个人中心 - 老虎社区

greenpepper

IP属地：未知

帖子 · 53帖子 · 53
关注 · 0关注 · 0
粉丝 · 0粉丝 · 0

- greenpeppergreenpepper
  ·2021-06-20
  Ok
  非常抱歉，此主贴已删除
  1,849 评论
  6
  分享
  举报
- greenpeppergreenpepper
  ·2021-06-18
  Be prepared!
  AMC: Danger Signals For Investors And Speculators<blockquote>AMC：投资者和投机者的危险信号</blockquote>
  Summary I stand on the shoulder of giants to guide you on AMC. For investors, the gravitational pul
  AMC: Danger Signals For Investors And Speculators<blockquote>AMC：投资者和投机者的危险信号</blockquote>
  2,132 评论
  2
  分享
  举报
- greenpeppergreenpepper
  ·2021-06-15
  Interesting!!
  非常抱歉，此主贴已删除
  2,704 评论
  4
  分享
  举报
- greenpeppergreenpepper
  ·2021-06-12
  High risk high gain!
  AMC Bet by Hedge Fund Unravels Thanks to Meme-Stock Traders<blockquote>由于模因股票交易员，对冲基金的 AMC 押注瓦解</blockquote>
  Losses by Mudrick Capital show the risks of exposure to meme stocks. A multipronged bet onAMC Enter
  AMC Bet by Hedge Fund Unravels Thanks to Meme-Stock Traders<blockquote>由于模因股票交易员，对冲基金的 AMC 押注瓦解</blockquote>
  2,609 评论
  2
  分享
  举报
- greenpeppergreenpepper
  ·2021-06-11
  Really!!
  非常抱歉，此主贴已删除
  2,141 1
  2
  分享
  举报
- greenpeppergreenpepper
  ·2021-06-08
  Really!!
  非常抱歉，此主贴已删除
  2,031 评论
  2
  分享
  举报
- greenpeppergreenpepper
  ·2021-05-25
  Pls , Like and comment !! Thanks
  Tesla Found Guilty Of Throttling Charging Speed And Battery Capacity In Norway<blockquote>挪威特斯拉因限制充电速度和电池容量而被判有罪</blockquote>
  Tesla has been found guilty of throttling charging speed and battery capacity by a court in Norway.T
  Tesla Found Guilty Of Throttling Charging Speed And Battery Capacity In Norway<blockquote>挪威特斯拉因限制充电速度和电池容量而被判有罪</blockquote>
  1,952 2
  4
  分享
  举报
- greenpeppergreenpepper
  ·2021-05-24
  Amazing!!
  非常抱歉，此主贴已删除
  2,041 评论
  4
  分享
  举报
- greenpeppergreenpepper
  ·2021-05-24
  Wow!!
  非常抱歉，此主贴已删除
  1,953 评论
  1
  分享
  举报
- greenpeppergreenpepper
  ·2021-05-23
  Unstopperable!
  非常抱歉，此主贴已删除
  2,435 评论
  3
  分享
  举报

热议股票

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"isCurrentUser":false,"userPageInfo":{"id":"3567808422493554","uuid":"3567808422493554","gmtCreate":1604831906465,"gmtModify":1604831906465,"name":"greenpepper","pinyin":"greenpepper","introduction":"","introductionEn":"","signature":"","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","hat":null,"hatId":null,"hatName":null,"vip":1,"status":2,"fanSize":5,"headSize":559,"tweetSize":53,"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":1,"symbols":null,"coverImage":null,"realNameVerified":null,"userBadges":[{"badgeId":"e50ce593bb40487ebfb542ca54f6a561-4","templateUuid":"e50ce593bb40487ebfb542ca54f6a561","name":"明星虎友","description":"加入老虎社区2000天","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/dddf24b906c7011de2617d4fb3f76987","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/53d58ad32c97254c6f74db8b97e6ec49","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6304700d92ad91c7a33e2e92ec32ecc1","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLinkType":null,"redirectLink":null,"redirectLinkValidityFrom":null,"redirectLinkValidityTo":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2026.05.02","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1001,"isScarce":0,"effectConfig":null,"effectEnabled":0,"plateImgUrl":null,"plateColors":null,"validityTo":null,"validityToTimestamp":null,"wearingSort":0},{"badgeId":"228c86a078844d74991fff2b7ab2428d-3","templateUuid":"228c86a078844d74991fff2b7ab2428d","name":"投资合伙人虎","description":"证券账户累计交易金额达到100万美元","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/fbeac6bb240db7da8b972e5183d050ba","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/436cdf80292b99f0a992e78750ac4e3a","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/506a259a7b456f037592c3b23c779599","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLinkType":null,"redirectLink":null,"redirectLinkValidityFrom":null,"redirectLinkValidityTo":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.22","exceedPercentage":"93.00%","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1101,"isScarce":0,"effectConfig":null,"effectEnabled":0,"plateImgUrl":null,"plateColors":null,"validityTo":null,"validityToTimestamp":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,"validityToTimestamp":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,"validityToTimestamp":null,"wearingSort":0},{"badgeId":"35ec162348d5460f88c959321e554969-3","templateUuid":"35ec162348d5460f88c959321e554969","name":"传说交易员","description":"证券或期货账户累计交易次数达到300次","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/656db16598a0b8f21429e10d6c1cb033","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/03f10910d4dd9234f9b5702a3342193a","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0c767e35268feb729d50d3fa9a386c5a","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":"93.68%","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100,"isScarce":0,"effectConfig":null,"effectEnabled":0,"plateImgUrl":null,"plateColors":null,"validityTo":null,"validityToTimestamp":null,"wearingSort":0}],"userBadgeCount":5,"currentWearingBadge":null,"individualDisplayBadges":null,"crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"location":"未知","starInvestorFollowerNum":0,"starInvestorFlag":false,"starInvestorOrderShareNum":0,"subscribeStarInvestorNum":0,"ror":null,"winRationPercentage":null,"showRor":false,"investmentPhilosophy":null,"starInvestorSubscribeFlag":false},"page":1,"watchlist":null,"tweetList":[{"id":164638000,"gmtCreate":1624199124300,"gmtModify":1631892245175,"author":{"id":"3567808422493554","authorId":"3567808422493554","name":"greenpepper","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3567808422493554","authorIdStr":"3567808422493554"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Ok","listText":"Ok","text":"Ok","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":6,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/164638000","repostId":"1199331995","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1849,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":166167847,"gmtCreate":1623997447889,"gmtModify":1631892245185,"author":{"id":"3567808422493554","authorId":"3567808422493554","name":"greenpepper","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3567808422493554","authorIdStr":"3567808422493554"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Be