ee0e25db1c93e9d0b641101","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f43908c142f8a33c78f5bdf0e2897488","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/82165ff19cb8a786e8919f92acee5213","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLinkType":null,"redirectLink":null,"redirectLinkValidityFrom":null,"redirectLinkValidityTo":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2025.02.21","exceedPercentage":"60.05%","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1101,"isScarce":0,"effectConfig":null,"effectEnabled":0,"plateImgUrl":null,"plateColors":null,"validityTo":null,"wearingSort":0},{"badgeId":"35ec162348d5460f88c959321e554969-1","templateUuid":"35ec162348d5460f88c959321e554969","name":"精英交易员","description":"证券或期货账户累计交易次数达到30次","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ab0f87127c854ce3191a752d57b46edc","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c9835ce48b8c8743566d344ac7a7ba8c","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/76754b53ce7a90019f132c1d2fbc698f","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLinkType":null,"redirectLink":null,"redirectLinkValidityFrom":null,"redirectLinkValidityTo":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2022.05.10","exceedPercentage":"60.13%","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100,"isScarce":0,"effectConfig":null,"effectEnabled":0,"plateImgUrl":null,"plateColors":null,"validityTo":null,"wearingSort":0},{"badgeId":"976c19eed35f4cd78f17501c2e99ef37-1","templateUuid":"976c19eed35f4cd78f17501c2e99ef37","name":"博闻投资者","description":"累计交易超过10只正股","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e74cc24115c4fbae6154ec1b1041bf47","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d48265cbfd97c57f9048db29f22227b0","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/76c6d6898b073c77e1c537ebe9ac1c57","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLinkType":null,"redirectLink":null,"redirectLinkValidityFrom":null,"redirectLinkValidityTo":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.21","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1102,"isScarce":0,"effectConfig":null,"effectEnabled":0,"plateImgUrl":null,"plateColors":null,"validityTo":null,"wearingSort":0},{"badgeId":"518b5610c3e8410da5cfad115e4b0f5a-1","templateUuid":"518b5610c3e8410da5cfad115e4b0f5a","name":"实盘交易者","description":"完成一笔实盘交易","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2e08a1cc2087a1de93402c2c290fa65b","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4504a6397ce1137932d56e5f4ce27166","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4b22c79415b4cd6e3d8ebc4a0fa32604","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLinkType":null,"redirectLink":null,"redirectLinkValidityFrom":null,"redirectLinkValidityTo":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.21","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100,"isScarce":0,"effectConfig":null,"effectEnabled":0,"plateImgUrl":null,"plateColors":null,"validityTo":null,"wearingSort":0}],"userBadgeCount":5,"currentWearingBadge":null,"individualDisplayBadges":null,"crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"location":"未知","starInvestorFollowerNum":0,"starInvestorFlag":false,"starInvestorOrderShareNum":0,"subscribeStarInvestorNum":0,"ror":null,"winRationPercentage":null,"showRor":false,"investmentPhilosophy":null,"starInvestorSubscribeFlag":false},"baikeInfo":{},"tab":"post","tweets":[{"id":126147897,"gmtCreate":1624549028519,"gmtModify":1634004487104,"author":{"id":"3572395270903152","authorId":"3572395270903152","name":"POWGON","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0f434116081b7609a6b51e9402a0ae47","crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3572395270903152","idStr":"3572395270903152"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Cool","listText":"Cool","text":"Cool","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/126147897","repostId":"1143833110","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1143833110","kind":"news","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"Providing stock market headlines, business news, financials and earnings ","home_visible":1,"media_name":"Tiger Newspress","id":"1079075236","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8274c5b9d4c2852bfb1c4d6ce16c68ba"},"pubTimestamp":1624542572,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1143833110?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-24 21:49","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Luminar rose 12% in morning trading<blockquote>Luminar早盘上涨12%</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1143833110","media":"Tiger Newspress","summary":"(June 24) Luminar rose 12% in morning trading.\n\nLuminar Technologies CFO Tom Fennimore says the comp","content":"<p>(June 24)&nbsp;Luminar rose 12% in morning trading.</p><p><blockquote>（6月24日）Luminar早盘上涨12%。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c35c21d86e92f27ee5143c2e0fc56192\" tg-width=\"658\" tg-height=\"438\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> Luminar Technologies&nbsp;CFO&nbsp;Tom Fennimore says the company targets becoming profitable in 2024.</p><p><blockquote>Luminar Technologies首席财务官Tom Fennimore表示，该公司的目标是在2024年实现盈利。</blockquote></p><p> In an interview with<i>The Wall Street Journal</i>, Fennimore reiterates some of the company's full-year goals, weeks after sample versions of its lidar sensors went into production at a contract manufacturing facility in Mexico.</p><p><blockquote>在接受采访时<i>华尔街日报</i>在其激光雷达传感器的样品版本在墨西哥的一家合同制造工厂投入生产几周后，Fennimore重申了该公司的一些全年目标。</blockquote></p><p> Fennimore says the company aims to end the year with more cash than at the beginning. The company had $485.7M in liquidity as of December 31, 2020. As of March 31, liquidity stood at $610.3M.</p><p><blockquote>芬尼莫尔表示，该公司的目标是在年底拥有比年初更多的现金。截至2020年12月31日，该公司拥有4.857亿美元的流动性。截至3月31日，流动性为6.103亿美元。</blockquote></p><p> The CFO says the extra cash will cushion the company against any potential \"bump on the road.\"</p><p><blockquote>首席财务官表示，额外的现金将缓冲公司免受任何潜在的“道路上的颠簸”。</blockquote></p><p> Luminar's existing automaker relationships include Volvo, Daimler, and SAIC.</p><p><blockquote>Luminar现有的汽车制造商关系包括沃尔沃、戴姆勒和上汽集团。</blockquote></p><p></p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Luminar rose 12% in morning trading<blockquote>Luminar早盘上涨12%</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nLuminar rose 12% in morning trading<blockquote>Luminar早盘上涨12%</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<a class=\"head\" href=\"https://laohu8.com/wemedia/1079075236\">\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://static.tigerbbs.com/8274c5b9d4c2852bfb1c4d6ce16c68ba);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\n<p class=\"h-name\">Tiger Newspress </p>\n<p class=\"h-time smaller\">2021-06-24 21:49</p>\n</div>\n</a>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>(June 24)&nbsp;Luminar rose 12% in morning trading.</p><p><blockquote>（6月24日）Luminar早盘上涨12%。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c35c21d86e92f27ee5143c2e0fc56192\" tg-width=\"658\" tg-height=\"438\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> Luminar Technologies&nbsp;CFO&nbsp;Tom Fennimore says the company targets becoming profitable in 2024.</p><p><blockquote>Luminar Technologies首席财务官Tom Fennimore表示，该公司的目标是在2024年实现盈利。</blockquote></p><p> In an interview with<i>The Wall Street Journal</i>, Fennimore reiterates some of the company's full-year goals, weeks after sample versions of its lidar sensors went into production at a contract manufacturing facility in Mexico.</p><p><blockquote>在接受采访时<i>华尔街日报</i>在其激光雷达传感器的样品版本在墨西哥的一家合同制造工厂投入生产几周后，Fennimore重申了该公司的一些全年目标。</blockquote></p><p> Fennimore says the company aims to end the year with more cash than at the beginning. The company had $485.7M in liquidity as of December 31, 2020. As of March 31, liquidity stood at $610.3M.</p><p><blockquote>芬尼莫尔表示，该公司的目标是在年底拥有比年初更多的现金。截至2020年12月31日，该公司拥有4.857亿美元的流动性。截至3月31日，流动性为6.103亿美元。</blockquote></p><p> The CFO says the extra cash will cushion the company against any potential \"bump on the road.\"</p><p><blockquote>首席财务官表示，额外的现金将缓冲公司免受任何潜在的“道路上的颠簸”。</blockquote></p><p> Luminar's existing automaker relationships include Volvo, Daimler, and SAIC.</p><p><blockquote>Luminar现有的汽车制造商关系包括沃尔沃、戴姆勒和上汽集团。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1143833110","content_text":"(June 24) Luminar rose 12% in morning trading.\n\nLuminar Technologies CFO Tom Fennimore says the company targets becoming profitable in 2024.\nIn an interview withThe Wall Street Journal, Fennimore reiterates some of the company's full-year goals, weeks after sample versions of its lidar sensors went into production at a contract manufacturing facility in Mexico.\nFennimore says the company aims to end the year with more cash than at the beginning. The company had $485.7M in liquidity as of December 31, 2020. As of March 31, liquidity stood at $610.3M.\nThe CFO says the extra cash will cushion the company against any potential \"bump on the road.\"\nLuminar's existing automaker relationships include Volvo, Daimler, and SAIC.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"LAZR":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2206,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":126146418,"gmtCreate":1624548902634,"gmtModify":1634004488902,"author":{"id":"3572395270903152","authorId":"3572395270903152","name":"POWGON","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0f434116081b7609a6b51e9402a0ae47","crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3572395270903152","idStr":"3572395270903152"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Too expensive. Can't even think of it. Hahahaha....","listText":"Too expensive. Can't even think of it. Hahahaha....","text":"Too expensive. Can't even think of it. Hahahaha....","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/126146418","repostId":"1162964404","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":3381,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":121622098,"gmtCreate":1624462703014,"gmtModify":1634005738778,"author":{"id":"3572395270903152","authorId":"3572395270903152","name":"POWGON","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0f434116081b7609a6b51e9402a0ae47","crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3572395270903152","idStr":"3572395270903152"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"When is the weakest. Hahaha","listText":"When is the weakest. Hahaha","text":"When is the weakest. Hahaha","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":5,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/121622098","repostId":"1104807513","repostType":2,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2463,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":129236268,"gmtCreate":1624373359654,"gmtModify":1634007067862,"author":{"id":"3572395270903152","authorId":"3572395270903152","name":"POWGON","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0f434116081b7609a6b51e9402a0ae47","crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3572395270903152","idStr":"3572395270903152"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Only need to know it should go up. Hahahaha....","listText":"Only need to know it should go up. Hahahaha....","text":"Only need to know it should go up. Hahahaha....","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/129236268","repostId":"2145475031","repostType":2,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1733,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":120062960,"gmtCreate":1624288724050,"gmtModify":1634008311746,"author":{"id":"3572395270903152","authorId":"3572395270903152","name":"POWGON","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0f434116081b7609a6b51e9402a0ae47","crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3572395270903152","idStr":"3572395270903152"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"$$$","listText":"$$$","text":"$$$","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/120062960","repostId":"2145008251","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2221,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":167712618,"gmtCreate":1624284634834,"gmtModify":1634008399231,"author":{"id":"3572395270903152","authorId":"3572395270903152","name":"POWGON","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0f434116081b7609a6b51e9402a0ae47","crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3572395270903152","idStr":"3572395270903152"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/167712618","repostId":"1171968125","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1765,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":164053891,"gmtCreate":1624162298813,"gmtModify":1634009972722,"author":{"id":"3572395270903152","authorId":"3572395270903152","name":"POWGON","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0f434116081b7609a6b51e9402a0ae47","crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3572395270903152","idStr":"3572395270903152"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Politics.... *Shake head","listText":"Politics.... *Shake head","text":"Politics.... *Shake head","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/164053891","repostId":"2144064357","repostType":2,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":3367,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":165301885,"gmtCreate":1624092060947,"gmtModify":1631884324082,"author":{"id":"3572395270903152","authorId":"3572395270903152","name":"POWGON","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0f434116081b7609a6b51e9402a0ae47","crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3572395270903152","idStr":"3572395270903152"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Hope it is true","listText":"Hope it is true","text":"Hope it is true","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":5,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/165301885","repostId":"1113942445","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1762,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":165303386,"gmtCreate":1624091939745,"gmtModify":1634010765839,"author":{"id":"3572395270903152","authorId":"3572395270903152","name":"POWGON","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0f434116081b7609a6b51e9402a0ae47","crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3572395270903152","idStr":"3572395270903152"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Interesting article","listText":"Interesting article","text":"Interesting article","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/165303386","repostId":"2086756215","repostType":2,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1459,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":166738662,"gmtCreate":1624024754856,"gmtModify":1634023937411,"author":{"id":"3572395270903152","authorId":"3572395270903152","name":"POWGON","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0f434116081b7609a6b51e9402a0ae47","crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3572395270903152","idStr":"3572395270903152"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Hm... Another article to say \"Stay away\"","listText":"Hm... Another article to say \"Stay away\"","text":"Hm... Another article to say \"Stay away\"","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/166738662","repostId":"1131310015","repostType":2,"repost":{"id":"1131310015","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1623987347,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1131310015?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-18 11:35","market":"us","language":"en","title":"AMC: Danger Signals For Investors And Speculators<blockquote>AMC：投资者和投机者的危险信号</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1131310015","media":"seekingalpha","summary":"Summary\n\nI stand on the shoulder of giants to guide you on AMC.\nFor investors, the gravitational pul","content":"<p><b>Summary</b></p><p><blockquote><b>总结</b></blockquote></p><p> <ul>  <li>I stand on the shoulder of giants to guide you on AMC.</li>  <li>For investors, the gravitational pull of no earning prospects provides little support to the stock.</li>  <li>A century-old cautionary tale for speculators counting on a short squeeze.</li>  <li>Sell before the other speculators do.</li> </ul> <p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/dabb985556b9f549dd561bf919495d08\" tg-width=\"768\" tg-height=\"513\"><span>RgStudio/E+ via Getty Images</span></p><p><blockquote><ul><li>我站在巨人的肩膀上，在AMC上指导你。</li><li>对于投资者来说，没有盈利前景的引力对该股几乎没有支撑。</li><li>对于指望轧空的投机者来说，这是一个百年的警示故事。</li><li>在其他投机者之前卖出。</li></ul><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><span>RgStudio/E+来自Getty Images</span></p></blockquote></p><p> What are we to make of the meme stock phenomena? I tookone stab at itwith AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc.(NYSE:AMC)a few weeks ago. I’m back for more, after reading two interesting pieces. As Isaac Newton said in 1676, “<i>If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.</i>” Now I’m no Isaac Newton. For one, I’m far better looking. But like Zeke – a nickname Isaac’s friends probably never used – I too stand on the shoulders of giants. In this case the shoulders of Jason Zweig, a wonderful financial markets writer for<i>The Wall Street Journal</i>, and John Brooks, author of “<i>Business Adventures</i>”, a book recommended by Bill Gates. I will quote liberally from both in this article, then draw the line for you to AMC.</p><p><blockquote>我们如何看待模因股票现象？几周前，我与AMC院线控股公司（纽约证券交易所股票代码：AMC）一起尝试了一下。在读了两篇有趣的文章后，我又回来了。正如艾萨克·牛顿在1676年所说，“<i>如果说我看得更远了一点，那就是站在巨人的肩膀上。</i>“现在我不是艾萨克·牛顿了。首先，我看起来好多了。但就像齐克一样——艾萨克的朋友们可能从未使用过这个昵称——我也站在巨人的肩膀上。在这种情况下，杰森·茨威格（Jason Zweig）是一位出色的金融市场作家<i>华尔街日报</i>，以及约翰·布鲁克斯，《<i>商业冒险</i>》，比尔盖茨推荐的一本书。我将在本文中大量引用两者，然后为您划清界限AMC。</blockquote></p><p> <b>Investor vs. trader vs. speculator</b></p><p><blockquote><b>投资者、交易者、投机者</b></blockquote></p><p> Jason Zweig graphically distinguished between these three types of stock buyers in hisJune 11, 2021<i>Wall Street Journal</i>column:</p><p><blockquote>Jason Zweig在他的2021年6月11日以图形方式区分了这三种类型的股票买家<i>华尔街日报</i>柱：</blockquote></p><p>   “  <i>Whenever you buy any financial asset because you have a hunch or just for kicks, or because somebody famous is hyping the heck out of it, or everybody else seems to be buying it too, you aren’t investing.You’re definitely a trader: someone who has just bought an asset. And you may be a speculator: someone who thinks other people will pay more for it than you did.”“An investor relies on internal sources of return: earnings, income, growth in the value of assets. A speculator counts on external sources of return: primarily whether somebody else will pay more, regardless of fundamental value.”</i>  So why has AMC’s stock price been on a tear? I have one informal data source, namely the 300+ comments on my June 4 AMC article. Earnings, income, growth in the value of assets<i>never</i>came up. What did come up was “short squeeze” and stock charts. So I expect Mr. Zweig would describe AMC’s stock as driven by traders and speculators.</p><p><blockquote>“<i>每当你因为有预感或只是为了好玩而购买任何金融资产，或者因为某个名人正在大肆宣传，或者其他人似乎也在购买它，你就不是在投资。你绝对是一个交易者：刚刚购买了一项资产的人。你可能是一个投机者：认为其他人会比你支付更多的钱。”“投资者依赖内部回报来源：收益、收入、资产价值的增长。投机者依赖外部回报来源：主要是其他人是否会支付更多，而不考虑基本价值。”</i>那么为什么AMC的股价一直在上涨呢？我有一个非正式的数据来源，即我6月4日AMC文章的300多条评论。收益，收入，资产价值的增长<i>没有</i>上来了。出现的是“轧空”和股票图表。因此，我预计茨威格先生会将AMC的股票描述为由交易员和投机者推动的。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Zweig also made me realize that my AMC article left out an earnings forecast. I gave lots of data on historic trends, which only implied a future direction. I correct that omission here.</p><p><blockquote>茨威格先生还让我意识到，我的AMC文章遗漏了盈利预测。我给出了很多关于历史趋势的数据，这些数据只是暗示了未来的方向。我在这里纠正这个遗漏。