prepared!","listText":"Be prepared!","text":"Be prepared!","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/166167847","repostId":"1131310015","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1131310015","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1623987347,"share":"https://www.laohunote.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指导你在AMC。</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>对于指望空头挤压的投机者来说，这是一个百年历史的警示故事。</li><li>在其他投机者之前卖出。</li></ul><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><span>RgStudio/E+ 来自盖蒂图片社</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>我们该如何看待模因股票现象？几周前，我曾尝试过AMC院线控股公司（纽约证券交易所股票代码：AMC）。读完两篇有趣的文章后，我又回来了。正如艾萨克·牛顿在1676年所说，“<i>如果我看得更远一点，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--艾萨克的朋友们可能从未用过这个绰号--我也站在巨人的肩膀上。在这种情况下，杰森·茨威格的肩膀是一位出色的金融市场作家<i>华尔街日报</i>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这两者，然后为您划清界限。</blockquote></p><p> <b>Investor vs. trader vs. speculator</b></p><p><blockquote><b>投资者与交易者与投机者</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>杰森·茨威格 (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>列：</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>无论何时你购买任何金融资产，因为你有预感，或者只是为了刺激，或者因为某个名人大肆宣传，或者其他人似乎也在购买，你都不是在投资。你绝对是交易者：刚刚购买资产的人。你可能是一个投机者：一个认为别人会比你付出更多的人。“投资者依赖于内部回报来源：收益、收入、资产价值增长。投机者依赖于外部回报来源：主要是别人是否会付出更多，而不管基本价值如何。”</i>那么，为什么 AMC 的股价一直在飙升呢？我有一个非正式的数据源，即我6月4日AMC文章上的300多条评论。收益、收入、资产价值增长<i>没有</i>上来了。随之而来的是 “挤空 ”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>我的时间框架供参考</i>是2017年至2019年。早期数据的相关性较小，因为 AMC 在 2016 年进行了一次重大收购，而 2020 年和 2021 年的数据的相关性更差，因为 COVID。</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>是主要的假设。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？无论是订户还是内容，流媒体的稳步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。让电影上座率接近 19 年的水平将是一个小奇迹。下降10%甚至20%的可能性要大得多。正如您在上表中看到的，我使用所有三个票房假设来预测 2022 年 AMC 每股收益。</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>我认为 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是因为 COVID 的财务压力而退出的。</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>入学毛利率。</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 必须与越来越多急需内容的流媒体服务商竞争。</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>食品支出占销售额的百分比。</i></b>我转发令人震惊的低数字。AMC 及其同行可能会承担食品和饮料成本<i>对我们电影观众的定价乘以7。</i>走私自己的Jujifruits，节省一捆。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 的小幅增长趋势将继续下去。</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>营运开支</i></b>是剧院人员、水电费等费用。我认为运营费用率的逐渐上升趋势将继续，原因有二。其一，这些运营费用在很大程度上是固定的，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工资水平带来压力，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>我们现在准备好了我的收益和现金流模型：</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 年的预测是通过 “毛利润 ”行根据上述假设确定的。我的管理费用预测假设 AMC 正在努力在充满挑战的时期限制费用：</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应该会减少这些费用。</li><li><i>利息支出</i>随着 AMC 用其筹集的股本偿还部分债务，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大致是盈亏平衡。更有可能的是小幅亏损。现金流应该会更糟，因为 AMC 为保持其影院对不断萎缩的观众的吸引力而需要的现金资本支出应该会超过其非现金折旧/摊销费用。如果资本支出远低于我的预测，那可能是因为 AMC 管理层承认自己正处于死亡螺旋之中，并希望尽可能多地榨取现金。</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——不支持投资者。</i>AMC 的账面价值为负。在COVID之后，它似乎无法赚到任何实质性的钱。由于技术变革，其业务长期下滑，其新的竞争对手是拥有巨大资源的怪物公司——网飞、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，用不朽的名言来说，<i>交易场所</i>“卖掉莫蒂默，卖掉!”</blockquote></p><p> <b>The speculative play - a short squeeze: A historical cautionary tale</b></p><p><blockquote><b>投机游戏——空头挤压：一个历史警示故事</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。书<i>商业冒险</i>约翰·布鲁克斯<i>,</i>早在1969年就出版了，讲述了一个20世纪20年代初的短暂挤压的生动故事。就在一个世纪前。我将引用书中的一段话，说明在没有投资者支持的情况下，故事的结局是如何进行猜测的。所以，给自己倒点非法的胡言乱语吧（我们正走向禁酒令时代），然后继续读下去。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，空头追逐克拉伦斯的股票，将其从 50 美元跌至 40 美元以下。桑德斯发誓要用一个短挤压来复仇。以下是布鲁克斯先生讲述故事的节选：</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，主要来自卖空者；不到一周，他就把股票总数增加到了10.5万股——超过了20万股流通股的一半。桑德斯收购活动的有效性显而易见；到 1923 年 1 月下旬，他的价格已经上涨了 60 多美元……</i>“昔日唯一的空头挤压者如今已被成群的 “猿猴 ”所取代，而猿猴在推高价格方面表现得更好。顺便说一句，信不信由你，一群类人猿显然被称为“精明”。一群猿类很精明——很有趣。</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>他发了财，证明了一个可怜的南方男孩是如何教训城里的骗子的。”</i>今天，我们有猿猴把它粘在对冲基金上。</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，即使一个玩家可能击败了他的对手，他也会发现自己赢得了一场得不偿失的胜利。一旦卖空者被榨干，角落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，他将把其价格降至零。</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。他在2月份的广告中规定，公众只需支付25美元的首付，余款分三期支付，每期10美元</i>很聪明，不是吗？编号：</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>第三天结束时，认购股份总数仍低于25,000股，已进行的销售被取消。桑德斯不得不承认这次驾驶失败了。”</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 1500 股 Piggly Wiggly 股票.次年春天，桑德斯进入了正式的破产程序”。</i>哎哟。</blockquote></p><p> <b>Buyers beware</b></p><p><blockquote><b>买家要小心</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。如今的 AMC 股票持有者无疑让许多卖空者日子不好过。但是，在 AMC 目前 280 亿美元的市值之上，真的有足够多的新买家来收购现有股东吗？尤其是在没有盈利持续拖累股票的情况下？</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 的股东们，不要为克拉伦斯-桑德斯的惨痛胜利而欢呼。拿着每股 55 美元就跑吧。快的。在其他投机者先这样做之前。</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指导你在AMC。</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>对于指望空头挤压的投机者来说，这是一个百年历史的警示故事。</li><li>在其他投机者之前卖出。