</blockquote></p><p> <b>A 2022 AMC earnings forecast</b></p><p><blockquote><b>2022年AMC盈利预测</b></blockquote></p><p> I start with the key assumptions:</p><p><blockquote>我从关键假设开始：</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3f5311cb0ff00c046d122c2c84fc3aea\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"168\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>My time frame for reference</i>&nbsp;is 2017 to 2019. Earlier data is less relevant because AMC made a big acquisition in 2016, and 2020 and 2021 data is even less relevant because of COVID.</p><p><blockquote><i>我的参考时间框架</i>是2017年到2019年。早期的数据相关性较低，因为AMC在2016年进行了一项大型收购，而2020年和2021年的数据则因为新冠疫情而相关性更低。</blockquote></p><p> <i>The national box office</i>is the major assumption.My June 4 articleshows that movie attendance has been declining since 2002. What will box office be next year? The steady growth in streaming, both in subscribers and content, certainly is a headwind. And COVID logically should increase the shift from offsite (theater) entertainment to home entertainment, as it has for shopping and working. Holding movie attendance near its ’19 level would be a minor miracle. A 10%, or even a 20%, decline is far more likely. As you can see in the table above, I make 2022 AMC EPS forecasts using all three box office assumptions.</p><p><blockquote><i>全国票房</i>是主要假设。我6月4日的文章显示，自2002年以来，电影上座率一直在下降。明年票房会是多少？流媒体在订户和内容方面的稳定增长无疑是一个阻力。从逻辑上讲，COVID应该增加从场外（剧院）娱乐到家庭娱乐的转变，就像购物和工作一样。保持电影上座率接近19年的水平将是一个小小的奇迹。下降10%，甚至20%的可能性要大得多。如上表所示，我使用所有三种票房假设对2022年AMC每股收益进行预测。</blockquote></p><p> <b><i>AMC market share.</i></b>I assume a share increase from AMC’s ’17-’19 level because some competing theaters must have dropped out because of COVID financial pressures.</p><p><blockquote><b><i>AMC市场份额。</i></b>我假设AMC的份额会比17-19年的水平有所增加，因为一些竞争影院肯定因新冠疫情的财务压力而退出。</blockquote></p><p> <b><i>Admissions gross margin.</i></b>This is the profit from ticket sales less the cost of licensing movies from their producers. I hold AMC steady with ’17-’19, but I can also imagine that movie producers seek better terms because AMC has to bid against a growing pool of streaming services desperate for content.</p><p><blockquote><b><i>招生毛利率。</i></b>这是门票销售的利润减去制片人授权电影的成本。我认为AMC在17-19年保持稳定，但我也可以想象电影制片人会寻求更好的条款，因为AMC必须与越来越多渴望内容的流媒体服务竞标。</blockquote></p><p> <b><i>Food expenses as a percent of sales.</i></b>I carry forward the shockingly low number. AMC, and presumably its peers, take their food and beverage costs and<i>multiply them by 7 in their pricing to us moviegoers.</i>Smuggle in your own Jujifruits and save a bundle. My best financial advice for the year.</p><p><blockquote><b><i>食品费用占销售额的百分比。</i></b>我继承了低得惊人的数字。AMC，大概还有它的同行，承担他们的食品和饮料成本和<i>将它们对美国电影观众的定价乘以7。</i>走私你自己的Jujifruits，省下一捆。我今年最好的理财建议。</blockquote></p><p> <b><i>Food and beverage sales as a percent of ticket prices.</i></b>I assume that AMC’s trend of modest increases continues.</p><p><blockquote><b><i>食品和饮料销售额占票价的百分比。</i></b>我认为AMC小幅上涨的趋势仍在继续。</blockquote></p><p> <b><i>Operating expenses</i></b>are the cost of the theater personnel, utilities, etc. I assume the gradual uptrend in the operating expense ratio continues, for two reasons. One, these operating expenses are largely fixed, and revenues will be under pressure. Second, it seems logical that the current labor shortage will pressure pay levels for low-end theater jobs.</p><p><blockquote><b><i>营业费用</i></b>是剧院人员、公用事业等的成本。我认为运营费用率的逐步上升趋势仍在继续，原因有二。第一，这些运营费用基本上是固定的，收入将面临压力。其次，当前的劳动力短缺将给低端剧院工作的薪酬水平带来压力，这似乎是合乎逻辑的。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> We’re now ready for my earnings and cash flow models:</p><p><blockquote>我们现在已经为我的盈利和现金流模型做好了准备：</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9b8a5ce8ad10adb3336126cdb0a5e598\" tg-width=\"537\" tg-height=\"497\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> The ’22 forecasts are set by the assumptions above through the “gross profit” line. My overhead expense forecast assumes that AMC is working hard to limit expenses through its challenging times:</p><p><blockquote>22年的预测是根据上述假设通过“毛利润”线设定的。我的管理费用预测假设AMC正在努力限制费用度过充满挑战的时期：</blockquote></p><p> <ul>  <li><i>Depreciation/amortization</i>is a combination of accounting expenses for real estate and acquisitions. Write-downs taken during the pandemic should have reduced these expenses.</li>  <li><i>Interest expense</i>should decline as AMC pays down some debt with the equity it has been raising.</li> </ul> <b>The gravitational pull of earnings</b></p><p><blockquote><ul><li><i>折旧/摊销</i>是房地产和收购的会计费用的组合。疫情期间进行的减记本应减少这些费用。</li><li><i>利息支出</i>随着AMC用其筹集的股权偿还部分债务，这一数字应该会下降。</li></ul><b>盈利的引力</b></blockquote></p><p> We arrive at the bottom line. The best-case scenario I can see for 2022 EPS is roughly breakeven. More likely is a modest loss. Cash flow should be somewhat worse, because the cash capital spending needed by AMC to keep its theaters attractive to a shrinking audience should exceed its non-cash depreciation/amortization expenses. If capital spending is much lower than I forecast, it is probably because AMC management is conceding that it is in a death spiral and wants to milk what cash it can.</p><p><blockquote>我们到达了底线。我能看到的2022年每股收益的最佳情况是大致盈亏平衡。更有可能的是适度的损失。现金流应该会更糟，因为AMC保持影院对不断萎缩的观众的吸引力所需的现金资本支出应该超过其非现金折旧/摊销费用。如果资本支出远低于我的预测，可能是因为AMC管理层承认自己正处于死亡螺旋之中，并希望尽可能榨取现金。</blockquote></p><p> <i>The bottom line - no support for investors.</i>AMC’s book value is negative. It appears incapable of earning any material money post-COVID. Its business is in long-term decline due to technology changes, and its new competitors are monster companies – Netflix, Disney, Comcast, etc. – with huge resources. An investor can only look at AMC’s current $55 stock price and with a shudder say, in the immortal words of<i>Trading Places</i>, “Sell Mortimer, sell!”</p><p><blockquote><i>底线是——不支持投资者。</i>AMC的账面价值为负。在COVID之后，它似乎无法赚取任何物质收入。其业务因技术变革而长期下滑，新的竞争对手是拥有巨大资源的怪兽公司——奈飞、迪士尼、康卡斯特等。投资者只能看着AMC目前55美元的股价，不寒而栗地说，用不朽的话来说<i>交易场所</i>、“卖莫蒂默，卖！”</blockquote></p><p> <b>The speculative play - a short squeeze: A historical cautionary tale</b></p><p><blockquote><b>投机游戏——轧空：历史警示</b></blockquote></p><p> Millennials did not invent the short squeeze. It has been around almost as long financial markets have existed. The book<i>Business Adventures</i>by John Brooks<i>,</i>published way back in 1969, tells a vivid tale of a short squeeze even farther back, in the early 1920s. Literally a century ago. I’m going to quote from the book to suggest how the story ends for speculations with no investor support. So pour yourself some illegal hooch (we’re heading to the Prohibition Era) and read on. This is the story of Clarence Saunders, the founder of Piggly Wiggly Stores, the first supermarket; the Amazon of his day.</p><p><blockquote>千禧一代并没有发明轧空。它几乎和金融市场存在的时间一样长。这本书<i>商业冒险</i>约翰·布鲁克斯<i>,</i>早在1969年就出版了，生动地讲述了20世纪20年代初的空头挤压故事。一个世纪前。我将引用书中的话来说明在没有投资者支持的情况下，投机的故事将如何结束。所以，给自己倒点非法烈酒（我们正走向禁酒令时代），继续读下去。这是第一家超市Piggly Wiggly Stores的创始人克拉伦斯·桑德斯的故事；他那个时代的亚马逊。</blockquote></p><p> Shorts went after Clarence’s stock in 1922, driving it from $50 to below $40. Saunders vowed revenge with a short squeeze. Here are excerpts of Mr. Brooks’ recounting of the story:</p><p><blockquote>1922年，空头追捧克拉伦斯的股票，将其从50美元推至40美元以下。桑德斯发誓要用空头挤压进行报复。以下是布鲁克斯先生讲述这个故事的摘录：</blockquote></p><p>   “  <i>Saunders…bought 33,000 shares of Piggly Wiggly, mostly from short sellers; within a week he had brought the total to 105,000 – more than half of the 200,000 shares outstanding. The effectiveness of Saunders’ buying campaign was readily apparent; by late January of 1923 it had driven he price up over $60…</i>”  The sole short squeezer of yore has been replaced by herds of “apes” today, and the apes have been far better in driving up prices. By the way, believe it or not, a group of apes is apparently called a “shrewdness”. A group of apes is shrewd – interesting.</p><p><blockquote>“<i>桑德斯……购买了33,000股Piggly Wiggly股票，大部分来自卖空者；不到一周，他就将总数增加到了10.5万股——超过了20万股已发行股票的一半。桑德斯购买活动的有效性显而易见；到1923年1月下旬，它已将价格推高了60多美元……</i>“昔日唯一的空头挤压者如今已被成群的“猿”所取代，而猿在推高价格方面要好得多。顺便说一句，信不信由你，一群猿显然被称为“精明”。一群猿很精明——有意思。</blockquote></p><p>   “  <i>He had made himself a bundle and had demonstrated how a poor Southern boy could teach the city slickers a lesson.”</i>  Today we have apes sticking it to hedge funds.</p><p><blockquote>“<i>他赚了一大笔钱，证明了一个贫穷的南方男孩是如何教训城市里的狡猾分子的。”</i>今天，我们有猿类坚持对冲基金。</blockquote></p><p>   “  <i>One of the great hazards in the Corner was always that even though a player might defeat his opponents, he would discover that he had won a Pyrrhic victory. Once the short sellers had been squeezed dry, the cornerer might find that the reams of stock he had accumulated in the process were a dead weight around his neck; by pushing it all back into the market, he would drive its price down to zero.</i>”  Something to think about. What was Saunders to do?</p><p><blockquote>“<i>角落里最大的危险之一总是，即使一个玩家可能会击败他的对手，他也会发现他赢得了一场得不偿失的胜利。一旦卖空者被榨干，卖空者可能会发现他在这个过程中积累的大量股票是他脖子上的沉重负担；通过将其全部推回市场，他会将其价格降至零。</i>“值得思考的事情。桑德斯该怎么办？</blockquote></p><p>   “[  <i>Saunders’] solution was to sell his $55 shares on the installment plan. In his February advertisements, he stipulated that the public could buy shares only by paying $25 down and the balance in three $10 installments</i>.”  Pretty clever, no? No:</p><p><blockquote>“[<i>桑德斯的解决方案是出售分期付款计划中价值55美元的股票。在他二月份的广告中，他规定公众只需支付25美元的首付，余款分三期支付10美元即可购买股票</i>“很聪明，不是吗？没有：</blockquote></p><p>   “  <i>At the end of the third day, the total number of shares subscribed for was still under 25,000, and the sales that were made were canceled. Saunders had to admit that the drive had been a failure.”</i>  Uh oh. What now?</p><p><blockquote>“<i>在第三天结束时，认购的股份总数仍低于2.5万股，所做的卖出被取消。桑德斯不得不承认这次旅行是失败的。”</i>呃哦。现在怎么办？</blockquote></p><p>   <i>“On August 22nd, the New York auction firm of Adrian H. Muller &amp; Son…knocked down 1,500 shares of Piggly Wiggly at $1 a share…The following spring Saunders went through formal bankruptcy proceedings.”</i>  Ouch.</p><p><blockquote><i>“8月22日，Adrian H.Muller&amp;Son的纽约拍卖公司……以每股1美元的价格拍卖了1,500股Piggly Wiggly股票……第二年春天，Saunders进入了正式破产程序。”</i>哎哟。</blockquote></p><p> <b>Buyers beware</b></p><p><blockquote><b>买家当心</b></blockquote></p><p> As Jason Zweig noted above, speculators depend upon finding a buyer at a higher price. Today’s holders of AMC stock certainly have made life painful for many short sellers. But are there really enough new buyers to take out current shareholders above AMC’s present $28 billion market cap? Especially with the gravity of no earnings constantly weighing on the stock?</p><p><blockquote>正如杰森·茨威格上面指出的，投机者依赖于以更高的价格找到买家。如今AMC股票的持有者无疑让许多卖空者的生活变得痛苦。但真的有足够多的新买家来收购AMC目前280亿美元市值以上的现有股东吗？尤其是在没有盈利的情况下不断给股票带来压力的情况下？</blockquote></p><p></p><p> AMC shareholders, don’t win Clarence Saunders’ Pyrrhic victory. Take your $55 a share and run. Fast. Before the other speculating holders do so first.</p><p><blockquote>AMC股东们，不要赢得克拉伦斯·桑德斯得不偿失的胜利。拿着每股55美元跑吧。快的。在其他投机持有者首先这样做之前。</blockquote></p><p></p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>AMC: Danger Signals For Investors And Speculators<blockquote>AMC：投资者和投机者的危险信号</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nAMC: Danger Signals For Investors And Speculators<blockquote>AMC：投资者和投机者的危险信号</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">seekingalpha</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-06-18 11:35</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p><b>Summary</b></p><p><blockquote><b>总结</b></blockquote></p><p> <ul>  <li>I stand on the shoulder of giants to guide you on AMC.</li>  <li>For investors, the gravitational pull of no earning prospects provides little support to the stock.</li>  <li>A century-old cautionary tale for speculators counting on a short squeeze.</li>  <li>Sell before the other speculators do.</li> </ul> <p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/dabb985556b9f549dd561bf919495d08\" tg-width=\"768\" tg-height=\"513\"><span>RgStudio/E+ via Getty Images</span></p><p><blockquote><ul><li>我站在巨人的肩膀上，在AMC上指导你。</li><li>对于投资者来说，没有盈利前景的引力对该股几乎没有支撑。</li><li>对于指望轧空的投机者来说，这是一个百年的警示故事。</li><li>在其他投机者之前卖出。</li></ul><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><span>RgStudio/E+来自Getty Images</span></p></blockquote></p><p> What are we to make of the meme stock phenomena? I tookone stab at itwith AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc.(NYSE:AMC)a few weeks ago. I’m back for more, after reading two interesting pieces. As Isaac Newton said in 1676, “<i>If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.</i>” Now I’m no Isaac Newton. For one, I’m far better looking. But like Zeke – a nickname Isaac’s friends probably never used – I too stand on the shoulders of giants. In this case the shoulders of Jason Zweig, a wonderful financial markets writer for<i>The Wall Street Journal</i>, and John Brooks, author of “<i>Business Adventures</i>”, a book recommended by Bill Gates. I will quote liberally from both in this article, then draw the line for you to AMC.</p><p><blockquote>我们如何看待模因股票现象？几周前，我与AMC院线控股公司（纽约证券交易所股票代码：AMC）一起尝试了一下。在读了两篇有趣的文章后，我又回来了。正如艾萨克·牛顿在1676年所说，“<i>如果说我看得更远了一点，那就是站在巨人的肩膀上。</i>“现在我不是艾萨克·牛顿了。首先，我看起来好多了。但就像齐克一样——艾萨克的朋友们可能从未使用过这个昵称——我也站在巨人的肩膀上。在这种情况下，杰森·茨威格（Jason Zweig）是一位出色的金融市场作家<i>华尔街日报</i>，以及约翰·布鲁克斯，《<i>商业冒险</i>》，比尔盖茨推荐的一本书。我将在本文中大量引用两者，然后为您划清界限AMC。</blockquote></p><p> <b>Investor vs. trader vs. speculator</b></p><p><blockquote><b>投资者、交易者、投机者</b></blockquote></p><p> Jason Zweig graphically distinguished between these three types of stock buyers in hisJune 11, 2021<i>Wall Street Journal</i>column:</p><p><blockquote>Jason Zweig在他的2021年6月11日以图形方式区分了这三种类型的股票买家<i>华尔街日报</i>柱：</blockquote></p><p>   “  <i>Whenever you buy any financial asset because you have a hunch or just for kicks, or because somebody famous is hyping the heck out of it, or everybody else seems to be buying it too, you aren’t investing.You’re definitely a trader: someone who has just bought an asset. And you may be a speculator: someone who thinks other people will pay more for it than you did.”“An investor relies on internal sources of return: earnings, income, growth in the value of assets. A speculator counts on external sources of return: primarily whether somebody else will pay more, regardless of fundamental value.”</i>  So why has AMC’s stock price been on a tear? I have one informal data source, namely the 300+ comments on my June 4 AMC article. Earnings, income, growth in the value of assets<i>never</i>came up. What did come up was “short squeeze” and stock charts. So I expect Mr. Zweig would describe AMC’s stock as driven by traders and speculators.</p><p><blockquote>“<i>每当你因为有预感或只是为了好玩而购买任何金融资产，或者因为某个名人正在大肆宣传，或者其他人似乎也在购买它，你就不是在投资。你绝对是一个交易者：刚刚购买了一项资产的人。你可能是一个投机者：认为其他人会比你支付更多的钱。”“投资者依赖内部回报来源：收益、收入、资产价值的增长。投机者依赖外部回报来源：主要是其他人是否会支付更多，而不考虑基本价值。”</i>那么为什么AMC的股价一直在上涨呢？我有一个非正式的数据来源，即我6月4日AMC文章的300多条评论。收益，收入，资产价值的增长<i>没有</i>上来了。出现的是“轧空”和股票图表。因此，我预计茨威格先生会将AMC的股票描述为由交易员和投机者推动的。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Zweig also made me realize that my AMC article left out an earnings forecast. I gave lots of data on historic trends, which only implied a future direction. I correct that omission here.</p><p><blockquote>茨威格先生还让我意识到，我的AMC文章遗漏了盈利预测。我给出了很多关于历史趋势的数据，这些数据只是暗示了未来的方向。我在这里纠正这个遗漏。</blockquote></p><p> <b>A 2022 AMC earnings forecast</b></p><p><blockquote><b>2022年AMC盈利预测</b></blockquote></p><p> I start with the key assumptions:</p><p><blockquote>我从关键假设开始：</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3f5311cb0ff00c046d122c2c84fc3aea\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"168\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>My time frame for reference</i>&nbsp;is 2017 to 2019. Earlier data is less relevant because AMC made a big acquisition in 2016, and 2020 and 2021 data is even less relevant because of COVID.</p><p><blockquote><i>我的参考时间框架</i>是2017年到2019年。早期的数据相关性较低，因为AMC在2016年进行了一项大型收购，而2020年和2021年的数据则因为新冠疫情而相关性更低。</blockquote></p><p> <i>The national box office</i>is the major assumption.My June 4 articleshows that movie attendance has been declining since 2002. What will box office be next year? The steady growth in streaming, both in subscribers and content, certainly is a headwind. And COVID logically should increase the shift from offsite (theater) entertainment to home entertainment, as it has for shopping and working. Holding movie attendance near its ’19 level would be a minor miracle. A 10%, or even a 20%, decline is far more likely. As you can see in the table above, I make 2022 AMC EPS forecasts using all three box office assumptions.</p><p><blockquote><i>全国票房</i>是主要假设。我6月4日的文章显示，自2002年以来，电影上座率一直在下降。明年票房会是多少？流媒体在订户和内容方面的稳定增长无疑是一个阻力。从逻辑上讲，COVID应该增加从场外（剧院）娱乐到家庭娱乐的转变，就像购物和工作一样。保持电影上座率接近19年的水平将是一个小小的奇迹。下降10%，甚至20%的可能性要大得多。如上表所示，我使用所有三种票房假设对2022年AMC每股收益进行预测。</blockquote></p><p> <b><i>AMC market share.</i></b>I assume a share increase from AMC’s ’17-’19 level because some competing theaters must have dropped out because of COVID financial pressures.</p><p><blockquote><b><i>AMC市场份额。</i></b>我假设AMC的份额会比17-19年的水平有所增加，因为一些竞争影院肯定因新冠疫情的财务压力而退出。</blockquote></p><p> <b><i>Admissions gross margin.</i></b>This is the profit from ticket sales less the cost of licensing movies from their producers. I hold AMC steady with ’17-’19, but I can also imagine that movie producers seek better terms because AMC has to bid against a growing pool of streaming services desperate for content.</p><p><blockquote><b><i>招生毛利率。</i></b>这是门票销售的利润减去制片人授权电影的成本。我认为AMC在17-19年保持稳定，但我也可以想象电影制片人会寻求更好的条款，因为AMC必须与越来越多渴望内容的流媒体服务竞标。</blockquote></p><p> <b><i>Food expenses as a percent of sales.</i></b>I carry forward the shockingly low number. AMC, and presumably its peers, take their food and beverage costs and<i>multiply them by 7 in their pricing to us moviegoers.</i>Smuggle in your own Jujifruits and save a bundle. My best financial advice for the year.</p><p><blockquote><b><i>食品费用占销售额的百分比。</i></b>我继承了低得惊人的数字。AMC，大概还有它的同行，承担他们的食品和饮料成本和<i>将它们对美国电影观众的定价乘以7。</i>走私你自己的Jujifruits，省下一捆。我今年最好的理财建议。</blockquote></p><p> <b><i>Food and beverage sales as a percent of ticket prices.</i></b>I assume that AMC’s trend of modest increases continues.</p><p><blockquote><b><i>食品和饮料销售额占票价的百分比。</i></b>我认为AMC小幅上涨的趋势仍在继续。</blockquote></p><p> <b><i>Operating expenses</i></b>are the cost of the theater personnel, utilities, etc. I assume the gradual uptrend in the operating expense ratio continues, for two reasons. One, these operating expenses are largely fixed, and revenues will be under pressure. Second, it seems logical that the current labor shortage will pressure pay levels for low-end theater jobs.</p><p><blockquote><b><i>营业费用</i></b>是剧院人员、公用事业等的成本。我认为运营费用率的逐步上升趋势仍在继续，原因有二。第一，这些运营费用基本上是固定的，收入将面临压力。其次，当前的劳动力短缺将给低端剧院工作的薪酬水平带来压力，这似乎是合乎逻辑的。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> We’re now ready for my earnings and cash flow models:</p><p><blockquote>我们现在已经为我的盈利和现金流模型做好了准备：</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9b8a5ce8ad10adb3336126cdb0a5e598\" tg-width=\"537\" tg-height=\"497\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> The ’22 forecasts are set by the assumptions above through the “gross profit” line. My overhead expense forecast assumes that AMC is working hard to limit expenses through its challenging times:</p><p><blockquote>22年的预测是根据上述假设通过“毛利润”线设定的。我的管理费用预测假设AMC正在努力限制费用度过充满挑战的时期：</blockquote></p><p> <ul>  <li><i>Depreciation/amortization</i>is a combination of accounting expenses for real estate and acquisitions. Write-downs taken during the pandemic should have reduced these expenses.</li>  <li><i>Interest expense</i>should decline as AMC pays down some debt with the equity it has been raising.</li> </ul> <b>The gravitational pull of earnings</b></p><p><blockquote><ul><li><i>折旧/摊销</i>是房地产和收购的会计费用的组合。疫情期间进行的减记本应减少这些费用。</li><li><i>利息支出</i>随着AMC用其筹集的股权偿还部分债务，这一数字应该会下降。