</li></ul><p class=\"t-img-caption\"><span>RgStudio/E+ 来自盖蒂图片社</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>我们该如何看待模因股票现象？几周前，我曾尝试过AMC院线控股公司（纽约证券交易所股票代码：AMC）。读完两篇有趣的文章后，我又回来了。正如艾萨克·牛顿在1676年所说，“<i>如果我看得更远一点，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--艾萨克的朋友们可能从未用过这个绰号--我也站在巨人的肩膀上。在这种情况下，杰森·茨威格的肩膀是一位出色的金融市场作家<i>华尔街日报</i>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这两者，然后为您划清界限。</blockquote></p><p> <b>Investor vs. trader vs. speculator</b></p><p><blockquote><b>投资者与交易者与投机者</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>杰森·茨威格 (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>列：</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>无论何时你购买任何金融资产，因为你有预感，或者只是为了刺激，或者因为某个名人大肆宣传，或者其他人似乎也在购买，你都不是在投资。你绝对是交易者：刚刚购买资产的人。你可能是一个投机者：一个认为别人会比你付出更多的人。“投资者依赖于内部回报来源：收益、收入、资产价值增长。投机者依赖于外部回报来源：主要是别人是否会付出更多，而不管基本价值如何。”</i>那么，为什么 AMC 的股价一直在飙升呢？我有一个非正式的数据源，即我6月4日AMC文章上的300多条评论。收益、收入、资产价值增长<i>没有</i>上来了。随之而来的是 “挤空 ”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>我的时间框架供参考</i>是2017年至2019年。早期数据的相关性较小，因为 AMC 在 2016 年进行了一次重大收购，而 2020 年和 2021 年的数据的相关性更差，因为 COVID。</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>是主要的假设。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？无论是订户还是内容，流媒体的稳步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。让电影上座率接近 19 年的水平将是一个小奇迹。下降10%甚至20%的可能性要大得多。正如您在上表中看到的，我使用所有三个票房假设来预测 2022 年 AMC 每股收益。</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>我认为 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是因为 COVID 的财务压力而退出的。</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>入学毛利率。</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 必须与越来越多急需内容的流媒体服务商竞争。</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>食品支出占销售额的百分比。</i></b>我转发令人震惊的低数字。AMC 及其同行可能会承担食品和饮料成本<i>对我们电影观众的定价乘以7。</i>走私自己的Jujifruits，节省一捆。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 的小幅增长趋势将继续下去。</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>营运开支</i></b>是剧院人员、水电费等费用。我认为运营费用率的逐渐上升趋势将继续，原因有二。其一，这些运营费用在很大程度上是固定的，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工资水平带来压力，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>我们现在准备好了我的收益和现金流模型：</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 年的预测是通过 “毛利润 ”行根据上述假设确定的。我的管理费用预测假设 AMC 正在努力在充满挑战的时期限制费用：</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应该会减少这些费用。</li><li><i>利息支出</i>随着 AMC 用其筹集的股本偿还部分债务，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大致是盈亏平衡。更有可能的是小幅亏损。现金流应该会更糟，因为 AMC 为保持其影院对不断萎缩的观众的吸引力而需要的现金资本支出应该会超过其非现金折旧/摊销费用。如果资本支出远低于我的预测，那可能是因为 AMC 管理层承认自己正处于死亡螺旋之中，并希望尽可能多地榨取现金。</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——不支持投资者。</i>AMC 的账面价值为负。在COVID之后，它似乎无法赚到任何实质性的钱。由于技术变革，其业务长期下滑，其新的竞争对手是拥有巨大资源的怪物公司——网飞、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，用不朽的名言来说，<i>交易场所</i>“卖掉莫蒂默，卖掉!”</blockquote></p><p> <b>The speculative play - a short squeeze: A historical cautionary tale</b></p><p><blockquote><b>投机游戏——空头挤压：一个历史警示故事</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。书<i>商业冒险</i>约翰·布鲁克斯<i>,</i>早在1969年就出版了，讲述了一个20世纪20年代初的短暂挤压的生动故事。就在一个世纪前。我将引用书中的一段话，说明在没有投资者支持的情况下，故事的结局是如何进行猜测的。所以，给自己倒点非法的胡言乱语吧（我们正走向禁酒令时代），然后继续读下去。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，空头追逐克拉伦斯的股票，将其从 50 美元跌至 40 美元以下。桑德斯发誓要用一个短挤压来复仇。以下是布鲁克斯先生讲述故事的节选：</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，主要来自卖空者；不到一周，他就把股票总数增加到了10.5万股——超过了20万股流通股的一半。桑德斯收购活动的有效性显而易见；到 1923 年 1 月下旬，他的价格已经上涨了 60 多美元……</i>“昔日唯一的空头挤压者如今已被成群的 “猿猴 ”所取代，而猿猴在推高价格方面表现得更好。顺便说一句，信不信由你，一群类人猿显然被称为“精明”。一群猿类很精明——很有趣。</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>他发了财，证明了一个可怜的南方男孩是如何教训城里的骗子的。”</i>今天，我们有猿猴把它粘在对冲基金上。</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，即使一个玩家可能击败了他的对手，他也会发现自己赢得了一场得不偿失的胜利。一旦卖空者被榨干，角落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，他将把其价格降至零。</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。他在2月份的广告中规定，公众只需支付25美元的首付，余款分三期支付，每期10美元</i>很聪明，不是吗？编号：</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>第三天结束时，认购股份总数仍低于25,000股，已进行的销售被取消。桑德斯不得不承认这次驾驶失败了。”</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 1500 股 Piggly Wiggly 股票.次年春天，桑德斯进入了正式的破产程序”。</i>哎哟。</blockquote></p><p> <b>Buyers beware</b></p><p><blockquote><b>买家要小心</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。如今的 AMC 股票持有者无疑让许多卖空者日子不好过。但是，在 AMC 目前 280 亿美元的市值之上，真的有足够多的新买家来收购现有股东吗？尤其是在没有盈利持续拖累股票的情况下？</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 的股东们，不要为克拉伦斯-桑德斯的惨痛胜利而欢呼。拿着每股 55 美元就跑吧。快的。在其他投机者先这样做之前。</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":2132,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":187399493,"gmtCreate":1623738685512,"gmtModify":1631892245193,"author":{"id":"3567808422493554","authorId":"3567808422493554","name":"greenpepper","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3567808422493554","authorIdStr":"3567808422493554"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Interesting!!","listText":"Interesting!!","text":"Interesting!!","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/187399493","repostId":"2143178756","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2704,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":186254839,"gmtCreate":1623504719721,"gmtModify":1631892245209,"author":{"id":"3567808422493554","authorId":"3567808422493554","name":"greenpepper","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3567808422493554","authorIdStr":"3567808422493554"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"High risk high gain!","listText":"High risk high gain!","text":"High risk high gain!","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/186254839","repostId":"1104635261","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1104635261","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1623470020,"share":"https://www.laohunote.com/m/news/1104635261?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-12 11:53","market":"us","language":"en","title":"AMC Bet by Hedge Fund Unravels Thanks to Meme-Stock Traders<blockquote>由于模因股票交易员，对冲基金的 AMC 押注瓦解</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1104635261","media":"The Wall Street Journal","summary":"Losses by Mudrick Capital show the risks of exposure to meme stocks.\n\nA multipronged bet onAMC Enter","content":"<p>  <b>Losses by Mudrick Capital show the risks of exposure to meme stocks.</b>  A multipronged bet onAMC Entertainment HoldingsInc.AMC15.39%boomeranged this month on Mudrick Capital Management LP, the latest hedge fund to fall victim to swarming day traders.</p><p><blockquote><b>Mudrick Capital 的亏损显示了投资模因股票的风险。</b>多管齐下的赌注 onAMC Entertainment HoldingsInc.AMC15.39% 本月对 Mudrick Capital Management LP 进行了回旋镖，Mudrick Capital Management LP 是最新一家成为日内交易者受害者的对冲基金。</blockquote></p><p> Mudrick’s flagship fund lost about 10% in just a few days as a jump in AMC’s stock price unexpectedly triggered changes in the value of derivatives the fund held as part of a complex trading strategy, people familiar with the matter said.</p><p><blockquote>知情人士称，穆德里克的旗舰基金在短短几天内损失了约 10%，原因是 AMC 股价的飙升意外引发了该基金作为复杂交易策略一部分持有的衍生品价值的变化。</blockquote></p><p> The setback comes months after a group of traders organizing on social media helped send the price ofGameStopCorp.GME5.88%and other stocks soaring in January, well beyond many investors’ views of underlying fundamentals.</p><p><blockquote>几个月前，一群在社交媒体上组织的交易员帮助 GameStopCorp.GME5.88% 和其他股票的价格在 1 月份飙升，远远超出了许多投资者对基本面的看法。</blockquote></p><p> The development prompted many hedge funds to slash their exposure to meme stocks. Mudrick Capital’s losses highlight how risky retaining significant exposure to such companies can be—even backfiring on a hedge-fund manager who was mostly in sync with the bullishness of individual investors.</p><p><blockquote>这一事态发展促使许多对冲基金削减了对模因股票的投资。穆德里克资本（Mudrick Capital）的亏损凸显了保留对此类公司的大量投资风险有多大--甚至会对一家与个人投资者的看涨情绪基本同步的对冲基金经理产生适得其反的效果。</blockquote></p><p> Jason Mudrick, the firm’s founder, had been trading AMC stock, options and bonds for months, surfing a surge of enthusiasm for the theater chain among individual investors. But he also sold call options, derivative contracts meant to hedge the fund’s exposure to AMC should the stock price founder. Those derivative contracts, which gave its buyers the right to buy AMC stock from Mudrick at roughly $40 in the future, ballooned into liabilities when a resurgence ofReddit-fueled buyingrecently pushed AMC’s stock to new records, the people said.</p><p><blockquote>该公司创始人杰森-穆德里克（Jason Mudrick）几个月来一直在交易 AMC 的股票、期权和债券，这激发了个人投资者对这家连锁影院的热情。但他也出售了看涨期权期权，这是一种衍生品合约，旨在对冲该基金对 AMC 的风险敞口。这些知情人士说，这些衍生品合约赋予买家未来以约 40 美元的价格从穆德里克手中购买 AMC 股票的权利，但最近 Reddit 推动的购买活动卷土重来，将 AMC 的股价推向了新纪录，这些衍生品合约却膨胀成了负债。</blockquote></p><p> As part of the broader AMC strategy, executives at Mudrick Capital were in talks with AMC to buy additional shares from the company in late May. On June 1, AMC disclosed that Mudrick Capital had agreed to buy $230.5 million of new stock directly from the company at $27.12 apiece, a premium over where it was then trading.</p><p><blockquote>作为更广泛的 AMC 战略的一部分，Mudrick Capital 的高管正在与 AMC 进行谈判，计划于 5 月下旬从该公司购买更多股票。 6 月 1 日，AMC 披露，Mudrick Capital 已同意以每股 27.12 美元的价格直接从该公司购买 2.305 亿美元的新股，高于当时的交易价格。</blockquote></p><p> Mudrick immediately sold the stock at a profit, a quick flip that was reported by Bloomberg News and that sparked backlash on social media.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克立即出售了这只股票获利，彭博新闻社报道了这一快速转变，并在社交媒体上引发了强烈反对。</blockquote></p><p> “Mudrick didn’t stab AMC in the back…They shot themselves in the foot,” read one post on Reddit’s Wall Street Bets forum on June 1. Other posts around that time referenced Mudrick as “losers,” “scum bags” and “a large waving pile of s—t with no future.” Members of the forum urged each other to buy and hold.</p><p><blockquote>6 月 1 日，Reddit 华尔街投注论坛上的一篇帖子写道：“穆德里克没有在背后捅AMC一刀.他们搬起石头砸了自己的脚。”当时的其他帖子将穆德里克称为 “失败者”、“人渣袋”和 “一大堆没有未来的 S-T”。论坛成员互相敦促买入并持有。</blockquote></p><p> Inside Mudrick, executives were growing apprehensive as the AMC rally gained steam. The firm’s risk committee met on the evening of June 1 after the stock closed at $32 and decided to exit all debt and derivative positions the following day.</p><p><blockquote>在穆德里克内部，随着 AMC 反弹势头的增强，高管们越来越担心。6 月 1 日晚，该公司的风险委员会在股价收于 32 美元后召开会议，决定在第二天退出所有债务和衍生品头寸。</blockquote></p><p> It was a day too late.</p><p><blockquote>已经晚了一天。</blockquote></p><p> AMC’s stock price blew past $40in a matter of hours June 2, hitting an intraday high of $72.62.Call option prices soaredamid a frenzy of trading that Mudrick Capital contributed to and, by the end of the week, the winning trade had turned into a bust, costing the fund hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. Mudrick Capital made a roughly 5% return on the debt it sold but after accounting for its options trade, the fund took a net loss of about 5.4% on AMC.</p><p><blockquote>6 月 2 日，AMC 的股价在几个小时内就突破了 40 美元，盘中最高触及 72.62 美元。看涨期权期权价格在穆德里克资本推动的交易狂潮中飙升，到本周末，获胜的交易变成了破产，该基金损失了数亿美元。Mudrick Capital 出售的债务回报率约为 5%，但在考虑其期权交易后，该基金在 AMC 上净亏损约 5.4%。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick’s fund is still up about 12% for the year, one of the people said. Meanwhile, investors who bought AMC stock at the start of the year and held on have gained about 2000%.</p><p><blockquote>其中一位人士说，穆德里克先生的基金今年仍上涨了约 12%。与此同时，年初购买 AMC 股票并持有的投资者上涨了约 2000%。</blockquote></p><p> The impact of social media-fueled day traders has become a defining market development this year, costing top hedge funds billions of dollars in losses, sparking a congressional hearing anddrawing scrutinyfrom the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. More hedge funds now track individual investors’ sentiment on social media and pay greater attention to companies with smaller market values whose stock price may be more susceptible to the enthusiasms of individual investors.