</li></ul><b>盈利的引力</b></blockquote></p><p> We arrive at the bottom line. The best-case scenario I can see for 2022 EPS is roughly breakeven. More likely is a modest loss. Cash flow should be somewhat worse, because the cash capital spending needed by AMC to keep its theaters attractive to a shrinking audience should exceed its non-cash depreciation/amortization expenses. If capital spending is much lower than I forecast, it is probably because AMC management is conceding that it is in a death spiral and wants to milk what cash it can.</p><p><blockquote>我们到达了底线。我能看到的2022年每股收益的最佳情况是大致盈亏平衡。更有可能的是适度的损失。现金流应该会更糟，因为AMC保持影院对不断萎缩的观众的吸引力所需的现金资本支出应该超过其非现金折旧/摊销费用。如果资本支出远低于我的预测，可能是因为AMC管理层承认自己正处于死亡螺旋之中，并希望尽可能榨取现金。</blockquote></p><p> <i>The bottom line - no support for investors.</i>AMC’s book value is negative. It appears incapable of earning any material money post-COVID. Its business is in long-term decline due to technology changes, and its new competitors are monster companies – Netflix, Disney, Comcast, etc. – with huge resources. An investor can only look at AMC’s current $55 stock price and with a shudder say, in the immortal words of<i>Trading Places</i>, “Sell Mortimer, sell!”</p><p><blockquote><i>底线是——不支持投资者。</i>AMC的账面价值为负。在COVID之后，它似乎无法赚取任何物质收入。其业务因技术变革而长期下滑，新的竞争对手是拥有巨大资源的怪兽公司——奈飞、迪士尼、康卡斯特等。投资者只能看着AMC目前55美元的股价，不寒而栗地说，用不朽的话来说<i>交易场所</i>、“卖莫蒂默，卖！”</blockquote></p><p> <b>The speculative play - a short squeeze: A historical cautionary tale</b></p><p><blockquote><b>投机游戏——轧空：历史警示</b></blockquote></p><p> Millennials did not invent the short squeeze. It has been around almost as long financial markets have existed. The book<i>Business Adventures</i>by John Brooks<i>,</i>published way back in 1969, tells a vivid tale of a short squeeze even farther back, in the early 1920s. Literally a century ago. I’m going to quote from the book to suggest how the story ends for speculations with no investor support. So pour yourself some illegal hooch (we’re heading to the Prohibition Era) and read on. This is the story of Clarence Saunders, the founder of Piggly Wiggly Stores, the first supermarket; the Amazon of his day.</p><p><blockquote>千禧一代并没有发明轧空。它几乎和金融市场存在的时间一样长。这本书<i>商业冒险</i>约翰·布鲁克斯<i>,</i>早在1969年就出版了，生动地讲述了20世纪20年代初的空头挤压故事。一个世纪前。我将引用书中的话来说明在没有投资者支持的情况下，投机的故事将如何结束。所以，给自己倒点非法烈酒（我们正走向禁酒令时代），继续读下去。这是第一家超市Piggly Wiggly Stores的创始人克拉伦斯·桑德斯的故事；他那个时代的亚马逊。</blockquote></p><p> Shorts went after Clarence’s stock in 1922, driving it from $50 to below $40. Saunders vowed revenge with a short squeeze. Here are excerpts of Mr. Brooks’ recounting of the story:</p><p><blockquote>1922年，空头追捧克拉伦斯的股票，将其从50美元推至40美元以下。桑德斯发誓要用空头挤压进行报复。以下是布鲁克斯先生讲述这个故事的摘录：</blockquote></p><p>   “  <i>Saunders…bought 33,000 shares of Piggly Wiggly, mostly from short sellers; within a week he had brought the total to 105,000 – more than half of the 200,000 shares outstanding. The effectiveness of Saunders’ buying campaign was readily apparent; by late January of 1923 it had driven he price up over $60…</i>”  The sole short squeezer of yore has been replaced by herds of “apes” today, and the apes have been far better in driving up prices. By the way, believe it or not, a group of apes is apparently called a “shrewdness”. A group of apes is shrewd – interesting.</p><p><blockquote>“<i>桑德斯……购买了33,000股Piggly Wiggly股票，大部分来自卖空者；不到一周，他就将总数增加到了10.5万股——超过了20万股已发行股票的一半。桑德斯购买活动的有效性显而易见；到1923年1月下旬，它已将价格推高了60多美元……</i>“昔日唯一的空头挤压者如今已被成群的“猿”所取代，而猿在推高价格方面要好得多。顺便说一句，信不信由你，一群猿显然被称为“精明”。一群猿很精明——有意思。</blockquote></p><p>   “  <i>He had made himself a bundle and had demonstrated how a poor Southern boy could teach the city slickers a lesson.”</i>  Today we have apes sticking it to hedge funds.</p><p><blockquote>“<i>他赚了一大笔钱，证明了一个贫穷的南方男孩是如何教训城市里的狡猾分子的。”</i>今天，我们有猿类坚持对冲基金。</blockquote></p><p>   “  <i>One of the great hazards in the Corner was always that even though a player might defeat his opponents, he would discover that he had won a Pyrrhic victory. Once the short sellers had been squeezed dry, the cornerer might find that the reams of stock he had accumulated in the process were a dead weight around his neck; by pushing it all back into the market, he would drive its price down to zero.</i>”  Something to think about. What was Saunders to do?</p><p><blockquote>“<i>角落里最大的危险之一总是，即使一个玩家可能会击败他的对手，他也会发现他赢得了一场得不偿失的胜利。一旦卖空者被榨干，卖空者可能会发现他在这个过程中积累的大量股票是他脖子上的沉重负担；通过将其全部推回市场，他会将其价格降至零。</i>“值得思考的事情。桑德斯该怎么办？</blockquote></p><p>   “[  <i>Saunders’] solution was to sell his $55 shares on the installment plan. In his February advertisements, he stipulated that the public could buy shares only by paying $25 down and the balance in three $10 installments</i>.”  Pretty clever, no? No:</p><p><blockquote>“[<i>桑德斯的解决方案是出售分期付款计划中价值55美元的股票。在他二月份的广告中，他规定公众只需支付25美元的首付，余款分三期支付10美元即可购买股票</i>“很聪明，不是吗？没有：</blockquote></p><p>   “  <i>At the end of the third day, the total number of shares subscribed for was still under 25,000, and the sales that were made were canceled. Saunders had to admit that the drive had been a failure.”</i>  Uh oh. What now?</p><p><blockquote>“<i>在第三天结束时，认购的股份总数仍低于2.5万股，所做的卖出被取消。桑德斯不得不承认这次旅行是失败的。”</i>呃哦。现在怎么办？</blockquote></p><p>   <i>“On August 22nd, the New York auction firm of Adrian H. Muller &amp; Son…knocked down 1,500 shares of Piggly Wiggly at $1 a share…The following spring Saunders went through formal bankruptcy proceedings.”</i>  Ouch.</p><p><blockquote><i>“8月22日，Adrian H.Muller&amp;Son的纽约拍卖公司……以每股1美元的价格拍卖了1,500股Piggly Wiggly股票……第二年春天，Saunders进入了正式破产程序。”</i>哎哟。</blockquote></p><p> <b>Buyers beware</b></p><p><blockquote><b>买家当心</b></blockquote></p><p> As Jason Zweig noted above, speculators depend upon finding a buyer at a higher price. Today’s holders of AMC stock certainly have made life painful for many short sellers. But are there really enough new buyers to take out current shareholders above AMC’s present $28 billion market cap? Especially with the gravity of no earnings constantly weighing on the stock?</p><p><blockquote>正如杰森·茨威格上面指出的，投机者依赖于以更高的价格找到买家。如今AMC股票的持有者无疑让许多卖空者的生活变得痛苦。但真的有足够多的新买家来收购AMC目前280亿美元市值以上的现有股东吗？尤其是在没有盈利的情况下不断给股票带来压力的情况下？</blockquote></p><p></p><p> AMC shareholders, don’t win Clarence Saunders’ Pyrrhic victory. Take your $55 a share and run. Fast. Before the other speculating holders do so first.</p><p><blockquote>AMC股东们，不要赢得克拉伦斯·桑德斯得不偿失的胜利。拿着每股55美元跑吧。快的。在其他投机持有者首先这样做之前。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4435360-amc-stock-danger-signals-for-investors-and-speculators\">seekingalpha</a></p>\n<p>为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化</p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"AMC":"AMC院线"},"source_url":"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4435360-amc-stock-danger-signals-for-investors-and-speculators","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1131310015","content_text":"Summary\n\nI stand on the shoulder of giants to guide you on AMC.\nFor investors, the gravitational pull of no earning prospects provides little support to the stock.\nA century-old cautionary tale for speculators counting on a short squeeze.\nSell before the other speculators do.\n\nRgStudio/E+ via Getty Images\nWhat are we to make of the meme stock phenomena? I tookone stab at itwith AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc.(NYSE:AMC)a few weeks ago. I’m back for more, after reading two interesting pieces. As Isaac Newton said in 1676, “If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.” Now I’m no Isaac Newton. For one, I’m far better looking. But like Zeke – a nickname Isaac’s friends probably never used – I too stand on the shoulders of giants. In this case the shoulders of Jason Zweig, a wonderful financial markets writer forThe Wall Street Journal, and John Brooks, author of “Business Adventures”, a book recommended by Bill Gates. I will quote liberally from both in this article, then draw the line for you to AMC.\nInvestor vs. trader vs. speculator\nJason Zweig graphically distinguished between these three types of stock buyers in hisJune 11, 2021Wall Street Journalcolumn:\n\n “\n Whenever you buy any financial asset because you have a hunch or just for kicks, or because somebody famous is hyping the heck out of it, or everybody else seems to be buying it too, you aren’t investing.You’re definitely a trader: someone who has just bought an asset. And you may be a speculator: someone who thinks other people will pay more for it than you did.”“An investor relies on internal sources of return: earnings, income, growth in the value of assets. A speculator counts on external sources of return: primarily whether somebody else will pay more, regardless of fundamental value.”\n\nSo why has AMC’s stock price been on a tear? I have one informal data source, namely the 300+ comments on my June 4 AMC article. Earnings, income, growth in the value of assetsnevercame up. What did come up was “short squeeze” and stock charts. So I expect Mr. Zweig would describe AMC’s stock as driven by traders and speculators.\nMr. Zweig also made me realize that my AMC article left out an earnings forecast. I gave lots of data on historic trends, which only implied a future direction. I correct that omission here.\nA 2022 AMC earnings forecast\nI start with the key assumptions:\n\nMy time frame for reference is 2017 to 2019. Earlier data is less relevant because AMC made a big acquisition in 2016, and 2020 and 2021 data is even less relevant because of COVID.\nThe national box officeis the major assumption.My June 4 articleshows that movie attendance has been declining since 2002. What will box office be next year? The steady growth in streaming, both in subscribers and content, certainly is a headwind. And COVID logically should increase the shift from offsite (theater) entertainment to home entertainment, as it has for shopping and working. Holding movie attendance near its ’19 level would be a minor miracle. A 10%, or even a 20%, decline is far more likely. As you can see in the table above, I make 2022 AMC EPS forecasts using all three box office assumptions.\nAMC market share.I assume a share increase from AMC’s ’17-’19 level because some competing theaters must have dropped out because of COVID financial pressures.\nAdmissions gross margin.This is the profit from ticket sales less the cost of licensing movies from their producers. I hold AMC steady with ’17-’19, but I can also imagine that movie producers seek better terms because AMC has to bid against a growing pool of streaming services desperate for content.\nFood expenses as a percent of sales.I carry forward the shockingly low number. AMC, and presumably its peers, take their food and beverage costs andmultiply them by 7 in their pricing to us moviegoers.Smuggle in your own Jujifruits and save a bundle. My best financial advice for the year.\nFood and beverage sales as a percent of ticket prices.I assume that AMC’s trend of modest increases continues.\nOperating expensesare the cost of the theater personnel, utilities, etc. I assume the gradual uptrend in the operating expense ratio continues, for two reasons. One, these operating expenses are largely fixed, and revenues will be under pressure. Second, it seems logical that the current labor shortage will pressure pay levels for low-end theater jobs.\nWe’re now ready for my earnings and cash flow models:\n\nThe ’22 forecasts are set by the assumptions above through the “gross profit” line. My overhead expense forecast assumes that AMC is working hard to limit expenses through its challenging times:\n\nDepreciation/amortizationis a combination of accounting expenses for real estate and acquisitions. Write-downs taken during the pandemic should have reduced these expenses.\nInterest expenseshould decline as AMC pays down some debt with the equity it has been raising.\n\nThe gravitational pull of earnings\nWe arrive at the bottom line. The best-case scenario I can see for 2022 EPS is roughly breakeven. More likely is a modest loss. Cash flow should be somewhat worse, because the cash capital spending needed by AMC to keep its theaters attractive to a shrinking audience should exceed its non-cash depreciation/amortization expenses. If capital spending is much lower than I forecast, it is probably because AMC management is conceding that it is in a death spiral and wants to milk what cash it can.\nThe bottom line - no support for investors.AMC’s book value is negative. It appears incapable of earning any material money post-COVID. Its business is in long-term decline due to technology changes, and its new competitors are monster companies – Netflix, Disney, Comcast, etc. – with huge resources. An investor can only look at AMC’s current $55 stock price and with a shudder say, in the immortal words ofTrading Places, “Sell Mortimer, sell!”\nThe speculative play - a short squeeze: A historical cautionary tale\nMillennials did not invent the short squeeze. It has been around almost as long financial markets have existed. The bookBusiness Adventuresby John Brooks,published way back in 1969, tells a vivid tale of a short squeeze even farther back, in the early 1920s. Literally a century ago. I’m going to quote from the book to suggest how the story ends for speculations with no investor support. So pour yourself some illegal hooch (we’re heading to the Prohibition Era) and read on. This is the story of Clarence Saunders, the founder of Piggly Wiggly Stores, the first supermarket; the Amazon of his day.\nShorts went after Clarence’s stock in 1922, driving it from $50 to below $40. Saunders vowed revenge with a short squeeze. Here are excerpts of Mr. Brooks’ recounting of the story:\n\n “\n Saunders…bought 33,000 shares of Piggly Wiggly, mostly from short sellers; within a week he had brought the total to 105,000 – more than half of the 200,000 shares outstanding. The effectiveness of Saunders’ buying campaign was readily apparent; by late January of 1923 it had driven he price up over $60…”\n\nThe sole short squeezer of yore has been replaced by herds of “apes” today, and the apes have been far better in driving up prices. By the way, believe it or not, a group of apes is apparently called a “shrewdness”. A group of apes is shrewd – interesting.\n\n “\n He had made himself a bundle and had demonstrated how a poor Southern boy could teach the city slickers a lesson.”\n\nToday we have apes sticking it to hedge funds.\n\n “\n One of the great hazards in the Corner was always that even though a player might defeat his opponents, he would discover that he had won a Pyrrhic victory. Once the short sellers had been squeezed dry, the cornerer might find that the reams of stock he had accumulated in the process were a dead weight around his neck; by pushing it all back into the market, he would drive its price down to zero.”\n\nSomething to think about. What was Saunders to do?\n\n “[\n Saunders’] solution was to sell his $55 shares on the installment plan. In his February advertisements, he stipulated that the public could buy shares only by paying $25 down and the balance in three $10 installments.”\n\nPretty clever, no? No:\n\n “\n At the end of the third day, the total number of shares subscribed for was still under 25,000, and the sales that were made were canceled. Saunders had to admit that the drive had been a failure.”\n\nUh oh. What now?\n\n“On August 22nd, the New York auction firm of Adrian H. Muller & Son…knocked down 1,500 shares of Piggly Wiggly at $1 a share…The following spring Saunders went through formal bankruptcy proceedings.”\n\nOuch.\nBuyers beware\nAs Jason Zweig noted above, speculators depend upon finding a buyer at a higher price. Today’s holders of AMC stock certainly have made life painful for many short sellers. But are there really enough new buyers to take out current shareholders above AMC’s present $28 billion market cap? Especially with the gravity of no earnings constantly weighing on the stock?\nAMC shareholders, don’t win Clarence Saunders’ Pyrrhic victory. Take your $55 a share and run. Fast. Before the other speculating holders do so first.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"AMC":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2397,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":161226031,"gmtCreate":1623930031223,"gmtModify":1634025750264,"author":{"id":"3572395270903152","authorId":"3572395270903152","name":"POWGON","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0f434116081b7609a6b51e9402a0ae47","crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3572395270903152","idStr":"3572395270903152"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Hm... Has been saying for quite some time","listText":"Hm... Has been saying for quite some time","text":"Hm... Has been saying for quite some time","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/161226031","repostId":"1133173445","repostType":2,"repost":{"id":"1133173445","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1623899282,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1133173445?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-17 11:08","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why a crash in meme stocks AMC and GameStop looks more likely now<blockquote>为什么模因股票AMC和游戏驿站现在看起来更有可能崩盘</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1133173445","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Heavy insider selling is a warning sign that a stock’s price is inflated.\n\nCould insider sales of me","content":"<p>  Heavy insider selling is a warning sign that a stock’s price is inflated.  Could insider sales of meme stocks signal a coming crash in their share price? The empirical research suggests the answer is yes.</p><p><blockquote>大量内幕抛售是股票价格虚高的警告信号。meme股票的内幕抛售是否预示着其股价即将暴跌？实证研究表明答案是肯定的。</blockquote></p><p> The substantial stock sales by directors of GameStop GME, +0.21% and AMC Entertainment Holdings AMC, -6.54% didn’t surprise most rational investors. It’s clear that the current prices of these and other meme stocks are vastly inflated. In fact, investors should have seen AMC’s issuing new shares at its bloated price to raise capital as a warning sign.</p><p><blockquote>游戏驿站GME（+0.21%）和AMC院线控股AMC（-6.54%）董事的大量股票出售并没有让大多数理性投资者感到惊讶。很明显，这些和其他模因股票的当前价格被大大夸大了。事实上，投资者应该将AMC以过高的价格发行新股来筹集资金视为一个警告信号。</blockquote></p><p> Critics might lambaste the opportunism of such insider selling, citing corporate governance gurus encouraging director ownership to align interests with public shareholders. But who can blame them? What is surprising is that more outside shareholders haven’t taken the signal to sell. It’s common for savvy investors to scan insider purchases and sales for signs of good or bad news ahead. Aggregate insider trading levels presage total stock returns for up to two years, according to the research of University of Michigan finance professor Nejat Seyhun, author of Investment Intelligence from Insider Trading.</p><p><blockquote>批评者可能会痛斥这种内幕交易的机会主义，理由是公司治理大师鼓励董事所有权与公众股东的利益保持一致。但是谁能责怪他们呢？令人惊讶的是，更多的外部股东并没有接受抛售信号。对于精明的投资者来说，扫描内幕交易以寻找未来好消息或坏消息的迹象是很常见的。根据《内幕交易投资情报》一书的作者、密歇根大学金融学教授Nejat Seyhun的研究，总体内幕交易水平预示着长达两年的股票总回报。</blockquote></p><p> That said, some insider trades contain no signal at all, as directors buy when required to maintain mandatory ownership levels and sell when they need cash or to diversify investments. Moreover, insiders face reputational and legal risks when trading, so are careful not to signal hoarding good or bad news, lest they veer into unethical or illegal insider trading.</p><p><blockquote>也就是说，一些内幕交易根本不包含任何信号，因为董事在需要维持强制性所有权水平时买入，在需要现金或分散投资时卖出。此外，内部人士在交易时面临声誉和法律风险，因此要小心不要发出囤积好消息或坏消息的信号，以免他们转向不道德或非法的内幕交易。</blockquote></p><p> But these meme-stock cases seem clearer. At AMC, for instance, many directors all sold around the same time in large numbers, near the company’s recent stock offering. Research by Durham University accounting professor Guanming He and colleagues indicates that the presence of concentrated insider stock-selling is associated with an increase in stock-price crash risk. That stands to reason: insiders know more than outsiders, whether investors, strategists or economists.