</p><p><blockquote>社交媒体推动的日内交易者的影响已成为今年市场的一个决定性发展，导致顶级对冲基金损失数十亿美元，引发了国会听证会，并引起了美国证券交易委员会的审查。现在，越来越多的对冲基金在社交媒体上追踪个人投资者的情绪，并更加关注市值较小的公司，这些公司的股价可能更容易受到个人投资者热情的影响。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick specializes in distressed debt investing, often lending to troubled companies at high interest rates or swapping their existing debt for equity in bankruptcy court. Mudrick manages about $3.5 billion in investments firmwide and holds large, illiquid stakes in E-cigarette maker NJOY Holdings Inc. and satellite communications companyGlobalstarInc.from such exchanges. The flagship fund reported returns of about 17% annually from 2018 to 2020, according to data from HSBC Alternative Investment Group.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克专门从事不良债务投资，经常以高利率贷款给陷入困境的公司，或者在破产法庭上将现有债务换成股权。穆德里克管理着全公司约 35 亿美元的投资，并持有电子烟制造商 NJOY Holdings Inc. 和卫星通信公司 GlobalStarInc. 的大量非流动性股份。根据汇丰另类投资集团的数据，该旗舰基金报告称，从2018年到2020年，年回报率约为17%。</blockquote></p><p> But distressed investing opportunities have grownharder to findas easy money from the Federal Reserve has given even struggling companies open access to debt markets. Mr. Mudrick has explored other strategies, launching several special-purpose acquisition companiesand, in the case of AMC, ultimately buying stock in block trades.</p><p><blockquote>但陷入困境的投资机会让 findas 变得更加困难。美联储提供的宽松资金甚至让陷入困境的公司也可以进入债务市场。穆德里克先生还探索了其他策略，推出了几家特殊目的收购公司，就 AMC 而言，最终通过大宗交易购买股票。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> Mr. Mudrick initially applied his typical playbook to AMC, buying bonds for as little as 20 cents on the dollar,lending the company $100 millionin December and swapping some bonds into new shares. Theater attendance, already under pressure, had disappeared almost entirely amid Covid-19 pandemic lockdowns, and AMC stock traded as low as $2. He reasoned that consumers would regain their appetite for big-screen entertainment this year as more Americans got vaccinated.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克最初将他的典型策略应用于 AMC，以每美元 20 美分的价格购买债券，在 12 月份借给该公司 1 亿美元，并将部分债券交换为新股。在 Covid-19 大流行封锁期间，本已面临压力的影院上座率几乎完全消失，AMC 股价低至 2 美元。他推断，随着越来越多的美国人接种疫苗，消费者今年将重新对大屏幕娱乐产生兴趣。</blockquote></p><p> Day traders took theirfirst run at AMC in late January, urging each other on with the social-media rallying cry of #SaveAMC and briefly lifting the stock to around $20. AMC’s rising equity value boosted debt prices—one bond Mudrick Capital owned doubled within a week—quickly rewarding Mr. Mudrick’s bullishness. AMC capitalized on its surging stock priceto raise nearly $1 billion in new financingin late January, enabling it to ward off a previously expected bankruptcy filing.</p><p><blockquote>1 月下旬，日内交易者首次涌入 AMC，在社交媒体上互相敦促#SaveAMC，并短暂地将股价提升至 20 美元左右。AMC 股权价值的上升推高了债券价格--穆德里克资本持有的一只债券在一周内翻了一番--很快就回报了穆德里克先生的乐观情绪。AMC 利用其飙升的股价，在 1 月下旬筹集了近 10 亿美元的新融资，使其能够避免此前预期的破产申请。</blockquote></p><p> Around that time, Mr. Mudrick sold call options on AMC stock, producing immediate income to offset potential losses if the theater chain did face problems. The derivatives gave buyers the option to buy AMC shares from Mudrick Capital for about $40—viewed as a seeming improbability when the stock was trading below $10.</p><p><blockquote>大约在那个时候，穆德里克出售了 AMC 股票的看涨期权期权，产生了即时收入，以抵消连锁影院确实面临问题时的潜在损失。这些衍生品让买家可以选择以约 40 美元的价格从 Mudrick Capital 购买 AMC 股票——当股价低于 10 美元时，这似乎不太可能。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick remained in contact with AMC Chief Executive Adam Aron about providing additional funding, leading to his recent share purchase. But he kept the derivative contracts outstanding as an insurance policy, one of the people familiar with the matter said.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克先生与 AMC 首席执行官亚当·阿伦 (Adam Aron) 就提供额外资金事宜保持联系，导致他最近购买了股票。但一位知情人士表示，他将衍生品合约作为保险单保留。</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 Bet by Hedge Fund Unravels Thanks to Meme-Stock Traders<blockquote>由于模因股票交易员，对冲基金的 AMC 押注瓦解</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 Bet by Hedge Fund Unravels Thanks to Meme-Stock Traders<blockquote>由于模因股票交易员，对冲基金的 AMC 押注瓦解</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">The Wall Street Journal</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-06-12 11:53</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>  <b>Losses by Mudrick Capital show the risks of exposure to meme stocks.</b>  A multipronged bet onAMC Entertainment HoldingsInc.AMC15.39%boomeranged this month on Mudrick Capital Management LP, the latest hedge fund to fall victim to swarming day traders.</p><p><blockquote><b>Mudrick Capital 的亏损显示了投资模因股票的风险。</b>多管齐下的赌注 onAMC Entertainment HoldingsInc.AMC15.39% 本月对 Mudrick Capital Management LP 进行了回旋镖，Mudrick Capital Management LP 是最新一家成为日内交易者受害者的对冲基金。</blockquote></p><p> Mudrick’s flagship fund lost about 10% in just a few days as a jump in AMC’s stock price unexpectedly triggered changes in the value of derivatives the fund held as part of a complex trading strategy, people familiar with the matter said.</p><p><blockquote>知情人士称，穆德里克的旗舰基金在短短几天内损失了约 10%，原因是 AMC 股价的飙升意外引发了该基金作为复杂交易策略一部分持有的衍生品价值的变化。</blockquote></p><p> The setback comes months after a group of traders organizing on social media helped send the price ofGameStopCorp.GME5.88%and other stocks soaring in January, well beyond many investors’ views of underlying fundamentals.</p><p><blockquote>几个月前，一群在社交媒体上组织的交易员帮助 GameStopCorp.GME5.88% 和其他股票的价格在 1 月份飙升，远远超出了许多投资者对基本面的看法。