</p><p><blockquote>但这些模因股票案例似乎更清晰。例如，在AMC，许多董事几乎在同一时间大量出售股票，接近该公司最近的股票发行。杜伦大学会计学教授何冠明及其同事的研究表明，集中的内幕股票抛售与股价崩盘风险的增加有关。这是显而易见的：无论是投资者、策略师还是经济学家，内部人士比外部人士知道得更多。</blockquote></p><p> Of course, no one can discern the fickle features of markets that precipitate reversals. But He’s research supports the view that insiders’ anticipation of future stock-price crash risk — from whatever source — does lead them to trim their holdings. In particular, the evidence is that insider sales are associated with 15-month-ahead crash risk.</p><p><blockquote>当然，没有人能看出市场变化无常的特征会导致逆转。但他的研究支持这样一种观点，即内部人士对未来股价崩盘风险的预期——无论来自何种来源——确实会导致他们减持股票。特别是，有证据表明内幕销售与未来15个月的崩盘风险相关。</blockquote></p><p> Such research may be particularly meaningful in the bizarre context of meme stocks. Compared to conventional stock trading, insiders are poised to make greater profits trading meme stocks and their trades are more informative given the greater degree of noise trading by uninformed traders.</p><p><blockquote>在模因股票的奇异背景下，这样的研究可能特别有意义。与传统股票交易相比，内部人士交易模因股票有望获得更大的利润，而且鉴于不知情交易者的噪音交易程度更大，他们的交易信息也更丰富。</blockquote></p><p> Research on past outcomes is no guarantee of future results, but together with common sense and an appreciation that all bubbles eventually burst, I’d be willing to place my own bets. The 15-month time frame would put the bursting of the GameStop bubble in the first quarter of 2022 and AMC around the third quarter. I’d certainly take both bets before I bought either stock.</p><p><blockquote>对过去结果的研究并不能保证未来的结果，但加上常识和对所有泡沫最终都会破裂的认识，我愿意下自己的赌注。15个月的时间框架将使游戏驿站泡沫在2022年第一季度破裂，AMC在第三季度左右破裂。在购买任何一只股票之前，我肯定会同时下注。</blockquote></p><p></p>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why a crash in meme stocks AMC and GameStop looks more likely now<blockquote>为什么模因股票AMC和游戏驿站现在看起来更有可能崩盘</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy a crash in meme stocks AMC and GameStop looks more likely now<blockquote>为什么模因股票AMC和游戏驿站现在看起来更有可能崩盘</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">MarketWatch</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-06-17 11:08</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>  Heavy insider selling is a warning sign that a stock’s price is inflated.  Could insider sales of meme stocks signal a coming crash in their share price? The empirical research suggests the answer is yes.</p><p><blockquote>大量内幕抛售是股票价格虚高的警告信号。meme股票的内幕抛售是否预示着其股价即将暴跌？实证研究表明答案是肯定的。</blockquote></p><p> The substantial stock sales by directors of GameStop GME, +0.21% and AMC Entertainment Holdings AMC, -6.54% didn’t surprise most rational investors. It’s clear that the current prices of these and other meme stocks are vastly inflated. In fact, investors should have seen AMC’s issuing new shares at its bloated price to raise capital as a warning sign.</p><p><blockquote>游戏驿站GME（+0.21%）和AMC院线控股AMC（-6.54%）董事的大量股票出售并没有让大多数理性投资者感到惊讶。很明显，这些和其他模因股票的当前价格被大大夸大了。事实上，投资者应该将AMC以过高的价格发行新股来筹集资金视为一个警告信号。</blockquote></p><p> Critics might lambaste the opportunism of such insider selling, citing corporate governance gurus encouraging director ownership to align interests with public shareholders. But who can blame them? What is surprising is that more outside shareholders haven’t taken the signal to sell. It’s common for savvy investors to scan insider purchases and sales for signs of good or bad news ahead. Aggregate insider trading levels presage total stock returns for up to two years, according to the research of University of Michigan finance professor Nejat Seyhun, author of Investment Intelligence from Insider Trading.</p><p><blockquote>批评者可能会痛斥这种内幕交易的机会主义，理由是公司治理大师鼓励董事所有权与公众股东的利益保持一致。但是谁能责怪他们呢？令人惊讶的是，更多的外部股东并没有接受抛售信号。对于精明的投资者来说，扫描内幕交易以寻找未来好消息或坏消息的迹象是很常见的。根据《内幕交易投资情报》一书的作者、密歇根大学金融学教授Nejat Seyhun的研究，总体内幕交易水平预示着长达两年的股票总回报。</blockquote></p><p> That said, some insider trades contain no signal at all, as directors buy when required to maintain mandatory ownership levels and sell when they need cash or to diversify investments. Moreover, insiders face reputational and legal risks when trading, so are careful not to signal hoarding good or bad news, lest they veer into unethical or illegal insider trading.</p><p><blockquote>也就是说，一些内幕交易根本不包含任何信号，因为董事在需要维持强制性所有权水平时买入，在需要现金或分散投资时卖出。此外，内部人士在交易时面临声誉和法律风险，因此要小心不要发出囤积好消息或坏消息的信号，以免他们转向不道德或非法的内幕交易。</blockquote></p><p> But these meme-stock cases seem clearer. At AMC, for instance, many directors all sold around the same time in large numbers, near the company’s recent stock offering. Research by Durham University accounting professor Guanming He and colleagues indicates that the presence of concentrated insider stock-selling is associated with an increase in stock-price crash risk. That stands to reason: insiders know more than outsiders, whether investors, strategists or economists.</p><p><blockquote>但这些模因股票案例似乎更清晰。例如，在AMC，许多董事几乎在同一时间大量出售股票，接近该公司最近的股票发行。杜伦大学会计学教授何冠明及其同事的研究表明，集中的内幕股票抛售与股价崩盘风险的增加有关。这是显而易见的：无论是投资者、策略师还是经济学家，内部人士比外部人士知道得更多。</blockquote></p><p> Of course, no one can discern the fickle features of markets that precipitate reversals. But He’s research supports the view that insiders’ anticipation of future stock-price crash risk — from whatever source — does lead them to trim their holdings. In particular, the evidence is that insider sales are associated with 15-month-ahead crash risk.</p><p><blockquote>当然，没有人能看出市场变化无常的特征会导致逆转。但他的研究支持这样一种观点，即内部人士对未来股价崩盘风险的预期——无论来自何种来源——确实会导致他们减持股票。特别是，有证据表明内幕销售与未来15个月的崩盘风险相关。</blockquote></p><p> Such research may be particularly meaningful in the bizarre context of meme stocks. Compared to conventional stock trading, insiders are poised to make greater profits trading meme stocks and their trades are more informative given the greater degree of noise trading by uninformed traders.</p><p><blockquote>在模因股票的奇异背景下，这样的研究可能特别有意义。与传统股票交易相比，内部人士交易模因股票有望获得更大的利润，而且鉴于不知情交易者的噪音交易程度更大，他们的交易信息也更丰富。</blockquote></p><p> Research on past outcomes is no guarantee of future results, but together with common sense and an appreciation that all bubbles eventually burst, I’d be willing to place my own bets. The 15-month time frame would put the bursting of the GameStop bubble in the first quarter of 2022 and AMC around the third quarter. I’d certainly take both bets before I bought either stock.</p><p><blockquote>对过去结果的研究并不能保证未来的结果，但加上常识和对所有泡沫最终都会破裂的认识，我愿意下自己的赌注。15个月的时间框架将使游戏驿站泡沫在2022年第一季度破裂，AMC在第三季度左右破裂。在购买任何一只股票之前，我肯定会同时下注。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-a-crash-in-meme-stocks-amc-and-gamestop-looks-more-likely-now-11623810848?siteid=yhoof2\">MarketWatch</a></p>\n<p>为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化</p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"GME":"游戏驿站","AMC":"AMC院线"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-a-crash-in-meme-stocks-amc-and-gamestop-looks-more-likely-now-11623810848?siteid=yhoof2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1133173445","content_text":"Heavy insider selling is a warning sign that a stock’s price is inflated.\n\nCould insider sales of meme stocks signal a coming crash in their share price? The empirical research suggests the answer is yes.\nThe substantial stock sales by directors of GameStop GME, +0.21% and AMC Entertainment Holdings AMC, -6.54% didn’t surprise most rational investors. It’s clear that the current prices of these and other meme stocks are vastly inflated. In fact, investors should have seen AMC’s issuing new shares at its bloated price to raise capital as a warning sign.\nCritics might lambaste the opportunism of such insider selling, citing corporate governance gurus encouraging director ownership to align interests with public shareholders. But who can blame them? What is surprising is that more outside shareholders haven’t taken the signal to sell. It’s common for savvy investors to scan insider purchases and sales for signs of good or bad news ahead. Aggregate insider trading levels presage total stock returns for up to two years, according to the research of University of Michigan finance professor Nejat Seyhun, author of Investment Intelligence from Insider Trading.\nThat said, some insider trades contain no signal at all, as directors buy when required to maintain mandatory ownership levels and sell when they need cash or to diversify investments. Moreover, insiders face reputational and legal risks when trading, so are careful not to signal hoarding good or bad news, lest they veer into unethical or illegal insider trading.\nBut these meme-stock cases seem clearer. At AMC, for instance, many directors all sold around the same time in large numbers, near the company’s recent stock offering. Research by Durham University accounting professor Guanming He and colleagues indicates that the presence of concentrated insider stock-selling is associated with an increase in stock-price crash risk. That stands to reason: insiders know more than outsiders, whether investors, strategists or economists.\nOf course, no one can discern the fickle features of markets that precipitate reversals. But He’s research supports the view that insiders’ anticipation of future stock-price crash risk — from whatever source — does lead them to trim their holdings. In particular, the evidence is that insider sales are associated with 15-month-ahead crash risk.\nSuch research may be particularly meaningful in the bizarre context of meme stocks. Compared to conventional stock trading, insiders are poised to make greater profits trading meme stocks and their trades are more informative given the greater degree of noise trading by uninformed traders.\nResearch on past outcomes is no guarantee of future results, but together with common sense and an appreciation that all bubbles eventually burst, I’d be willing to place my own bets. The 15-month time frame would put the bursting of the GameStop bubble in the first quarter of 2022 and AMC around the third quarter. I’d certainly take both bets before I bought either stock.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"AMC":0.9,"GME":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":502,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":160028975,"gmtCreate":1623767114297,"gmtModify":1634028620360,"author":{"id":"3572395270903152","authorId":"3572395270903152","name":"POWGON","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0f434116081b7609a6b51e9402a0ae47","crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3572395270903152","idStr":"3572395270903152"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Money money money","listText":"Money money money","text":"Money money money","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/160028975","repostId":"1191245053","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1191245053","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1623762167,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1191245053?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-15 21:02","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Quad-Witch Quandary: How Will Friday's $2 Trillion Gamma Expiration Impact Markets<blockquote>四女巫困境：周五2万亿美元伽马到期将如何影响市场</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1191245053","media":"zerohedge","summary":"Last week, when discussing thebizarre summer doldrumsin the market which pushed the VIX to the lowest level since the onset of the covid pandemic, we said that this period of abnormal market quiet is likely to last until this Friday' quad-witch, when a massive amount of gamma and delta expire and are de-risked, in the process eliminating one of the natural downside stock buffers .So picking up on the topic of Friday' potentially market-moving opex, Goldman' in-house derivatives expert, Rocky Fis","content":"<p>Last week, when discussing thebizarre summer doldrumsin the market which pushed the VIX to the lowest level since the onset of the covid pandemic, we said that this period of abnormal market quiet is likely to last until this Friday' quad-witch, when a massive amount of gamma and delta expire and are de-risked, in the process eliminating one of the natural downside stock buffers (see \"4 Reasons Why The Market Doldrums End With Next Friday's Op-Ex\").</p><p><blockquote>上周，在讨论将VIX推至新冠大流行爆发以来的最低水平的市场夏季低迷时，我们表示，这段异常的市场平静期可能会持续到本周五的“四女巫”，届时大量的gamma和delta到期并去风险，在此过程中消除了股票的自然下行缓冲之一（请参阅“市场低迷随着下周五的Op-Ex而结束的4个原因”）。</blockquote></p><p> So picking up on the topic of Friday' potentially market-moving opex, Goldman' in-house derivatives expert, Rocky Fishman, previews June’s upcoming expiration which he dubs as \"large - comparable to a typical quarterly.\" Specifically,<b>there are $1.8 trillion of SPX options expiring on Friday, in addition to $240 billion of SPY options and $200 billion of options on SPX and SPX E-mini futures.</b></p><p><blockquote>因此，高盛内部衍生品专家洛基·菲什曼(Rocky Fishman)在谈到周五“可能影响市场的运营支出”的话题时，预览了即将到来的6月份到期，他称之为“规模很大——与典型的季度相当”。具体而言，<b>周五有1.8万亿美元的SPX期权到期，此外还有2400亿美元的SPDR标普500指数ETF期权以及2000亿美元的SPX和SPX E-mini期货期权。</b></blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0d1ece116794c7f6523250fd682450e3\" tg-width=\"959\" tg-height=\"765\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> Yet while these totals are massive,<b>when adjusted for the index’s size the amount of expiring options within 10% of current spot is smaller than just about any quarterly over the past decade.</b></p><p><blockquote>然而，尽管这些总数很大，<b>根据指数规模进行调整后，当前现货10%以内的到期期权数量比过去十年中的任何一个季度都要少。</b></blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/534b677774a92a59d4fe08f09359932b\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"298\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> It's worth noting that according to Goldman estimates that combos account<b>for 15-20% of SPX options,</b>so an adjusted open interest total would add up to $1.5tln, still much larger than total expiring single stock open interest ($775bln). Furthermore, with stocks at all time highs, it is to be expected that most of the June open interest is below the current SPX spot price. As shown in the chart below, the dual peaks are at 3,900 and 4,150. This means that after Friday, there may be a certain \"anti\"-gravity around those spots until gamma is refilled.</p><p><blockquote>值得注意的是，根据高盛的估计，combos账户<b>对于15-20%的SPX期权，</b>因此，调整后的未平仓合约总额将达到1.5万亿美元，仍远高于即将到期的单一股票未平仓合约总额（7750亿美元）。此外，由于股市处于历史高位，预计6月份大部分未平仓合约均低于当前SPX现货价格。如下图所示，双峰在3900和4150。这意味着周五之后，在伽马被重新填充之前，这些点周围可能会有一定的“反”重力。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/adfcada2b0ef3f2ebbd684649a613043\" tg-width=\"936\" tg-height=\"541\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> The Goldman strategist then explains what he believes is below the abnormally low level of realized market vol, noting that - as we discussed last week - it is consistent with long gamma positioning. Consider that SPX<b>realized volatility over the past 13 trading days has been just 5.1% - the lowest 13-day realized vol since 2019.</b></p><p><blockquote>这位高盛策略师随后解释了他认为低于已实现市场波动率的异常低水平的情况，并指出——正如我们上周讨论的——这与多头伽马头寸一致。考虑一下SPX<b>过去13个交易日的已实现波动率仅为5.1%，为2019年以来最低的13天已实现波动率。</b></blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/afffda1e07736784ad695d95a9936421\" tg-width=\"952\" tg-height=\"558\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> This contrasts with extreme volatility in pockets of the single stock market; AMC, which had the highest contract volume among single stocks last week (but far less notional volume at$7bln/day than AMZN’s leading $120bln/day), has had close to 400% realized vol over the same period.</p><p><blockquote>这与单一股票市场部分地区的极端波动形成鲜明对比；AMC上周的合约量是个股中最高的（但名义成交量为70亿美元/天，远低于AMZN领先的1200亿美元/天），同期已实现成交量接近400%。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/df2b7aeaadb37160a7eaf0ac08ba31de\" tg-width=\"1236\" tg-height=\"561\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> Then, as Nomura's Charlie McElligott first noted last week, Goldman's derivatives team agrees that<b>the extremely low SPX realized volatility is consistent with the possibility that 18-Jun has left “the street” long index gamma, in which case Fishman echoeswhat we said last week, namely that \"realized volatility could pick up once positions are cleaner. \"</b>Meanwhile, the rising beta of VIX futures to the SPX indicates that investors expect short gamma dynamics to pick up should markets sell off. Translation:<u><b>the market will become much more volatile in a selloff.</b></u></p><p><blockquote>然后，正如野村证券的Charlie McElligott上周首次指出的那样，高盛的衍生品团队同意<b>极低的SPX已实现波动性与6月18日离开“华尔街”多头指数gamma的可能性是一致的，在这种情况下，Fishman呼应了我们上周所说的，即“一旦头寸变得更加干净，已实现波动性可能会回升。”</b>与此同时，VIX期货相对于SPX的贝塔值上升表明，投资者预计，如果市场抛售，空头伽马动态将会回升。翻译：<u><b>在抛售中，市场将变得更加波动。</b></u></blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/76b01b8a05b70ec4f343626b1fad491b\" tg-width=\"931\" tg-height=\"560\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> Meanwhile, and in keeping with the latest memo stock squeeze, Goldman also notes that while single stock option volumes continue to be high, it is well short of Q1 peaks. The large percentage of all single stock option activity driven by retail, and the predictive value of retail activity, have both heightened the attention on the single stock option market in recent weeks. Recent growth in single stock option activity has been concentrated in low-share-price stocks, leaving a shar prise in contract-volume over the past two weeks that has not been matched by notional volume. When adjusting notional volume for the size of the equity market, Goldman finds that single stock volume has actually been on the low of its 2021 range over the past two weeks which means that the latest ramps had little to no gamma squeeze components to them.</p><p><blockquote>与此同时，与最新的备忘录股票挤压保持一致，高盛还指出，虽然单一股票期权交易量仍然很高，但远低于第一季度的峰值。最近几周，由散户驱动的所有单一股票期权活动的很大比例以及散户活动的预测价值都提高了对单一股票期权市场的关注。近期单一股票期权活动的增长主要集中在低股价股票上，导致过去两周合约交易量大幅上涨，但名义交易量并未与之匹配。在根据股市规模调整名义成交量时，高盛发现过去两周单只股票成交量实际上一直处于2021年区间的低点，这意味着最新的上涨几乎没有伽马挤压成分。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9c6c3df49e3e5d1e4a7a0d9c24696e6a\" tg-width=\"1212\" tg-height=\"608\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p></p><p> One final point which we discussed recently and which is in keeping with the growing retail participation in trading, is Goldman's observation that the trend toward shorter-dated SPX options (weeklies) and away from quarterlies, continues. That also is one of the reasons why Friday’s SPX expiration is smaller than many recent quarterlies, and why as it as approached expiration, its trading volume has been falling.</p><p><blockquote>我们最近讨论的最后一点是高盛的观察，即短期SPX期权（每周）和远离季度的趋势仍在继续，这与散户参与交易的不断增加相一致。这也是周五SPX到期时间小于最近许多季度的原因之一，也是为什么随着到期时间的临近，其交易量一直在下降的原因之一。</blockquote></p><p> As Goldman explains, investors have been increasingly adopting the full calendar of SPX expirations, including expirations every Monday and Wednesday, as they tailor their views around events. In fact,<b>the percentage of SPX option volume happening in 3rd Friday expirations is at an all-time low,</b>and is now smaller than the percentage happening in Monday and Wednesday expirations. One explanation for heightened ultra-short-dated volumes is the strong single stock volumes: and here an interest suggesting from Goldman - \"to the extent market makers are unable to cover the short single stock gamma generated by retail investors’ call buying, they may be actively trading long positions in strips of ultra-short-dated SPX index options to offset this gamma.\"</p><p><blockquote>正如高盛所解释的那样，投资者越来越多地采用SPX到期的完整日历，包括每周一和周三的到期，因为他们围绕事件调整了自己的观点。事实上，<b>第三个周五到期的SPX期权交易量百分比处于历史最低点，</b>现在低于周一和周三到期的百分比。超短期交易量增加的一个解释是强劲的单一股票交易量：高盛提出了一个兴趣——“在某种程度上，做市商无法弥补散户投资者看涨期权买入产生的单一股票空头伽马，他们可能会积极交易超短期SPX指数期权的多头头寸，以抵消这种伽马。”</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/bd0e886a62a61c70b0f299bd6c032a24\" tg-width=\"954\" tg-height=\"1128\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> Why is this important? because if this trend is large enough, it directly contributes to low implied and realized correlation.<b>Ironically, by ramping single name, \"most-shorted names\", retail investors are ushering a period of unorthodox calm across the rest of the market!</b></p><p><blockquote>为什么这很重要？因为如果这种趋势足够大，它会直接导致低隐含和实现的相关性。<b>具有讽刺意味的是，通过增加单一名称“最受做空的名称”，散户投资者正在市场的其他部分迎来一段非正统的平静时期！</b></blockquote></p><p></p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Quad-Witch Quandary: How Will Friday's $2 Trillion Gamma Expiration Impact Markets<blockquote>四女巫困境：周五2万亿美元伽马到期将如何影响市场</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nQuad-Witch Quandary: How Will Friday's $2 Trillion Gamma Expiration Impact Markets<blockquote>四女巫困境：周五2万亿美元伽马到期将如何影响市场</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">zerohedge</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-06-15 21:02</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>Last week, when discussing thebizarre summer doldrumsin the market which pushed the VIX to the lowest level since the onset of the covid pandemic, we said that this period of abnormal market quiet is likely to last until this Friday' quad-witch, when a massive amount of gamma and delta expire and are de-risked, in the process eliminating one of the natural downside stock buffers (see \"4 Reasons Why The Market Doldrums End With Next Friday's Op-Ex\").</p><p><blockquote>上周，在讨论将VIX推至新冠大流行爆发以来的最低水平的市场夏季低迷时，我们表示，这段异常的市场平静期可能会持续到本周五的“四女巫”，届时大量的gamma和delta到期并去风险，在此过程中消除了股票的自然下行缓冲之一（请参阅“市场低迷随着下周五的Op-Ex而结束的4个原因”）。</blockquote></p><p> So picking up on the topic of Friday' potentially market-moving opex, Goldman' in-house derivatives expert, Rocky Fishman, previews June’s upcoming expiration which he dubs as \"large - comparable to a typical quarterly.\" Specifically,<b>there are $1.8 trillion of SPX options expiring on Friday, in addition to $240 billion of SPY options and $200 billion of options on SPX and SPX E-mini futures.</b></p><p><blockquote>因此，高盛内部衍生品专家洛基·菲什曼(Rocky Fishman)在谈到周五“可能影响市场的运营支出”的话题时，预览了即将到来的6月份到期，他称之为“规模很大——与典型的季度相当”。具体而言，<b>周五有1.8万亿美元的SPX期权到期，此外还有2400亿美元的SPDR标普500指数ETF期权以及2000亿美元的SPX和SPX E-mini期货期权。</b></blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0d1ece116794c7f6523250fd682450e3\" tg-width=\"959\" tg-height=\"765\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> Yet while these totals are massive,<b>when adjusted for the index’s size the amount of expiring options within 10% of current spot is smaller than just about any quarterly over the past decade.</b></p><p><blockquote>然而，尽管这些总数很大，<b>根据指数规模进行调整后，当前现货10%以内的到期期权数量比过去十年中的任何一个季度都要少。</b></blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/534b677774a92a59d4fe08f09359932b\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"298\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> It's worth noting that according to Goldman estimates that combos account<b>for 15-20% of SPX options,</b>so an adjusted open interest total would add up to $1.5tln, still much larger than total expiring single stock open interest ($775bln). Furthermore, with stocks at all time highs, it is to be expected that most of the June open interest is below the current SPX spot price. As shown in the chart below, the dual peaks are at 3,900 and 4,150. This means that after Friday, there may be a certain \"anti\"-gravity around those spots until gamma is refilled.</p><p><blockquote>值得注意的是，根据高盛的估计，combos账户<b>对于15-20%的SPX期权，</b>因此，调整后的未平仓合约总额将达到1.5万亿美元，仍远高于即将到期的单一股票未平仓合约总额（7750亿美元）。此外，由于股市处于历史高位，预计6月份大部分未平仓合约均低于当前SPX现货价格。如下图所示，双峰在3900和4150。这意味着周五之后，在伽马被重新填充之前，这些点周围可能会有一定的“反”重力。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/adfcada2b0ef3f2ebbd684649a613043\" tg-width=\"936\" tg-height=\"541\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> The Goldman strategist then explains what he believes is below the abnormally low level of realized market vol, noting that - as we discussed last week - it is consistent with long gamma positioning. Consider that SPX<b>realized volatility over the past 13 trading days has been just 5.1% - the lowest 13-day realized vol since 2019.</b></p><p><blockquote>这位高盛策略师随后解释了他认为低于已实现市场波动率的异常低水平的情况，并指出——正如我们上周讨论的——这与多头伽马头寸一致。考虑一下SPX<b>过去13个交易日的已实现波动率仅为5.1%，为2019年以来最低的13天已实现波动率。</b></blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/afffda1e07736784ad695d95a9936421\" tg-width=\"952\" tg-height=\"558\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> This contrasts with extreme volatility in pockets of the single stock market; AMC, which had the highest contract volume among single stocks last week (but far less notional volume at$7bln/day than AMZN’s leading $120bln/day), has had close to 400% realized vol over the same period.</p><p><blockquote>这与单一股票市场部分地区的极端波动形成鲜明对比；AMC上周的合约量是个股中最高的（但名义成交量为70亿美元/天，远低于AMZN领先的1200亿美元/天），同期已实现成交量接近400%。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/df2b7aeaadb37160a7eaf0ac08ba31de\" tg-width=\"1236\" tg-height=\"561\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> Then, as Nomura's Charlie McElligott first noted last week, Goldman's derivatives team agrees that<b>the extremely low SPX realized volatility is consistent with the possibility that 18-Jun has left “the street” long index gamma, in which case Fishman echoeswhat we said last week, namely that \"realized volatility could pick up once positions are cleaner. \"</b>Meanwhile, the rising beta of VIX futures to the SPX indicates that investors expect short gamma dynamics to pick up should markets sell off. Translation:<u><b>the market will become much more volatile in a selloff.</b></u></p><p><blockquote>然后，正如野村证券的Charlie McElligott上周首次指出的那样，高盛的衍生品团队同意<b>极低的SPX已实现波动性与6月18日离开“华尔街”多头指数gamma的可能性是一致的，在这种情况下，Fishman呼应了我们上周所说的，即“一旦头寸变得更加干净，已实现波动性可能会回升。”</b>与此同时，VIX期货相对于SPX的贝塔值上升表明，投资者预计，如果市场抛售，空头伽马动态将会回升。翻译：<u><b>在抛售中，市场将变得更加波动。</b></u></blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/76b01b8a05b70ec4f343626b1fad491b\" tg-width=\"931\" tg-height=\"560\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> Meanwhile, and in keeping with the latest memo stock squeeze, Goldman also notes that while single stock option volumes continue to be high, it is well short of Q1 peaks. The large percentage of all single stock option activity driven by retail, and the predictive value of retail activity, have both heightened the attention on the single stock option market in recent weeks. Recent growth in single stock option activity has been concentrated in low-share-price stocks, leaving a shar prise in contract-volume over the past two weeks that has not been matched by notional volume. When adjusting notional volume for the size of the equity market, Goldman finds that single stock volume has actually been on the low of its 2021 range over the past two weeks which means that the latest ramps had little to no gamma squeeze components to them.</p><p><blockquote>与此同时，与最新的备忘录股票挤压保持一致，高盛还指出，虽然单一股票期权交易量仍然很高，但远低于第一季度的峰值。最近几周，由散户驱动的所有单一股票期权活动的很大比例以及散户活动的预测价值都提高了对单一股票期权市场的关注。近期单一股票期权活动的增长主要集中在低股价股票上，导致过去两周合约交易量大幅上涨，但名义交易量并未与之匹配。在根据股市规模调整名义成交量时，高盛发现过去两周单只股票成交量实际上一直处于2021年区间的低点，这意味着最新的上涨几乎没有伽马挤压成分。</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9c6c3df49e3e5d1e4a7a0d9c24696e6a\" tg-width=\"1212\" tg-height=\"608\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p></p><p> One final point which we discussed recently and which is in keeping with the growing retail participation in trading, is Goldman's observation that the trend toward shorter-dated SPX options (weeklies) and away from quarterlies, continues. That also is one of the reasons why Friday’s SPX expiration is smaller than many recent quarterlies, and why as it as approached expiration, its trading volume has been falling.</p><p><blockquote>我们最近讨论的最后一点是高盛的观察，即短期SPX期权（每周）和远离季度的趋势仍在继续，这与散户参与交易的不断增加相一致。这也是周五SPX到期时间小于最近许多季度的原因之一，也是为什么随着到期时间的临近，其交易量一直在下降的原因之一。</blockquote></p><p> As Goldman explains, investors have been increasingly adopting the full calendar of SPX expirations, including expirations every Monday and Wednesday, as they tailor their views around events. In fact,<b>the percentage of SPX option volume happening in 3rd Friday expirations is at an all-time low,</b>and is now smaller than the percentage happening in Monday and Wednesday expirations. One explanation for heightened ultra-short-dated volumes is the strong single stock volumes: and here an interest suggesting from Goldman - \"to the extent market makers are unable to cover the short single stock gamma generated by retail investors’ call buying, they may be actively trading long positions in strips of ultra-short-dated SPX index options to offset this gamma.\"</p><p><blockquote>正如高盛所解释的那样，投资者越来越多地采用SPX到期的完整日历，包括每周一和周三的到期，因为他们围绕事件调整了自己的观点。事实上，<b>第三个周五到期的SPX期权交易量百分比处于历史最低点，</b>现在低于周一和周三到期的百分比。超短期交易量增加的一个解释是强劲的单一股票交易量：高盛提出了一个兴趣——“在某种程度上，做市商无法弥补散户投资者看涨期权买入产生的单一股票空头伽马，他们可能会积极交易超短期SPX指数期权的多头头寸，以抵消这种伽马。”</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/bd0e886a62a61c70b0f299bd6c032a24\" tg-width=\"954\" tg-height=\"1128\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> Why is this important? because if this trend is large enough, it directly contributes to low implied and realized correlation.<b>Ironically, by ramping single name, \"most-shorted names\", retail investors are ushering a period of unorthodox calm across the rest of the market!</b></p><p><blockquote>为什么这很重要？因为如果这种趋势足够大，它会直接导致低隐含和实现的相关性。<b>具有讽刺意味的是，通过增加单一名称“最受做空的名称”，散户投资者正在市场的其他部分迎来一段非正统的平静时期！</b></blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/quad-witch-quandary-how-will-fridays-2-trillion-gamma-expiration-impact-markets\">zerohedge</a></p>\n<p>为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化</p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"SPY":"标普500ETF",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/quad-witch-quandary-how-will-fridays-2-trillion-gamma-expiration-impact-markets","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1191245053","content_text":"Last week, when discussing thebizarre summer doldrumsin the market which pushed the VIX to the lowest level since the onset of the covid pandemic, we said that this period of abnormal market quiet is likely to last until this Friday' quad-witch, when a massive amount of gamma and delta expire and are de-risked, in the process eliminating one of the natural downside stock buffers (see \"4 Reasons Why The Market Doldrums End With Next Friday's Op-Ex\").\nSo picking up on the topic of Friday' potentially market-moving opex, Goldman' in-house derivatives expert, Rocky Fishman, previews June’s upcoming expiration which he dubs as \"large - comparable to a typical quarterly.\" Specifically,there are $1.8 trillion of SPX options expiring on Friday, in addition to $240 billion of SPY options and $200 billion of options on SPX and SPX E-mini futures.\n\nYet while these totals are massive,when adjusted for the index’s size the amount of expiring options within 10% of current spot is smaller than just about any quarterly over the past decade.\n\nIt's worth noting that according to Goldman estimates that combos accountfor 15-20% of SPX options,so an adjusted open interest total would add up to $1.5tln, still much larger than total expiring single stock open interest ($775bln). Furthermore, with stocks at all time highs, it is to be expected that most of the June open interest is below the current SPX spot price. As shown in the chart below, the dual peaks are at 3,900 and 4,150. This means that after Friday, there may be a certain \"anti\"-gravity around those spots until gamma is refilled.\n\nThe Goldman strategist then explains what he believes is below the abnormally low level of realized market vol, noting that - as we discussed last week - it is consistent with long gamma positioning. Consider that SPXrealized volatility over the past 13 trading days has been just 5.1% - the lowest 13-day realized vol since 2019.\n\nThis contrasts with extreme volatility in pockets of the single stock market; AMC, which had the highest contract volume among single stocks last week (but far less notional volume at$7bln/day than AMZN’s leading $120bln/day), has had close to 400% realized vol over the same period.\n\nThen, as Nomura's Charlie McElligott first noted last week, Goldman's derivatives team agrees thatthe extremely low SPX realized volatility is consistent with the possibility that 18-Jun has left “the street” long index gamma, in which case Fishman echoeswhat we said last week, namely that \"realized volatility could pick up once positions are cleaner. \"Meanwhile, the rising beta of VIX futures to the SPX indicates that investors expect short gamma dynamics to pick up should markets sell off. Translation:the market will become much more volatile in a selloff.\n\nMeanwhile, and in keeping with the latest memo stock squeeze, Goldman also notes that while single stock option volumes continue to be high, it is well short of Q1 peaks. The large percentage of all single stock option activity driven by retail, and the predictive value of retail activity, have both heightened the attention on the single stock option market in recent weeks. Recent growth in single stock option activity has been concentrated in low-share-price stocks, leaving a shar prise in contract-volume over the past two weeks that has not been matched by notional volume. When adjusting notional volume for the size of the equity market, Goldman finds that single stock volume has actually been on the low of its 2021 range over the past two weeks which means that the latest ramps had little to no gamma squeeze components to them.\n\nOne final point which we discussed recently and which is in keeping with the growing retail participation in trading, is Goldman's observation that the trend toward shorter-dated SPX options (weeklies) and away from quarterlies, continues. That also is one of the reasons why Friday’s SPX expiration is smaller than many recent quarterlies, and why as it as approached expiration, its trading volume has been falling.\nAs Goldman explains, investors have been increasingly adopting the full calendar of SPX expirations, including expirations every Monday and Wednesday, as they tailor their views around events. In fact,the percentage of SPX option volume happening in 3rd Friday expirations is at an all-time low,and is now smaller than the percentage happening in Monday and Wednesday expirations. One explanation for heightened ultra-short-dated volumes is the strong single stock volumes: and here an interest suggesting from Goldman - \"to the extent market makers are unable to cover the short single stock gamma generated by retail investors’ call buying, they may be actively trading long positions in strips of ultra-short-dated SPX index options to offset this gamma.\"\n\nWhy is this important? because if this trend is large enough, it directly contributes to low implied and realized correlation.Ironically, by ramping single name, \"most-shorted names\", retail investors are ushering a period of unorthodox calm across the rest of the market!","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".IXIC":0.9,".SPX":0.9,"SPY":0.9,".DJI":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":658,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":367923169,"gmtCreate":1614904757751,"gmtModify":1703482741918,"author":{"id":"3572395270903152","authorId":"3572395270903152","name":"POWGON","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0f434116081b7609a6b51e9402a0ae47","crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3572395270903152","idStr":"3572395270903152"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Bubble?","listText":"Bubble?","text":"Bubble?","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/367923169","repostId":"1151606825","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":653,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":364572066,"gmtCreate":1614868330555,"gmtModify":1703482233610,"author":{"id":"3572395270903152","authorId":"3572395270903152","name":"POWGON","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0f434116081b7609a6b51e9402a0ae47","crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3572395270903152","idStr":"3572395270903152"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Sometimes wondering about these numbers game. Do all these people get a proper job match? A retrench person who earn $10k a month previously now earning $1.5k a month. *Think *think","listText":"Sometimes wondering about these numbers game. Do all these people get a proper job match? A retrench person who earn $10k a month previously now earning $1.5k a month. *Think *think","text":"Sometimes wondering about these numbers game. Do all these people get a proper job match? A retrench person who earn $10k a month previously now earning $1.5k a month. *Think *think","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/364572066","repostId":"1191360281","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":625,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":365766841,"gmtCreate":1614781380683,"gmtModify":1703481035742,"author":{"id":"3572395270903152","authorId":"3572395270903152","name":"POWGON","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0f434116081b7609a6b51e9402a0ae47","crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3572395270903152","idStr":"3572395270903152"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Hope it goes well","listText":"Hope it goes well","text":"Hope it goes well","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/365766841","repostId":"1177260934","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":775,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":365768782,"gmtCreate":1614781347646,"gmtModify":1703481034879,"author":{"id":"3572395270903152","authorId":"3572395270903152","name":"POWGON","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0f434116081b7609a6b51e9402a0ae47","crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3572395270903152","idStr":"3572395270903152"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Hope it goes well","listText":"Hope it goes well","text":"Hope it goes well","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/365768782","repostId":"1177260934","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":964,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"hots":[{"id":121622098,"gmtCreate":1624462703014,"gmtModify":1634005738778,"author":{"id":"3572395270903152","authorId":"3572395270903152","name":"POWGON","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0f434116081b7609a6b51e9402a0ae47","crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3572395270903152","idStr":"3572395270903152"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"When is the weakest. Hahaha","listText":"When is the weakest. Hahaha","text":"When is the weakest. Hahaha","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":5,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/121622098","repostId":"1104807513","repostType":2,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2463,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":126146418,"gmtCreate":1624548902634,"gmtModify":1634004488902,"author":{"id":"3572395270903152","authorId":"3572395270903152","name":"POWGON","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0f434116081b7609a6b51e9402a0ae47","crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3572395270903152","idStr":"3572395270903152"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Too expensive. Can't even think of it. Hahahaha....","listText":"Too expensive. Can't even think of it. Hahahaha....","text":"Too expensive. Can't even think of