</blockquote></p><p> The development prompted many hedge funds to slash their exposure to meme stocks. Mudrick Capital’s losses highlight how risky retaining significant exposure to such companies can be—even backfiring on a hedge-fund manager who was mostly in sync with the bullishness of individual investors.</p><p><blockquote>这一事态发展促使许多对冲基金削减了对模因股票的投资。穆德里克资本（Mudrick Capital）的亏损凸显了保留对此类公司的大量投资风险有多大--甚至会对一家与个人投资者的看涨情绪基本同步的对冲基金经理产生适得其反的效果。</blockquote></p><p> Jason Mudrick, the firm’s founder, had been trading AMC stock, options and bonds for months, surfing a surge of enthusiasm for the theater chain among individual investors. But he also sold call options, derivative contracts meant to hedge the fund’s exposure to AMC should the stock price founder. Those derivative contracts, which gave its buyers the right to buy AMC stock from Mudrick at roughly $40 in the future, ballooned into liabilities when a resurgence ofReddit-fueled buyingrecently pushed AMC’s stock to new records, the people said.</p><p><blockquote>该公司创始人杰森-穆德里克（Jason Mudrick）几个月来一直在交易 AMC 的股票、期权和债券，这激发了个人投资者对这家连锁影院的热情。但他也出售了看涨期权期权，这是一种衍生品合约，旨在对冲该基金对 AMC 的风险敞口。这些知情人士说，这些衍生品合约赋予买家未来以约 40 美元的价格从穆德里克手中购买 AMC 股票的权利，但最近 Reddit 推动的购买活动卷土重来，将 AMC 的股价推向了新纪录，这些衍生品合约却膨胀成了负债。</blockquote></p><p> As part of the broader AMC strategy, executives at Mudrick Capital were in talks with AMC to buy additional shares from the company in late May. On June 1, AMC disclosed that Mudrick Capital had agreed to buy $230.5 million of new stock directly from the company at $27.12 apiece, a premium over where it was then trading.</p><p><blockquote>作为更广泛的 AMC 战略的一部分，Mudrick Capital 的高管正在与 AMC 进行谈判，计划于 5 月下旬从该公司购买更多股票。 6 月 1 日，AMC 披露，Mudrick Capital 已同意以每股 27.12 美元的价格直接从该公司购买 2.305 亿美元的新股，高于当时的交易价格。</blockquote></p><p> Mudrick immediately sold the stock at a profit, a quick flip that was reported by Bloomberg News and that sparked backlash on social media.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克立即出售了这只股票获利，彭博新闻社报道了这一快速转变，并在社交媒体上引发了强烈反对。</blockquote></p><p> “Mudrick didn’t stab AMC in the back…They shot themselves in the foot,” read one post on Reddit’s Wall Street Bets forum on June 1. Other posts around that time referenced Mudrick as “losers,” “scum bags” and “a large waving pile of s—t with no future.” Members of the forum urged each other to buy and hold.</p><p><blockquote>6 月 1 日，Reddit 华尔街投注论坛上的一篇帖子写道：“穆德里克没有在背后捅AMC一刀.他们搬起石头砸了自己的脚。”当时的其他帖子将穆德里克称为 “失败者”、“人渣袋”和 “一大堆没有未来的 S-T”。论坛成员互相敦促买入并持有。</blockquote></p><p> Inside Mudrick, executives were growing apprehensive as the AMC rally gained steam. The firm’s risk committee met on the evening of June 1 after the stock closed at $32 and decided to exit all debt and derivative positions the following day.</p><p><blockquote>在穆德里克内部，随着 AMC 反弹势头的增强，高管们越来越担心。6 月 1 日晚，该公司的风险委员会在股价收于 32 美元后召开会议，决定在第二天退出所有债务和衍生品头寸。</blockquote></p><p> It was a day too late.</p><p><blockquote>已经晚了一天。</blockquote></p><p> AMC’s stock price blew past $40in a matter of hours June 2, hitting an intraday high of $72.62.Call option prices soaredamid a frenzy of trading that Mudrick Capital contributed to and, by the end of the week, the winning trade had turned into a bust, costing the fund hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. Mudrick Capital made a roughly 5% return on the debt it sold but after accounting for its options trade, the fund took a net loss of about 5.4% on AMC.</p><p><blockquote>6 月 2 日，AMC 的股价在几个小时内就突破了 40 美元，盘中最高触及 72.62 美元。看涨期权期权价格在穆德里克资本推动的交易狂潮中飙升，到本周末，获胜的交易变成了破产，该基金损失了数亿美元。Mudrick Capital 出售的债务回报率约为 5%，但在考虑其期权交易后，该基金在 AMC 上净亏损约 5.4%。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick’s fund is still up about 12% for the year, one of the people said. Meanwhile, investors who bought AMC stock at the start of the year and held on have gained about 2000%.</p><p><blockquote>其中一位人士说，穆德里克先生的基金今年仍上涨了约 12%。与此同时，年初购买 AMC 股票并持有的投资者上涨了约 2000%。</blockquote></p><p> The impact of social media-fueled day traders has become a defining market development this year, costing top hedge funds billions of dollars in losses, sparking a congressional hearing anddrawing scrutinyfrom the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. More hedge funds now track individual investors’ sentiment on social media and pay greater attention to companies with smaller market values whose stock price may be more susceptible to the enthusiasms of individual investors.</p><p><blockquote>社交媒体推动的日内交易者的影响已成为今年市场的一个决定性发展，导致顶级对冲基金损失数十亿美元，引发了国会听证会，并引起了美国证券交易委员会的审查。现在，越来越多的对冲基金在社交媒体上追踪个人投资者的情绪，并更加关注市值较小的公司，这些公司的股价可能更容易受到个人投资者热情的影响。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick specializes in distressed debt investing, often lending to troubled companies at high interest rates or swapping their existing debt for equity in bankruptcy court. Mudrick manages about $3.5 billion in investments firmwide and holds large, illiquid stakes in E-cigarette maker NJOY Holdings Inc. and satellite communications companyGlobalstarInc.from such exchanges. The flagship fund reported returns of about 17% annually from 2018 to 2020, according to data from HSBC Alternative Investment Group.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克专门从事不良债务投资，经常以高利率贷款给陷入困境的公司，或者在破产法庭上将现有债务换成股权。穆德里克管理着全公司约 35 亿美元的投资，并持有电子烟制造商 NJOY Holdings Inc. 和卫星通信公司 GlobalStarInc. 的大量非流动性股份。根据汇丰另类投资集团的数据，该旗舰基金报告称，从2018年到2020年，年回报率约为17%。</blockquote></p><p> But distressed investing opportunities have grownharder to findas easy money from the Federal Reserve has given even struggling companies open access to debt markets. Mr. Mudrick has explored other strategies, launching several special-purpose acquisition companiesand, in the case of AMC, ultimately buying stock in block trades.</p><p><blockquote>但陷入困境的投资机会让 findas 变得更加困难。美联储提供的宽松资金甚至让陷入困境的公司也可以进入债务市场。穆德里克先生还探索了其他策略，推出了几家特殊目的收购公司，就 AMC 而言，最终通过大宗交易购买股票。