it. Hahahaha....","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/126146418","repostId":"1162964404","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":3381,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":165301885,"gmtCreate":1624092060947,"gmtModify":1631884324082,"author":{"id":"3572395270903152","authorId":"3572395270903152","name":"POWGON","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0f434116081b7609a6b51e9402a0ae47","crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3572395270903152","idStr":"3572395270903152"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Hope it is true","listText":"Hope it is true","text":"Hope it is true","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":5,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/165301885","repostId":"1113942445","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1762,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":367923169,"gmtCreate":1614904757751,"gmtModify":1703482741918,"author":{"id":"3572395270903152","authorId":"3572395270903152","name":"POWGON","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0f434116081b7609a6b51e9402a0ae47","crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3572395270903152","idStr":"3572395270903152"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Bubble?","listText":"Bubble?","text":"Bubble?","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/367923169","repostId":"1151606825","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":653,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":365766841,"gmtCreate":1614781380683,"gmtModify":1703481035742,"author":{"id":"3572395270903152","authorId":"3572395270903152","name":"POWGON","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0f434116081b7609a6b51e9402a0ae47","crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3572395270903152","idStr":"3572395270903152"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Hope it goes well","listText":"Hope it goes well","text":"Hope it goes well","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/365766841","repostId":"1177260934","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":775,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":365768782,"gmtCreate":1614781347646,"gmtModify":1703481034879,"author":{"id":"3572395270903152","authorId":"3572395270903152","name":"POWGON","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0f434116081b7609a6b51e9402a0ae47","crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3572395270903152","idStr":"3572395270903152"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Hope it goes well","listText":"Hope it goes well","text":"Hope it goes well","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/365768782","repostId":"1177260934","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":964,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":167712618,"gmtCreate":1624284634834,"gmtModify":1634008399231,"author":{"id":"3572395270903152","authorId":"3572395270903152","name":"POWGON","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0f434116081b7609a6b51e9402a0ae47","crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3572395270903152","idStr":"3572395270903152"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Nice","listText":"Nice","text":"Nice","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/167712618","repostId":"1171968125","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1765,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":166738662,"gmtCreate":1624024754856,"gmtModify":1634023937411,"author":{"id":"3572395270903152","authorId":"3572395270903152","name":"POWGON","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0f434116081b7609a6b51e9402a0ae47","crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3572395270903152","idStr":"3572395270903152"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Hm... Another article to say \"Stay away\"","listText":"Hm... Another article to say \"Stay away\"","text":"Hm... Another article to say \"Stay away\"","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/166738662","repostId":"1131310015","repostType":2,"repost":{"id":"1131310015","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1623987347,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1131310015?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-18 11:35","market":"us","language":"en","title":"AMC: Danger Signals For Investors And Speculators<blockquote>AMC：投资者和投机者的危险信号</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1131310015","media":"seekingalpha","summary":"Summary\n\nI stand on the shoulder of giants to guide you on AMC.\nFor investors, the gravitational pul","content":"<p><b>Summary</b></p><p><blockquote><b>总结</b></blockquote></p><p> <ul>  <li>I stand on the shoulder of giants to guide you on AMC.</li>  <li>For investors, the gravitational pull of no earning prospects provides little support to the stock.</li>  <li>A century-old cautionary tale for speculators counting on a short squeeze.</li>  <li>Sell before the other speculators do.</li> </ul> <p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/dabb985556b9f549dd561bf919495d08\" tg-width=\"768\" tg-height=\"513\"><span>RgStudio/E+ via Getty Images</span></p><p><blockquote><ul><li>我站在巨人的肩膀上，在AMC上指导你。</li><li>对于投资者来说，没有盈利前景的引力对该股几乎没有支撑。</li><li>对于指望轧空的投机者来说，这是一个百年的警示故事。</li><li>在其他投机者之前卖出。</li></ul><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><span>RgStudio/E+来自Getty Images</span></p></blockquote></p><p> What are we to make of the meme stock phenomena? I tookone stab at itwith AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc.(NYSE:AMC)a few weeks ago. I’m back for more, after reading two interesting pieces. As Isaac Newton said in 1676, “<i>If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.</i>” Now I’m no Isaac Newton. For one, I’m far better looking. But like Zeke – a nickname Isaac’s friends probably never used – I too stand on the shoulders of giants. In this case the shoulders of Jason Zweig, a wonderful financial markets writer for<i>The Wall Street Journal</i>, and John Brooks, author of “<i>Business Adventures</i>”, a book recommended by Bill Gates. I will quote liberally from both in this article, then draw the line for you to AMC.</p><p><blockquote>我们如何看待模因股票现象？几周前，我与AMC院线控股公司（纽约证券交易所股票代码：AMC）一起尝试了一下。在读了两篇有趣的文章后，我又回来了。正如艾萨克·牛顿在1676年所说，“<i>如果说我看得更远了一点，那就是站在巨人的肩膀上。</i>“现在我不是艾萨克·牛顿了。首先，我看起来好多了。但就像齐克一样——艾萨克的朋友们可能从未使用过这个昵称——我也站在巨人的肩膀上。在这种情况下，杰森·茨威格（Jason Zweig）是一位出色的金融市场作家<i>华尔街日报</i>，以及约翰·布鲁克斯，《<i>商业冒险</i>》，比尔盖茨推荐的一本书。我将在本文中大量引用两者，然后为您划清界限AMC。</blockquote></p><p> <b>Investor vs. trader vs. speculator</b></p><p><blockquote><b>投资者、交易者、投机者</b></blockquote></p><p> Jason Zweig graphically distinguished between these three types of stock buyers in hisJune 11, 2021<i>Wall Street Journal</i>column:</p><p><blockquote>Jason Zweig在他的2021年6月11日以图形方式区分了这三种类型的股票买家<i>华尔街日报</i>柱：</blockquote></p><p>   “  <i>Whenever you buy any financial asset because you have a hunch or just for kicks, or because somebody famous is hyping the heck out of it, or everybody else seems to be buying it too, you aren’t investing.You’re definitely a trader: someone who has just bought an asset. And you may be a speculator: someone who thinks other people will pay more for it than you did.”“An investor relies on internal sources of return: earnings, income, growth in the value of assets. A speculator counts on external sources of return: primarily whether somebody else will pay more, regardless of fundamental value.”</i>  So why has AMC’s stock price been on a tear? I have one informal data source, namely the 300+ comments on my June 4 AMC article. Earnings, income, growth in the value of assets<i>never</i>came up. What did come up was “short squeeze” and stock charts. So I expect Mr. Zweig would describe AMC’s stock as driven by traders and speculators.</p><p><blockquote>“<i>每当你因为有预感或只是为了好玩而购买任何金融资产，或者因为某个名人正在大肆宣传，或者其他人似乎也在购买它，你就不是在投资。你绝对是一个交易者：刚刚购买了一项资产的人。你可能是一个投机者：认为其他人会比你支付更多的钱。”“投资者依赖内部回报来源：收益、收入、资产价值的增长。投机者依赖外部回报来源：主要是其他人是否会支付更多，而不考虑基本价值。”</i>那么为什么AMC的股价一直在上涨呢？我有一个非正式的数据来源，即我6月4日AMC文章的300多条评论。收益，收入，资产价值的增长<i>没有</i>上来了。出现的是“轧空”和股票图表。因此，我预计茨威格先生会将AMC的股票描述为由交易员和投机者推动的。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Zweig also made me realize that my AMC article left out an earnings forecast. I gave lots of data on historic trends, which only implied a future direction. I correct that omission here.</p><p><blockquote>茨威格先生还让我意识到，我的AMC文章遗漏了盈利预测。我给出了很多关于历史趋势的数据，这些数据只是暗示了未来的方向。我在这里纠正这个遗漏。</blockquote></p><p> <b>A 2022 AMC earnings forecast</b></p><p><blockquote><b>2022年AMC盈利预测</b></blockquote></p><p> I start with the key assumptions:</p><p><blockquote>我从关键假设开始：</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3f5311cb0ff00c046d122c2c84fc3aea\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"168\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>My time frame for reference</i>&nbsp;is 2017 to 2019. Earlier data is less relevant because AMC made a big acquisition in 2016, and 2020 and 2021 data is even less relevant because of COVID.</p><p><blockquote><i>我的参考时间框架</i>是2017年到2019年。早期的数据相关性较低，因为AMC在2016年进行了一项大型收购，而2020年和2021年的数据则因为新冠疫情而相关性更低。</blockquote></p><p> <i>The national box office</i>is the major assumption.My June 4 articleshows that movie attendance has been declining since 2002. What will box office be next year? The steady growth in streaming, both in subscribers and content, certainly is a headwind. And COVID logically should increase the shift from offsite (theater) entertainment to home entertainment, as it has for shopping and working. Holding movie attendance near its ’19 level would be a minor miracle. A 10%, or even a 20%, decline is far more likely. As you can see in the table above, I make 2022 AMC EPS forecasts using all three box office assumptions.</p><p><blockquote><i>全国票房</i>是主要假设。我6月4日的文章显示，自2002年以来，电影上座率一直在下降。明年票房会是多少？流媒体在订户和内容方面的稳定增长无疑是一个阻力。从逻辑上讲，COVID应该增加从场外（剧院）娱乐到家庭娱乐的转变，就像购物和工作一样。保持电影上座率接近19年的水平将是一个小小的奇迹。下降10%，甚至20%的可能性要大得多。如上表所示，我使用所有三种票房假设对2022年AMC每股收益进行预测。</blockquote></p><p> <b><i>AMC market share.</i></b>I assume a share increase from AMC’s ’17-’19 level because some competing theaters must have dropped out because of COVID financial pressures.</p><p><blockquote><b><i>AMC市场份额。</i></b>我假设AMC的份额会比17-19年的水平有所增加，因为一些竞争影院肯定因新冠疫情的财务压力而退出。</blockquote></p><p> <b><i>Admissions gross margin.</i></b>This is the profit from ticket sales less the cost of licensing movies from their producers. I hold AMC steady with ’17-’19, but I can also imagine that movie producers seek better terms because AMC has to bid against a growing pool of streaming services desperate for content.</p><p><blockquote><b><i>招生毛利率。</i></b>这是门票销售的利润减去制片人授权电影的成本。我认为AMC在17-19年保持稳定，但我也可以想象电影制片人会寻求更好的条款，因为AMC必须与越来越多渴望内容的流媒体服务竞标。</blockquote></p><p> <b><i>Food expenses as a percent of sales.</i></b>I carry forward the shockingly low number. AMC, and presumably its peers, take their food and beverage costs and<i>multiply them by 7 in their pricing to us moviegoers.</i>Smuggle in your own Jujifruits and save a bundle. My best financial advice for the year.</p><p><blockquote><b><i>食品费用占销售额的百分比。</i></b>我继承了低得惊人的数字。AMC，大概还有它的同行，承担他们的食品和饮料成本和<i>将它们对美国电影观众的定价乘以7。</i>走私你自己的Jujifruits，省下一捆。我今年最好的理财建议。</blockquote></p><p> <b><i>Food and beverage sales as a percent of ticket prices.</i></b>I assume that AMC’s trend of modest increases continues.</p><p><blockquote><b><i>食品和饮料销售额占票价的百分比。</i></b>我认为AMC小幅上涨的趋势仍在继续。</blockquote></p><p> <b><i>Operating expenses</i></b>are the cost of the theater personnel, utilities, etc. I assume the gradual uptrend in the operating expense ratio continues, for two reasons. One, these operating expenses are largely fixed, and revenues will be under pressure. Second, it seems logical that the current labor shortage will pressure pay levels for low-end theater jobs.</p><p><blockquote><b><i>营业费用</i></b>是剧院人员、公用事业等的成本。我认为运营费用率的逐步上升趋势仍在继续，原因有二。第一，这些运营费用基本上是固定的，收入将面临压力。其次，当前的劳动力短缺将给低端剧院工作的薪酬水平带来压力，这似乎是合乎逻辑的。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> We’re now ready for my earnings and cash flow models:</p><p><blockquote>我们现在已经为我的盈利和现金流模型做好了准备：</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9b8a5ce8ad10adb3336126cdb0a5e598\" tg-width=\"537\" tg-height=\"497\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> The ’22 forecasts are set by the assumptions above through the “gross profit” line. My overhead expense forecast assumes that AMC is working hard to limit expenses through its challenging times:</p><p><blockquote>22年的预测是根据上述假设通过“毛利润”线设定的。我的管理费用预测假设AMC正在努力限制费用度过充满挑战的时期：</blockquote></p><p> <ul>  <li><i>Depreciation/amortization</i>is a combination of accounting expenses for real estate and acquisitions. Write-downs taken during the pandemic should have reduced these expenses.</li>  <li><i>Interest expense</i>should decline as AMC pays down some debt with the equity it has been raising.</li> </ul> <b>The gravitational pull of earnings</b></p><p><blockquote><ul><li><i>折旧/摊销</i>是房地产和收购的会计费用的组合。疫情期间进行的减记本应减少这些费用。</li><li><i>利息支出</i>随着AMC用其筹集的股权偿还部分债务，这一数字应该会下降。</li></ul><b>盈利的引力</b></blockquote></p><p> We arrive at the bottom line. The best-case scenario I can see for 2022 EPS is roughly breakeven. More likely is a modest loss. Cash flow should be somewhat worse, because the cash capital spending needed by AMC to keep its theaters attractive to a shrinking audience should exceed its non-cash depreciation/amortization expenses. If capital spending is much lower than I forecast, it is probably because AMC management is conceding that it is in a death spiral and wants to milk what cash it can.</p><p><blockquote>我们到达了底线。我能看到的2022年每股收益的最佳情况是大致盈亏平衡。更有可能的是适度的损失。现金流应该会更糟，因为AMC保持影院对不断萎缩的观众的吸引力所需的现金资本支出应该超过其非现金折旧/摊销费用。如果资本支出远低于我的预测，可能是因为AMC管理层承认自己正处于死亡螺旋之中，并希望尽可能榨取现金。</blockquote></p><p> <i>The bottom line - no support for investors.</i>AMC’s book value is negative. It appears incapable of earning any material money post-COVID. Its business is in long-term decline due to technology changes, and its new competitors are monster companies – Netflix, Disney, Comcast, etc. – with huge resources. An investor can only look at AMC’s current $55 stock price and with a shudder say, in the immortal words of<i>Trading Places</i>, “Sell Mortimer, sell!”</p><p><blockquote><i>底线是——不支持投资者。</i>AMC的账面价值为负。在COVID之后，它似乎无法赚取任何物质收入。其业务因技术变革而长期下滑，新的竞争对手是拥有巨大资源的怪兽公司——奈飞、迪士尼、康卡斯特等。投资者只能看着AMC目前55美元的股价，不寒而栗地说，用不朽的话来说<i>交易场所</i>、“卖莫蒂默，卖！”</blockquote></p><p> <b>The speculative play - a short squeeze: A historical cautionary tale</b></p><p><blockquote><b>投机游戏——轧空：历史警示</b></blockquote></p><p> Millennials did not invent the short squeeze. It has been around almost as long financial markets have existed. The book<i>Business Adventures</i>by John Brooks<i>,</i>published way back in 1969, tells a vivid tale of a short squeeze even farther back, in the early 1920s. Literally a century ago. I’m going to quote from the book to suggest how the story ends for speculations with no investor support. So pour yourself some illegal hooch (we’re heading to the Prohibition Era) and read on. This is the story of Clarence Saunders, the founder of Piggly Wiggly Stores, the first supermarket; the Amazon of his day.</p><p><blockquote>千禧一代并没有发明轧空。它几乎和金融市场存在的时间一样长。这本书<i>商业冒险</i>约翰·布鲁克斯<i>,</i>早在1969年就出版了，生动地讲述了20世纪20年代初的空头挤压故事。一个世纪前。我将引用书中的话来说明在没有投资者支持的情况下，投机的故事将如何结束。所以，给自己倒点非法烈酒（我们正走向禁酒令时代），继续读下去。这是第一家超市Piggly Wiggly Stores的创始人克拉伦斯·桑德斯的故事；他那个时代的亚马逊。</blockquote></p><p> Shorts went after Clarence’s stock in 1922, driving it from $50 to below $40. Saunders vowed revenge with a short squeeze. Here are excerpts of Mr. Brooks’ recounting of the story:</p><p><blockquote>1922年，空头追捧克拉伦斯的股票，将其从50美元推至40美元以下。桑德斯发誓要用空头挤压进行报复。以下是布鲁克斯先生讲述这个故事的摘录：</blockquote></p><p>   “  <i>Saunders…bought 33,000 shares of Piggly Wiggly, mostly from short sellers; within a week he had brought the total to 105,000 – more than half of the 200,000 shares outstanding. The effectiveness of Saunders’ buying campaign was readily apparent; by late January of 1923 it had driven he price up over $60…</i>”  The sole short squeezer of yore has been replaced by herds of “apes” today, and the apes have been far better in driving up prices. By the way, believe it or not, a group of apes is apparently called a “shrewdness”. A group of apes is shrewd – interesting.</p><p><blockquote>“<i>桑德斯……购买了33,000股Piggly Wiggly股票，大部分来自卖空者；不到一周，他就将总数增加到了10.5万股——超过了20万股已发行股票的一半。桑德斯购买活动的有效性显而易见；到1923年1月下旬，它已将价格推高了60多美元……</i>“昔日唯一的空头挤压者如今已被成群的“猿”所取代，而猿在推高价格方面要好得多。顺便说一句，信不信由你，一群猿显然被称为“精明”。一群猿很精明——有意思。</blockquote></p><p>   “  <i>He had made himself a bundle and had demonstrated how a poor Southern boy could teach the city slickers a lesson.”</i>  Today we have apes sticking it to hedge funds.</p><p><blockquote>“<i>他赚了一大笔钱，证明了一个贫穷的南方男孩是如何教训城市里的狡猾分子的。”</i>今天，我们有猿类坚持对冲基金。</blockquote></p><p>   “  <i>One of the great hazards in the Corner was always that even though a player might defeat his opponents, he would discover that he had won a Pyrrhic victory. Once the short sellers had been squeezed dry, the cornerer might find that the reams of stock he had accumulated in the process were a dead weight around his neck; by pushing it all back into the market, he would drive its price down to zero.</i>”  Something to think about. What was Saunders to do?</p><p><blockquote>“<i>角落里最大的危险之一总是，即使一个玩家可能会击败他的对手，他也会发现他赢得了一场得不偿失的胜利。一旦卖空者被榨干，卖空者可能会发现他在这个过程中积累的大量股票是他脖子上的沉重负担；通过将其全部推回市场，他会将其价格降至零。</i>“值得思考的事情。桑德斯该怎么办？</blockquote></p><p>   “[  <i>Saunders’] solution was to sell his $55 shares on the installment plan. In his February advertisements, he stipulated that the public could buy shares only by paying $25 down and the balance in three $10 installments</i>.”  Pretty clever, no? No:</p><p><blockquote>“[<i>桑德斯的解决方案是出售分期付款计划中价值55美元的股票。在他二月份的广告中，他规定公众只需支付25美元的首付，余款分三期支付10美元即可购买股票</i>“很聪明，不是吗？没有：</blockquote></p><p>   “  <i>At the end of the third day, the total number of shares subscribed for was still under 25,000, and the sales that were made were canceled. Saunders had to admit that the drive had been a failure.”</i>  Uh oh. What now?</p><p><blockquote>“<i>在第三天结束时，认购的股份总数仍低于2.5万股，所做的卖出被取消。桑德斯不得不承认这次旅行是失败的。”</i>呃哦。现在怎么办？</blockquote></p><p>   <i>“On August 22nd, the New York auction firm of Adrian H. Muller &amp; Son…knocked down 1,500 shares of Piggly Wiggly at $1 a share…The following spring Saunders went through formal bankruptcy proceedings.”</i>  Ouch.</p><p><blockquote><i>“8月22日，Adrian H.Muller&amp;Son的纽约拍卖公司……以每股1美元的价格拍卖了1,500股Piggly Wiggly股票……第二年春天，Saunders进入了正式破产程序。”</i>哎哟。</blockquote></p><p> <b>Buyers beware</b></p><p><blockquote><b>买家当心</b></blockquote></p><p> As Jason Zweig noted above, speculators depend upon finding a buyer at a higher price. Today’s holders of AMC stock certainly have made life painful for many short sellers. But are there really enough new buyers to take out current shareholders above AMC’s present $28 billion market cap? Especially with the gravity of no earnings constantly weighing on the stock?</p><p><blockquote>正如杰森·茨威格上面指出的，投机者依赖于以更高的价格找到买家。如今AMC股票的持有者无疑让许多卖空者的生活变得痛苦。但真的有足够多的新买家来收购AMC目前280亿美元市值以上的现有股东吗？尤其是在没有盈利的情况下不断给股票带来压力的情况下？</blockquote></p><p></p><p> AMC shareholders, don’t win Clarence Saunders’ Pyrrhic victory. Take your $55 a share and run. Fast. Before the other speculating holders do so first.</p><p><blockquote>AMC股东们，不要赢得克拉伦斯·桑德斯得不偿失的胜利。拿着每股55美元跑吧。快的。在其他投机持有者首先这样做之前。</blockquote></p><p></p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>AMC: Danger Signals For Investors And Speculators<blockquote>AMC：投资者和投机者的危险信号</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nAMC: Danger Signals For Investors And Speculators<blockquote>AMC：投资者和投机者的危险信号</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">seekingalpha</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-06-18 11:35</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p><b>Summary</b></p><p><blockquote><b>总结</b></blockquote></p><p> <ul>  <li>I stand on the shoulder of giants to guide you on AMC.</li>  <li>For investors, the gravitational pull of no earning prospects provides little support to the stock.</li>  <li>A century-old cautionary tale for speculators counting on a short squeeze.</li>  <li>Sell before the other speculators do.</li> </ul> <p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/dabb985556b9f549dd561bf919495d08\" tg-width=\"768\" tg-height=\"513\"><span>RgStudio/E+ via Getty Images</span></p><p><blockquote><ul><li>我站在巨人的肩膀上，在AMC上指导你。</li><li>对于投资者来说，没有盈利前景的引力对该股几乎没有支撑。</li><li>对于指望轧空的投机者来说，这是一个百年的警示故事。</li><li>在其他投机者之前卖出。</li></ul><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><span>RgStudio/E+来自Getty Images</span></p></blockquote></p><p> What are we to make of the meme stock phenomena? I tookone stab at itwith AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc.(NYSE:AMC)a few weeks ago. I’m back for more, after reading two interesting pieces. As Isaac Newton said in 1676, “<i>If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.</i>” Now I’m no Isaac Newton. For one, I’m far better looking. But like Zeke – a nickname Isaac’s friends probably never used – I too stand on the shoulders of giants. In this case the shoulders of Jason Zweig, a wonderful financial markets writer for<i>The Wall Street Journal</i>, and John Brooks, author of “<i>Business Adventures</i>”, a book recommended by Bill Gates. I will quote liberally from both in this article, then draw the line for you to AMC.</p><p><blockquote>我们如何看待模因股票现象？几周前，我与AMC院线控股公司（纽约证券交易所股票代码：AMC）一起尝试了一下。在读了两篇有趣的文章后，我又回来了。正如艾萨克·牛顿在1676年所说，“<i>如果说我看得更远了一点，那就是站在巨人的肩膀上。</i>“现在我不是艾萨克·牛顿了。首先，我看起来好多了。但就像齐克一样——艾萨克的朋友们可能从未使用过这个昵称——我也站在巨人的肩膀上。在这种情况下，杰森·茨威格（Jason Zweig）是一位出色的金融市场作家<i>华尔街日报</i>，以及约翰·布鲁克斯，《<i>商业冒险</i>》，比尔盖茨推荐的一本书。我将在本文中大量引用两者，然后为您划清界限AMC。</blockquote></p><p> <b>Investor vs. trader vs. speculator</b></p><p><blockquote><b>投资者、交易者、投机者</b></blockquote></p><p> Jason Zweig graphically distinguished between these three types of stock buyers in hisJune 11, 2021<i>Wall Street Journal</i>column:</p><p><blockquote>Jason Zweig在他的2021年6月11日以图形方式区分了这三种类型的股票买家<i>华尔街日报</i>柱：</blockquote></p><p>   “  <i>Whenever you buy any financial asset because you have a hunch or just for kicks, or because somebody famous is hyping the heck out of it, or everybody else seems to be buying it too, you aren’t investing.You’re definitely a trader: someone who has just bought an asset. And you may be a speculator: someone who thinks other people will pay more for it than you did.”“An investor relies on internal sources of return: earnings, income, growth in the value of assets. A speculator counts on external sources of return: primarily whether somebody else will pay more, regardless of fundamental value.”</i>  So why has AMC’s stock price been on a tear? I have one informal data source, namely the 300+ comments on my June 4 AMC article. Earnings, income, growth in the value of assets<i>never</i>came up. What did come up was “short squeeze” and stock charts. So I expect Mr. Zweig would describe AMC’s stock as driven by traders and speculators.</p><p><blockquote>“<i>每当你因为有预感或只是为了好玩而购买任何金融资产，或者因为某个名人正在大肆宣传，或者其他人似乎也在购买它，你就不是在投资。你绝对是一个交易者：刚刚购买了一项资产的人。你可能是一个投机者：认为其他人会比你支付更多的钱。”“投资者依赖内部回报来源：收益、收入、资产价值的增长。投机者依赖外部回报来源：主要是其他人是否会支付更多，而不考虑基本价值。”</i>那么为什么AMC的股价一直在上涨呢？我有一个非正式的数据来源，即我6月4日AMC文章的300多条评论。收益，收入，资产价值的增长<i>没有</i>上来了。出现的是“轧空”和股票图表。因此，我预计茨威格先生会将AMC的股票描述为由交易员和投机者推动的。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Zweig also made me realize that my AMC article left out an earnings forecast. I gave lots of data on historic trends, which only implied a future direction. I correct that omission here.</p><p><blockquote>茨威格先生还让我意识到，我的AMC文章遗漏了盈利预测。我给出了很多关于历史趋势的数据，这些数据只是暗示了未来的方向。我在这里纠正这个遗漏。</blockquote></p><p> <b>A 2022 AMC earnings forecast</b></p><p><blockquote><b>2022年AMC盈利预测</b></blockquote></p><p> I start with the key assumptions:</p><p><blockquote>我从关键假设开始：</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3f5311cb0ff00c046d122c2c84fc3aea\" tg-width=\"640\" tg-height=\"168\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> <i>My time frame for reference</i>&nbsp;is 2017 to 2019. Earlier data is less relevant because AMC made a big acquisition in 2016, and 2020 and 2021 data is even less relevant because of COVID.</p><p><blockquote><i>我的参考时间框架</i>是2017年到2019年。早期的数据相关性较低，因为AMC在2016年进行了一项大型收购，而2020年和2021年的数据则因为新冠疫情而相关性更低。</blockquote></p><p> <i>The national box office</i>is the major assumption.My June 4 articleshows that movie attendance has been declining since 2002. What will box office be next year? The steady growth in streaming, both in subscribers and content, certainly is a headwind. And COVID logically should increase the shift from offsite (theater) entertainment to home entertainment, as it has for shopping and working. Holding movie attendance near its ’19 level would be a minor miracle. A 10%, or even a 20%, decline is far more likely. As you can see in the table above, I make 2022 AMC EPS forecasts using all three box office assumptions.</p><p><blockquote><i>全国票房</i>是主要假设。我6月4日的文章显示，自2002年以来，电影上座率一直在下降。明年票房会是多少？流媒体在订户和内容方面的稳定增长无疑是一个阻力。从逻辑上讲，COVID应该增加从场外（剧院）娱乐到家庭娱乐的转变，就像购物和工作一样。保持电影上座率接近19年的水平将是一个小小的奇迹。下降10%，甚至20%的可能性要大得多。如上表所示，我使用所有三种票房假设对2022年AMC每股收益进行预测。</blockquote></p><p> <b><i>AMC market share.</i></b>I assume a share increase from AMC’s ’17-’19 level because some competing theaters must have dropped out because of COVID financial pressures.</p><p><blockquote><b><i>AMC市场份额。</i></b>我假设AMC的份额会比17-19年的水平有所增加，因为一些竞争影院肯定因新冠疫情的财务压力而退出。</blockquote></p><p> <b><i>Admissions gross margin.</i></b>This is the profit from ticket sales less the cost of licensing movies from their producers. I hold AMC steady with ’17-’19, but I can also imagine that movie producers seek better terms because AMC has to bid against a growing pool of streaming services desperate for content.</p><p><blockquote><b><i>招生毛利率。</i></b>这是门票销售的利润减去制片人授权电影的成本。我认为AMC在17-19年保持稳定，但我也可以想象电影制片人会寻求更好的条款，因为AMC必须与越来越多渴望内容的流媒体服务竞标。</blockquote></p><p> <b><i>Food expenses as a percent of sales.</i></b>I carry forward the shockingly low number. AMC, and presumably its peers, take their food and beverage costs and<i>multiply them by 7 in their pricing to us moviegoers.</i>Smuggle in your own Jujifruits and save a bundle. My best financial advice for the year.</p><p><blockquote><b><i>食品费用占销售额的百分比。</i></b>我继承了低得惊人的数字。AMC，大概还有它的同行，承担他们的食品和饮料成本和<i>将它们对美国电影观众的定价乘以7。</i>走私你自己的Jujifruits，省下一捆。我今年最好的理财建议。</blockquote></p><p> <b><i>Food and beverage sales as a percent of ticket prices.</i></b>I assume that AMC’s trend of modest increases continues.</p><p><blockquote><b><i>食品和饮料销售额占票价的百分比。</i></b>我认为AMC小幅上涨的趋势仍在继续。</blockquote></p><p> <b><i>Operating expenses</i></b>are the cost of the theater personnel, utilities, etc. I assume the gradual uptrend in the operating expense ratio continues, for two reasons. One, these operating expenses are largely fixed, and revenues will be under pressure. Second, it seems logical that the current labor shortage will pressure pay levels for low-end theater jobs.</p><p><blockquote><b><i>营业费用</i></b>是剧院人员、公用事业等的成本。我认为运营费用率的逐步上升趋势仍在继续，原因有二。第一，这些运营费用基本上是固定的，收入将面临压力。其次，当前的劳动力短缺将给低端剧院工作的薪酬水平带来压力，这似乎是合乎逻辑的。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> We’re now ready for my earnings and cash flow models:</p><p><blockquote>我们现在已经为我的盈利和现金流模型做好了准备：</blockquote></p><p> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9b8a5ce8ad10adb3336126cdb0a5e598\" tg-width=\"537\" tg-height=\"497\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p> The ’22 forecasts are set by the assumptions above through the “gross profit” line. My overhead expense forecast assumes that AMC is working hard to limit expenses through its challenging times:</p><p><blockquote>22年的预测是根据上述假设通过“毛利润”线设定的。我的管理费用预测假设AMC正在努力限制费用度过充满挑战的时期：</blockquote></p><p> <ul>  <li><i>Depreciation/amortization</i>is a combination of accounting expenses for real estate and acquisitions. Write-downs taken during the pandemic should have reduced these expenses.</li>  <li><i>Interest expense</i>should decline as AMC pays down some debt with the equity it has been raising.</li> </ul> <b>The gravitational pull of earnings</b></p><p><blockquote><ul><li><i>折旧/摊销</i>是房地产和收购的会计费用的组合。疫情期间进行的减记本应减少这些费用。</li><li><i>利息支出</i>随着AMC用其筹集的股权偿还部分债务，这一数字应该会下降。</li></ul><b>盈利的引力</b></blockquote></p><p> We arrive at the bottom line. The best-case scenario I can see for 2022 EPS is roughly breakeven. More likely is a modest loss. Cash flow should be somewhat worse, because the cash capital spending needed by AMC to keep its theaters attractive to a shrinking audience should exceed its non-cash depreciation/amortization expenses. If capital spending is much lower than I forecast, it is probably because AMC management is conceding that it is in a death spiral and wants to milk what cash it can.</p><p><blockquote>我们到达了底线。我能看到的2022年每股收益的最佳情况是大致盈亏平衡。更有可能的是适度的损失。现金流应该会更糟，因为AMC保持影院对不断萎缩的观众的吸引力所需的现金资本支出应该超过其非现金折旧/摊销费用。如果资本支出远低于我的预测，可能是因为AMC管理层承认自己正处于死亡螺旋之中，并希望尽可能榨取现金。</blockquote></p><p> <i>The bottom line - no support for investors.</i>AMC’s book value is negative. It appears incapable of earning any material money post-COVID. Its business is in long-term decline due to technology changes, and its new competitors are monster companies – Netflix, Disney, Comcast, etc. – with huge resources. An investor can only look at AMC’s current $55 stock price and with a shudder say, in the immortal words of<i>Trading Places</i>, “Sell Mortimer, sell!”</p><p><blockquote><i>底线是——不支持投资者。</i>AMC的账面价值为负。在COVID之后，它似乎无法赚取任何物质收入。其业务因技术变革而长期下滑，新的竞争对手是拥有巨大资源的怪兽公司——奈飞、迪士尼、康卡斯特等。投资者只能看着AMC目前55美元的股价，不寒而栗地说，用不朽的话来说<i>交易场所</i>、“卖莫蒂默，卖！”</blockquote></p><p> <b>The speculative play - a short squeeze: A historical cautionary tale</b></p><p><blockquote><b>投机游戏——轧空：历史警示</b></blockquote></p><p> Millennials did not invent the short squeeze. It has been around almost as long financial markets have existed. The book<i>Business Adventures</i>by John Brooks<i>,</i>published way back in 1969, tells a vivid tale of a short squeeze even farther back, in the early 1920s. Literally a century ago. I’m going to quote from the book to suggest how the story ends for speculations with no investor support. So pour yourself some illegal hooch (we’re heading to the Prohibition Era) and read on. This is the story of Clarence Saunders, the founder of Piggly Wiggly Stores, the first supermarket; the Amazon of his day.</p><p><blockquote>千禧一代并没有发明轧空。它几乎和金融市场存在的时间一样长。这本书<i>商业冒险</i>约翰·布鲁克斯<i>,</i>早在1969年就出版了，生动地讲述了20世纪20年代初的空头挤压故事。一个世纪前。我将引用书中的话来说明在没有投资者支持的情况下，投机的故事将如何结束。所以，给自己倒点非法烈酒（我们正走向禁酒令时代），继续读下去。这是第一家超市Piggly Wiggly Stores的创始人克拉伦斯·桑德斯的故事；他那个时代的亚马逊。</blockquote></p><p> Shorts went after Clarence’s stock in 1922, driving it from $50 to below $40. Saunders vowed revenge with a short squeeze. Here are excerpts of Mr. Brooks’ recounting of the story:</p><p><blockquote>1922年，空头追捧克拉伦斯的股票，将其从50美元推至40美元以下。桑德斯发誓要用空头挤压进行报复。以下是布鲁克斯先生讲述这个故事的摘录：</blockquote></p><p>   “  <i>Saunders…bought 33,000 shares of Piggly Wiggly, mostly from short sellers; within a week he had brought the total to 105,000 – more than half of the 200,000 shares outstanding. The effectiveness of Saunders’ buying campaign was readily apparent; by late January of 1923 it had driven he price up over $60…</i>”  The sole short squeezer of yore has been replaced by herds of “apes” today, and the apes have been far better in driving up prices. By the way, believe it or not, a group of apes is apparently called a “shrewdness”. A group of apes is shrewd – interesting.</p><p><blockquote>“<i>桑德斯……购买了33,000股Piggly Wiggly股票，大部分来自卖空者；不到一周，他就将总数增加到了10.5万股——超过了20万股已发行股票的一半。桑德斯购买活动的有效性显而易见；到1923年1月下旬，它已将价格推高了60多美元……</i>“昔日唯一的空头挤压者如今已被成群的“猿”所取代，而猿在推高价格方面要好得多。顺便说一句，信不信由你，一群猿显然被称为“精明”。一群猿很精明——有意思。</blockquote></p><p>   “  <i>He had made himself a bundle and had demonstrated how a poor Southern boy could teach the city slickers a lesson.”</i>  Today we have apes sticking it to hedge funds.</p><p><blockquote>“<i>他赚了一大笔钱，证明了一个贫穷的南方男孩是如何教训城市里的狡猾分子的。”</i>今天，我们有猿类坚持对冲基金。</blockquote></p><p>   “  <i>One of the great hazards in the Corner was always that even though a player might defeat his opponents, he would discover that he had won a Pyrrhic victory. Once the short sellers had been squeezed dry, the cornerer might find that the reams of stock he had accumulated in the process were a dead weight around his neck; by pushing it all back into the market, he would drive its price down to zero.</i>”  Something to think about. What was Saunders to do?</p><p><blockquote>“<i>角落里最大的危险之一总是，即使一个玩家可能会击败他的对手，他也会发现他赢得了一场得不偿失的胜利。一旦卖空者被榨干，卖空者可能会发现他在这个过程中积累的大量股票是他脖子上的沉重负担；通过将其全部推回市场，他会将其价格降至零。</i>“值得思考的事情。桑德斯该怎么办？</blockquote></p><p>   “[  <i>Saunders’] solution was to sell his $55 shares on the installment plan. In his February advertisements, he stipulated that the public could buy shares only by paying $25 down and the balance in three $10 installments</i>.”  Pretty clever, no? No:</p><p><blockquote>“[<i>桑德斯的解决方案是出售分期付款计划中价值55美元的股票。在他二月份的广告中，他规定公众只需支付25美元的首付，余款分三期支付10美元即可购买股票</i>“很聪明，不是吗？没有：</blockquote></p><p>   “  <i>At the end of the third day, the total number of shares subscribed for was still under 25,000, and the sales that were made were canceled. Saunders had to admit that the drive had been a failure.”</i>  Uh oh. What now?</p><p><blockquote>“<i>在第三天结束时，认购的股份总数仍低于2.5万股，所做的卖出被取消。桑德斯不得不承认这次旅行是失败的。”</i>呃哦。现在怎么办？</blockquote></p><p>   <i>“On August 22nd, the New York auction firm of Adrian H. Muller &amp; Son…knocked down 1,500 shares of Piggly Wiggly at $1 a share…The following spring Saunders went through formal bankruptcy proceedings.”</i>  Ouch.</p><p><blockquote><i>“8月22日，Adrian H.Muller&amp;Son的纽约拍卖公司……以每股1美元的价格拍卖了1,500股Piggly Wiggly股票……第二年春天，Saunders进入了正式破产程序。”</i>哎哟。</blockquote></p><p> <b>Buyers beware</b></p><p><blockquote><b>买家当心</b></blockquote></p><p> As Jason Zweig noted above, speculators depend upon finding a buyer at a higher price. Today’s holders of AMC stock certainly have made life painful for many short sellers. But are there really enough new buyers to take out current shareholders above AMC’s present $28 billion market cap? Especially with the gravity of no earnings constantly weighing on the stock?</p><p><blockquote>正如杰森·茨威格上面指出的，投机者依赖于以更高的价格找到买家。如今AMC股票的持有者无疑让许多卖空者的生活变得痛苦。但真的有足够多的新买家来收购AMC目前280亿美元市值以上的现有股东吗？尤其是在没有盈利的情况下不断给股票带来压力的情况下？</blockquote></p><p></p><p> AMC shareholders, don’t win Clarence Saunders’ Pyrrhic victory. Take your $55 a share and run. Fast. Before the other speculating holders do so first.</p><p><blockquote>AMC股东们，不要赢得克拉伦斯·桑德斯得不偿失的胜利。拿着每股55美元跑吧。快的。在其他投机持有者首先这样做之前。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4435360-amc-stock-danger-signals-for-investors-and-speculators\">seekingalpha</a></p>\n<p>为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化</p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"AMC":"AMC院线"},"source_url":"https://seekingalpha.com/article/4435360-amc-stock-danger-signals-for-investors-and-speculators","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1131310015","content_text":"Summary\n\nI stand on the shoulder of giants to guide you on AMC.\nFor investors, the gravitational pull of no earning prospects provides little support to the stock.\nA century-old cautionary tale for speculators counting on a short squeeze.\nSell before the other speculators do.\n\nRgStudio/E+ via Getty Images\nWhat are we to make of the meme stock phenomena? I tookone stab at itwith AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc.(NYSE:AMC)a few weeks ago. I’m back for more, after reading two interesting pieces. As Isaac Newton said in 1676, “If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.” Now I’m no Isaac Newton. For one, I’m far better looking. But like Zeke – a nickname Isaac’s friends probably never used – I too stand on the shoulders of giants. In this case the shoulders of Jason Zweig, a wonderful financial markets writer forThe Wall Street Journal, and John Brooks, author of “Business Adventures”, a book recommended by Bill Gates. I will quote liberally from both in this article, then draw the line for you to AMC.\nInvestor vs. trader vs. speculator\nJason Zweig graphically distinguished between these three types of stock buyers in hisJune 11, 2021Wall Street Journalcolumn:\n\n “\n Whenever you buy any financial asset because you have a hunch or just for kicks, or because somebody famous is hyping the heck out of it, or everybody else seems to be buying it too, you aren’t investing.You’re definitely a trader: someone who has just bought an asset. And you may be a speculator: someone who thinks other people will pay more for it than you did.”“An investor relies on internal sources of return: earnings, income, growth in the value of assets. A speculator counts on external sources of return: primarily whether somebody else will pay more, regardless of fundamental value.”\n\nSo why has AMC’s stock price been on a tear? I have one informal data source, namely the 300+ comments on my June 4 AMC article. Earnings, income, growth in the value of assetsnevercame up. What did come up was “short squeeze” and stock charts. So I expect Mr. Zweig would describe AMC’s stock as driven by traders and speculators.\nMr. Zweig also made me realize that my AMC article left out an earnings forecast. I gave lots of data on historic trends, which only implied a future direction. I correct that omission here.\nA 2022 AMC earnings forecast\nI start with the key assumptions:\n\nMy time frame for reference is 2017 to 2019. Earlier data is less relevant because AMC made a big acquisition in 2016, and 2020 and 2021 data is even less relevant because of COVID.\nThe national box officeis the major assumption.My June 4 articleshows that movie attendance has been declining since 2002. What will box office be next year? The steady growth in streaming, both in subscribers and content, certainly is a headwind. And COVID logically should increase the shift from offsite (theater) entertainment to home entertainment, as it has for shopping and working. Holding movie attendance near its ’19 level would be a minor miracle. A 10%, or even a 20%, decline is far more likely. As you can see in the table above, I make 2022 AMC EPS forecasts using all three box office assumptions.\nAMC market share.I assume a share increase from AMC’s ’17-’19 level because some competing theaters must have dropped out because of COVID financial pressures.\nAdmissions gross margin.This is the profit from ticket sales less the cost of licensing movies from their producers. I hold AMC steady with ’17-’19, but I can also imagine that movie producers seek better terms because AMC has to bid against a growing pool of streaming services desperate for content.\nFood expenses as a percent of sales.I carry forward the shockingly low number. AMC, and presumably its peers, take their food and beverage costs andmultiply them by 7 in their pricing to us moviegoers.Smuggle in your own Jujifruits and save a bundle. My best financial advice for the year.\nFood and beverage sales as a percent of ticket prices.I assume that AMC’s trend of modest increases continues.\nOperating expensesare the cost of the theater personnel, utilities, etc. I assume the gradual uptrend in the operating expense ratio continues, for two reasons. One, these operating expenses are largely fixed, and revenues will be under pressure. Second, it seems logical that the current labor shortage will pressure pay levels for low-end theater jobs.\nWe’re now ready for my earnings and cash flow models:\n\nThe ’22 forecasts are set by the assumptions above through the “gross profit” line. My overhead expense forecast assumes that AMC is working hard to limit expenses through its challenging times:\n\nDepreciation/amortizationis a combination of accounting expenses for real estate and acquisitions. Write-downs taken during the pandemic should have reduced these expenses.