</blockquote></p><p></p><p> Mr. Mudrick initially applied his typical playbook to AMC, buying bonds for as little as 20 cents on the dollar,lending the company $100 millionin December and swapping some bonds into new shares. Theater attendance, already under pressure, had disappeared almost entirely amid Covid-19 pandemic lockdowns, and AMC stock traded as low as $2. He reasoned that consumers would regain their appetite for big-screen entertainment this year as more Americans got vaccinated.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克最初将他的典型策略应用于 AMC，以每美元 20 美分的价格购买债券，在 12 月份借给该公司 1 亿美元，并将部分债券交换为新股。在 Covid-19 大流行封锁期间，本已面临压力的影院上座率几乎完全消失，AMC 股价低至 2 美元。他推断，随着越来越多的美国人接种疫苗，消费者今年将重新对大屏幕娱乐产生兴趣。</blockquote></p><p> Day traders took theirfirst run at AMC in late January, urging each other on with the social-media rallying cry of #SaveAMC and briefly lifting the stock to around $20. AMC’s rising equity value boosted debt prices—one bond Mudrick Capital owned doubled within a week—quickly rewarding Mr. Mudrick’s bullishness. AMC capitalized on its surging stock priceto raise nearly $1 billion in new financingin late January, enabling it to ward off a previously expected bankruptcy filing.</p><p><blockquote>1 月下旬，日内交易者首次涌入 AMC，在社交媒体上互相敦促#SaveAMC，并短暂地将股价提升至 20 美元左右。AMC 股权价值的上升推高了债券价格--穆德里克资本持有的一只债券在一周内翻了一番--很快就回报了穆德里克先生的乐观情绪。AMC 利用其飙升的股价，在 1 月下旬筹集了近 10 亿美元的新融资，使其能够避免此前预期的破产申请。</blockquote></p><p> Around that time, Mr. Mudrick sold call options on AMC stock, producing immediate income to offset potential losses if the theater chain did face problems. The derivatives gave buyers the option to buy AMC shares from Mudrick Capital for about $40—viewed as a seeming improbability when the stock was trading below $10.</p><p><blockquote>大约在那个时候，穆德里克出售了 AMC 股票的看涨期权期权，产生了即时收入，以抵消连锁影院确实面临问题时的潜在损失。这些衍生品让买家可以选择以约 40 美元的价格从 Mudrick Capital 购买 AMC 股票——当股价低于 10 美元时，这似乎不太可能。</blockquote></p><p> Mr. Mudrick remained in contact with AMC Chief Executive Adam Aron about providing additional funding, leading to his recent share purchase. But he kept the derivative contracts outstanding as an insurance policy, one of the people familiar with the matter said.</p><p><blockquote>穆德里克先生与 AMC 首席执行官亚当·阿伦 (Adam Aron) 就提供额外资金事宜保持联系，导致他最近购买了股票。但一位知情人士表示，他将衍生品合约作为保险单保留。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.wsj.com/articles/amc-bet-by-hedge-fund-unravels-thanks-to-meme-stock-traders-11623431320?mod=markets_lead_pos2\">The Wall Street Journal</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://www.wsj.com/articles/amc-bet-by-hedge-fund-unravels-thanks-to-meme-stock-traders-11623431320?mod=markets_lead_pos2","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1104635261","content_text":"Losses by Mudrick Capital show the risks of exposure to meme stocks.\n\nA multipronged bet onAMC Entertainment HoldingsInc.AMC15.39%boomeranged this month on Mudrick Capital Management LP, the latest hedge fund to fall victim to swarming day traders.\nMudrick’s flagship fund lost about 10% in just a few days as a jump in AMC’s stock price unexpectedly triggered changes in the value of derivatives the fund held as part of a complex trading strategy, people familiar with the matter said.\nThe setback comes months after a group of traders organizing on social media helped send the price ofGameStopCorp.GME5.88%and other stocks soaring in January, well beyond many investors’ views of underlying fundamentals.\nThe development prompted many hedge funds to slash their exposure to meme stocks. Mudrick Capital’s losses highlight how risky retaining significant exposure to such companies can be—even backfiring on a hedge-fund manager who was mostly in sync with the bullishness of individual investors.\nJason Mudrick, the firm’s founder, had been trading AMC stock, options and bonds for months, surfing a surge of enthusiasm for the theater chain among individual investors. But he also sold call options, derivative contracts meant to hedge the fund’s exposure to AMC should the stock price founder. Those derivative contracts, which gave its buyers the right to buy AMC stock from Mudrick at roughly $40 in the future, ballooned into liabilities when a resurgence ofReddit-fueled buyingrecently pushed AMC’s stock to new records, the people said.\nAs part of the broader AMC strategy, executives at Mudrick Capital were in talks with AMC to buy additional shares from the company in late May. On June 1, AMC disclosed that Mudrick Capital had agreed to buy $230.5 million of new stock directly from the company at $27.12 apiece, a premium over where it was then trading.\nMudrick immediately sold the stock at a profit, a quick flip that was reported by Bloomberg News and that sparked backlash on social media.\n“Mudrick didn’t stab AMC in the back…They shot themselves in the foot,” read one post on Reddit’s Wall Street Bets forum on June 1. Other posts around that time referenced Mudrick as “losers,” “scum bags” and “a large waving pile of s—t with no future.” Members of the forum urged each other to buy and hold.\nInside Mudrick, executives were growing apprehensive as the AMC rally gained steam. The firm’s risk committee met on the evening of June 1 after the stock closed at $32 and decided to exit all debt and derivative positions the following day.\nIt was a day too late.\nAMC’s stock price blew past $40in a matter of hours June 2, hitting an intraday high of $72.62.Call option prices soaredamid a frenzy of trading that Mudrick Capital contributed to and, by the end of the week, the winning trade had turned into a bust, costing the fund hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. Mudrick Capital made a roughly 5% return on the debt it sold but after accounting for its options trade, the fund took a net loss of about 5.4% on AMC.