\nInterest expenseshould decline as AMC pays down some debt with the equity it has been raising.\n\nThe gravitational pull of earnings\nWe arrive at the bottom line. The best-case scenario I can see for 2022 EPS is roughly breakeven. More likely is a modest loss. Cash flow should be somewhat worse, because the cash capital spending needed by AMC to keep its theaters attractive to a shrinking audience should exceed its non-cash depreciation/amortization expenses. If capital spending is much lower than I forecast, it is probably because AMC management is conceding that it is in a death spiral and wants to milk what cash it can.\nThe bottom line - no support for investors.AMC’s book value is negative. It appears incapable of earning any material money post-COVID. Its business is in long-term decline due to technology changes, and its new competitors are monster companies – Netflix, Disney, Comcast, etc. – with huge resources. An investor can only look at AMC’s current $55 stock price and with a shudder say, in the immortal words ofTrading Places, “Sell Mortimer, sell!”\nThe speculative play - a short squeeze: A historical cautionary tale\nMillennials did not invent the short squeeze. It has been around almost as long financial markets have existed. The bookBusiness Adventuresby John Brooks,published way back in 1969, tells a vivid tale of a short squeeze even farther back, in the early 1920s. Literally a century ago. I’m going to quote from the book to suggest how the story ends for speculations with no investor support. So pour yourself some illegal hooch (we’re heading to the Prohibition Era) and read on. This is the story of Clarence Saunders, the founder of Piggly Wiggly Stores, the first supermarket; the Amazon of his day.\nShorts went after Clarence’s stock in 1922, driving it from $50 to below $40. Saunders vowed revenge with a short squeeze. Here are excerpts of Mr. Brooks’ recounting of the story:\n\n “\n Saunders…bought 33,000 shares of Piggly Wiggly, mostly from short sellers; within a week he had brought the total to 105,000 – more than half of the 200,000 shares outstanding. The effectiveness of Saunders’ buying campaign was readily apparent; by late January of 1923 it had driven he price up over $60…”\n\nThe sole short squeezer of yore has been replaced by herds of “apes” today, and the apes have been far better in driving up prices. By the way, believe it or not, a group of apes is apparently called a “shrewdness”. A group of apes is shrewd – interesting.\n\n “\n He had made himself a bundle and had demonstrated how a poor Southern boy could teach the city slickers a lesson.”\n\nToday we have apes sticking it to hedge funds.\n\n “\n One of the great hazards in the Corner was always that even though a player might defeat his opponents, he would discover that he had won a Pyrrhic victory. Once the short sellers had been squeezed dry, the cornerer might find that the reams of stock he had accumulated in the process were a dead weight around his neck; by pushing it all back into the market, he would drive its price down to zero.”\n\nSomething to think about. What was Saunders to do?\n\n “[\n Saunders’] solution was to sell his $55 shares on the installment plan. In his February advertisements, he stipulated that the public could buy shares only by paying $25 down and the balance in three $10 installments.”\n\nPretty clever, no? No:\n\n “\n At the end of the third day, the total number of shares subscribed for was still under 25,000, and the sales that were made were canceled. Saunders had to admit that the drive had been a failure.”\n\nUh oh. What now?\n\n“On August 22nd, the New York auction firm of Adrian H. Muller & Son…knocked down 1,500 shares of Piggly Wiggly at $1 a share…The following spring Saunders went through formal bankruptcy proceedings.”\n\nOuch.\nBuyers beware\nAs Jason Zweig noted above, speculators depend upon finding a buyer at a higher price. Today’s holders of AMC stock certainly have made life painful for many short sellers. But are there really enough new buyers to take out current shareholders above AMC’s present $28 billion market cap? Especially with the gravity of no earnings constantly weighing on the stock?\nAMC shareholders, don’t win Clarence Saunders’ Pyrrhic victory. Take your $55 a share and run. Fast. Before the other speculating holders do so first.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"AMC":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2397,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":364572066,"gmtCreate":1614868330555,"gmtModify":1703482233610,"author":{"id":"3572395270903152","authorId":"3572395270903152","name":"POWGON","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0f434116081b7609a6b51e9402a0ae47","crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3572395270903152","idStr":"3572395270903152"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Sometimes wondering about these numbers game. Do all these people get a proper job match? A retrench person who earn $10k a month previously now earning $1.5k a month. *Think *think","listText":"Sometimes wondering about these numbers game. Do all these people get a proper job match? A retrench person who earn $10k a month previously now earning $1.5k a month. *Think *think","text":"Sometimes wondering about these numbers game. Do all these people get a proper job match? A retrench person who earn $10k a month previously now earning $1.5k a month. *Think *think","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/364572066","repostId":"1191360281","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1191360281","kind":"news","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"为用户提供金融资讯、行情、数据，旨在帮助投资者理解世界，做投资决策。","home_visible":1,"media_name":"老虎资讯综合","id":"102","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8274c5b9d4c2852bfb1c4d6ce16c68ba"},"pubTimestamp":1614864862,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1191360281?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-04 21:34","market":"us","language":"en","title":"U.S. weekly jobless claims total 745,000, less than expected<blockquote>美国周度初请失业金人数总计74.5万人不及预期</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1191360281","media":"老虎资讯综合","summary":"(March 4) U.S. weekly jobless claims total 745,000, vs 750,000 estimate.Initial jobless claims, week","content":"<p>(March 4)&nbsp;U.S. weekly jobless claims total 745,000, vs 750,000 estimate.</p><p><blockquote>（3月4日）美国。每周申请失业救济人数总计745,000人，而预期为750,000人。</blockquote></p><p><ul><li><b>Initial jobless claims, week ended February 27:</b>750,000 expected vs. 730,000 during the prior week</p><p><blockquote><ul><li><b>截至2月27日当周首次申请失业救济人数：</b>预期为750,000人，前一周为730,000人</li></ul></blockquote></p><p></li><li><b>Continuing claims, week ended February 20:</b>4.300 million expected vs. 4.419 million during the prior week</p><p><blockquote><li><b>截至2月20日当周的持续索赔：</b>预期为430万，前一周为441.9万</li></blockquote></p><p></li></ul>Initial jobless claims sank far more than expected last week, though at least some of the drop appeared to have stemmed from data collection issues due to the extreme winter weather blanketing the country mid-month. Still, new jobless claims are expected to tick up only modestly after last week's pronounced drop, suggesting some underlying improvements in unemployment trends.</p><p><blockquote>上周首次申请失业救济人数的下降幅度远超预期，尽管至少部分下降似乎源于月中覆盖全国的极端冬季天气导致的数据收集问题。尽管如此，新申请失业救济人数在上周大幅下降后预计只会小幅上升，这表明失业趋势有所改善。</blockquote></p><p>But at the same time, jobless claims remain multiples above levels from before the COVID-19 pandemic, when new claims were averaging just over 200,000 per week. Returning to pre-pandemic levels of employment is likely to depend heavily on the pace of business reopenings, and consumers' propensity to return to service-centric activities most deeply affected by stay-in-place orders, many economists have noted.</p><p><blockquote>但与此同时，申请失业救济人数仍比COVID-19大流行之前的水平高出数倍，当时平均每周新申请失业救济人数略高于20万人。许多经济学家指出，恢复到大流行前的就业水平可能在很大程度上取决于企业重新开业的速度，以及消费者回归受留在原地订单影响最深的以服务为中心的活动的倾向。</blockquote></p><p>\"I think consumers are ready to spend more on services. They’re ready to travel, they’re ready to go out to restaurants. So I would expected we see very strong services job growth as we get towards the middle of 2021,\" Gus Faucher, PNC chief economist, told Yahoo Finance Live on Wednesday. \"And we’ll make a serious dent in the labor market, and I would expect that we’ll be back to our pre-pandemic level of employment sometime in the second half of 2022.\"</p><p><blockquote>PNC首席经济学家Gus Faucher周三对雅虎财经直播表示：“我认为消费者已经准备好在服务上花费更多。他们已经准备好旅行，他们已经准备好去餐馆。所以我预计，随着2021年中期，我们将看到非常强劲的服务业就业增长。”“我们将对劳动力市场造成严重影响，我预计我们将在2022年下半年的某个时候恢复到大流行前的就业水平。”</blockquote></p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/cc603a37bb03f493aec799f3a97088c7\" tg-width=\"603\" tg-height=\"423\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p>Continuing jobless claims, which are reported on a one-week lag and measure the total number of individuals still receiving regular state unemployment benefits, are expected to decline for a seventh consecutive week.</p><p><blockquote>持续申请失业救济人数预计将连续第七周下降，该数据滞后一周，衡量仍在领取常规州失业救济金的总人数。</blockquote></p><p>But the number of Americans claiming unemployment benefits across all programs remains sharply elevated: Some 19 million Americans were still claiming benefits across all programs as of February 6, the latest date for which data is available. That included more than 12.5 million Americans on Pandemic Unemployment Assistance — the federal program offering benefits to gig workers and the self-employed who do not qualify for other programs — and Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation, which offers additional up to 24 weeks of benefits.</p><p><blockquote>但在所有项目中申领失业救济金的美国人数仍然大幅上升：截至2月6日（可获得数据的最新日期），仍有约1900万美国人在所有项目中申领失业救济金。其中包括超过1250万美国人领取大流行失业援助（该联邦计划为没有资格享受其他计划的临时工和个体户提供福利）和大流行紧急失业补偿，该计划提供长达24周的额外福利。</blockquote></p><p>This week, the U.S. Senate is debating another $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package, which was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last weekend. This package would include measures extending federal unemployment benefits beyond their current March 14 expiration date. Senator Ron Wyden (D., Ore.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee,said Tuesday that he was leading Senate Democratsin pushing for the package to include an automatic extension of unemployment benefits based on economic conditions, which would remove additional unemployment benefit cliffs going forward.</p><p><blockquote>本周，美国。参议院正在辩论另一项1.9万亿美元的冠状病毒救助计划，该计划于上周末由美国众议院通过。该计划将包括将联邦失业救济金延长至目前3月14日到期日之后的措施。俄勒冈州民主党参议员罗恩·怀登。参议院财政委员会主席周二表示，他正在领导参议院民主党人推动该计划，其中包括根据经济状况自动延长失业救济金，这将消除额外的失业救济金悬崖。</blockquote></p><p></p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>U.S. weekly jobless claims total 745,000, less than expected<blockquote>美国周度初请失业金人数总计74.5万人不及预期</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nU.S. weekly jobless claims total 745,000, less than expected<blockquote>美国周度初请失业金人数总计74.5万人不及预期</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<a class=\"head\" href=\"https://laohu8.com/wemedia/102\">\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://static.tigerbbs.com/8274c5b9d4c2852bfb1c4d6ce16c68ba);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\n<p class=\"h-name\">老虎资讯综合 </p>\n<p class=\"h-time smaller\">2021-03-04 21:34</p>\n</div>\n</a>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>(March 4)&nbsp;U.S. weekly jobless claims total 745,000, vs 750,000 estimate.</p><p><blockquote>（3月4日）美国。每周申请失业救济人数总计745,000人，而预期为750,000人。</blockquote></p><p><ul><li><b>Initial jobless claims, week ended February 27:</b>750,000 expected vs. 730,000 during the prior week</p><p><blockquote><ul><li><b>截至2月27日当周首次申请失业救济人数：</b>预期为750,000人，前一周为730,000人</li></ul></blockquote></p><p></li><li><b>Continuing claims, week ended February 20:</b>4.300 million expected vs. 4.419 million during the prior week</p><p><blockquote><li><b>截至2月20日当周的持续索赔：</b>预期为430万，前一周为441.9万</li></blockquote></p><p></li></ul>Initial jobless claims sank far more than expected last week, though at least some of the drop appeared to have stemmed from data collection issues due to the extreme winter weather blanketing the country mid-month. Still, new jobless claims are expected to tick up only modestly after last week's pronounced drop, suggesting some underlying improvements in unemployment trends.</p><p><blockquote>上周首次申请失业救济人数的下降幅度远超预期，尽管至少部分下降似乎源于月中覆盖全国的极端冬季天气导致的数据收集问题。尽管如此，新申请失业救济人数在上周大幅下降后预计只会小幅上升，这表明失业趋势有所改善。</blockquote></p><p>But at the same time, jobless claims remain multiples above levels from before the COVID-19 pandemic, when new claims were averaging just over 200,000 per week. Returning to pre-pandemic levels of employment is likely to depend heavily on the pace of business reopenings, and consumers' propensity to return to service-centric activities most deeply affected by stay-in-place orders, many economists have noted.</p><p><blockquote>但与此同时，申请失业救济人数仍比COVID-19大流行之前的水平高出数倍，当时平均每周新申请失业救济人数略高于20万人。许多经济学家指出，恢复到大流行前的就业水平可能在很大程度上取决于企业重新开业的速度，以及消费者回归受留在原地订单影响最深的以服务为中心的活动的倾向。</blockquote></p><p>\"I think consumers are ready to spend more on services. They’re ready to travel, they’re ready to go out to restaurants. So I would expected we see very strong services job growth as we get towards the middle of 2021,\" Gus Faucher, PNC chief economist, told Yahoo Finance Live on Wednesday. \"And we’ll make a serious dent in the labor market, and I would expect that we’ll be back to our pre-pandemic level of employment sometime in the second half of 2022.\"</p><p><blockquote>PNC首席经济学家Gus Faucher周三对雅虎财经直播表示：“我认为消费者已经准备好在服务上花费更多。他们已经准备好旅行，他们已经准备好去餐馆。所以我预计，随着2021年中期，我们将看到非常强劲的服务业就业增长。”“我们将对劳动力市场造成严重影响，我预计我们将在2022年下半年的某个时候恢复到大流行前的就业水平。”</blockquote></p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/cc603a37bb03f493aec799f3a97088c7\" tg-width=\"603\" tg-height=\"423\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p>Continuing jobless claims, which are reported on a one-week lag and measure the total number of individuals still receiving regular state unemployment benefits, are expected to decline for a seventh consecutive week.</p><p><blockquote>持续申请失业救济人数预计将连续第七周下降，该数据滞后一周，衡量仍在领取常规州失业救济金的总人数。</blockquote></p><p>But the number of Americans claiming unemployment benefits across all programs remains sharply elevated: Some 19 million Americans were still claiming benefits across all programs as of February 6, the latest date for which data is available. That included more than 12.5 million Americans on Pandemic Unemployment Assistance — the federal program offering benefits to gig workers and the self-employed who do not qualify for other programs — and Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation, which offers additional up to 24 weeks of benefits.</p><p><blockquote>但在所有项目中申领失业救济金的美国人数仍然大幅上升：截至2月6日（可获得数据的最新日期），仍有约1900万美国人在所有项目中申领失业救济金。其中包括超过1250万美国人领取大流行失业援助（该联邦计划为没有资格享受其他计划的临时工和个体户提供福利）和大流行紧急失业补偿，该计划提供长达24周的额外福利。</blockquote></p><p>This week, the U.S. Senate is debating another $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package, which was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last weekend. This package would include measures extending federal unemployment benefits beyond their current March 14 expiration date. Senator Ron Wyden (D., Ore.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee,said Tuesday that he was leading Senate Democratsin pushing for the package to include an automatic extension of unemployment benefits based on economic conditions, which would remove additional unemployment benefit cliffs going forward.</p><p><blockquote>本周，美国。参议院正在辩论另一项1.9万亿美元的冠状病毒救助计划，该计划于上周末由美国众议院通过。该计划将包括将联邦失业救济金延长至目前3月14日到期日之后的措施。俄勒冈州民主党参议员罗恩·怀登。参议院财政委员会主席周二表示，他正在领导参议院民主党人推动该计划，其中包括根据经济状况自动延长失业救济金，这将消除额外的失业救济金悬崖。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/15e20574f8fb568333181d61bb200086","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","SPY":"标普500ETF"},"is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1191360281","content_text":"(March 4) U.S. weekly jobless claims total 745,000, vs 750,000 estimate.Initial jobless claims, week ended February 27:750,000 expected vs. 730,000 during the prior weekContinuing claims, week ended February 20:4.300 million expected vs. 4.419 million during the prior weekInitial jobless claims sank far more than expected last week, though at least some of the drop appeared to have stemmed from data collection issues due to the extreme winter weather blanketing the country mid-month. Still, new jobless claims are expected to tick up only modestly after last week's pronounced drop, suggesting some underlying improvements in unemployment trends.But at the same time, jobless claims remain multiples above levels from before the COVID-19 pandemic, when new claims were averaging just over 200,000 per week. Returning to pre-pandemic levels of employment is likely to depend heavily on the pace of business reopenings, and consumers' propensity to return to service-centric activities most deeply affected by stay-in-place orders, many economists have noted.\"I think consumers are ready to spend more on services. They’re ready to travel, they’re ready to go out to restaurants. So I would expected we see very strong services job growth as we get towards the middle of 2021,\" Gus Faucher, PNC chief economist, told Yahoo Finance Live on Wednesday. \"And we’ll make a serious dent in the labor market, and I would expect that we’ll be back to our pre-pandemic level of employment sometime in the second half of 2022.\"Continuing jobless claims, which are reported on a one-week lag and measure the total number of individuals still receiving regular state unemployment benefits, are expected to decline for a seventh consecutive week.But the number of Americans claiming unemployment benefits across all programs remains sharply elevated: Some 19 million Americans were still claiming benefits across all programs as of February 6, the latest date for which data is available. That included more than 12.5 million Americans on Pandemic Unemployment Assistance — the federal program offering benefits to gig workers and the self-employed who do not qualify for other programs — and Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation, which offers additional up to 24 weeks of benefits.This week, the U.S. Senate is debating another $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package, which was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last weekend. This package would include measures extending federal unemployment benefits beyond their current March 14 expiration date. Senator Ron Wyden (D., Ore.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee,said Tuesday that he was leading Senate Democratsin pushing for the package to include an automatic extension of unemployment benefits based on economic conditions, which would remove additional unemployment benefit cliffs going forward.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".SPX":0.9,"SPY":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,".DJI":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":625,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":120062960,"gmtCreate":1624288724050,"gmtModify":1634008311746,"author":{"id":"3572395270903152","authorId":"3572395270903152","name":"POWGON","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0f434116081b7609a6b51e9402a0ae47","crmLevel":6,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3572395270903152","idStr":"3572395270903152"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"$$$","listText":"$$$","text":"$$$","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/120062960","repostId":"2145008251","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2221,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"lives":[]}