\nMr. Mudrick’s fund is still up about 12% for the year, one of the people said. Meanwhile, investors who bought AMC stock at the start of the year and held on have gained about 2000%.\nThe impact of social media-fueled day traders has become a defining market development this year, costing top hedge funds billions of dollars in losses, sparking a congressional hearing anddrawing scrutinyfrom the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. More hedge funds now track individual investors’ sentiment on social media and pay greater attention to companies with smaller market values whose stock price may be more susceptible to the enthusiasms of individual investors.\nMr. Mudrick specializes in distressed debt investing, often lending to troubled companies at high interest rates or swapping their existing debt for equity in bankruptcy court. Mudrick manages about $3.5 billion in investments firmwide and holds large, illiquid stakes in E-cigarette maker NJOY Holdings Inc. and satellite communications companyGlobalstarInc.from such exchanges. The flagship fund reported returns of about 17% annually from 2018 to 2020, according to data from HSBC Alternative Investment Group.\nBut distressed investing opportunities have grownharder to findas easy money from the Federal Reserve has given even struggling companies open access to debt markets. Mr. Mudrick has explored other strategies, launching several special-purpose acquisition companiesand, in the case of AMC, ultimately buying stock in block trades.\nMr. Mudrick initially applied his typical playbook to AMC, buying bonds for as little as 20 cents on the dollar,lending the company $100 millionin December and swapping some bonds into new shares. Theater attendance, already under pressure, had disappeared almost entirely amid Covid-19 pandemic lockdowns, and AMC stock traded as low as $2. He reasoned that consumers would regain their appetite for big-screen entertainment this year as more Americans got vaccinated.\nDay traders took theirfirst run at AMC in late January, urging each other on with the social-media rallying cry of #SaveAMC and briefly lifting the stock to around $20. AMC’s rising equity value boosted debt prices—one bond Mudrick Capital owned doubled within a week—quickly rewarding Mr. Mudrick’s bullishness. AMC capitalized on its surging stock priceto raise nearly $1 billion in new financingin late January, enabling it to ward off a previously expected bankruptcy filing.\nAround that time, Mr. Mudrick sold call options on AMC stock, producing immediate income to offset potential losses if the theater chain did face problems. The derivatives gave buyers the option to buy AMC shares from Mudrick Capital for about $40—viewed as a seeming improbability when the stock was trading below $10.\nMr. Mudrick remained in contact with AMC Chief Executive Adam Aron about providing additional funding, leading to his recent share purchase. But he kept the derivative contracts outstanding as an insurance policy, one of the people familiar with the matter said.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"AMC":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2609,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":181596973,"gmtCreate":1623400207992,"gmtModify":1631892245219,"author":{"id":"3567808422493554","authorId":"3567808422493554","name":"greenpepper","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3567808422493554","authorIdStr":"3567808422493554"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Really!!","listText":"Really!!","text":"Really!!","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/181596973","repostId":"2142274300","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2141,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":117173879,"gmtCreate":1623126150191,"gmtModify":1631892245235,"author":{"id":"3567808422493554","authorId":"3567808422493554","name":"greenpepper","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3567808422493554","authorIdStr":"3567808422493554"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Really!!","listText":"Really!!","text":"Really!!","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/117173879","repostId":"2141342255","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2031,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":138948333,"gmtCreate":1621906745022,"gmtModify":1631892245264,"author":{"id":"3567808422493554","authorId":"3567808422493554","name":"greenpepper","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3567808422493554","authorIdStr":"3567808422493554"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"&nbsp;Pls ,&nbsp;Like and comment !! Thanks","listText":"&nbsp;Pls ,&nbsp;Like and comment !! Thanks","text":"Pls , Like and comment !! Thanks","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/138948333","repostId":"1189735723","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1189735723","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1621904116,"share":"https://www.laohunote.com/m/news/1189735723?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-05-25 08:55","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Tesla Found Guilty Of Throttling Charging Speed And Battery Capacity In Norway<blockquote>挪威特斯拉因限制充电速度和电池容量而被判有罪</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1189735723","media":"zerohedge","summary":"Tesla has been found guilty of throttling charging speed and battery capacity by a court in Norway.T","content":"<p>Tesla has been found guilty of throttling charging speed and battery capacity by a court in Norway.</p><p><blockquote>挪威一家法院裁定特斯拉犯有限制充电速度和电池容量的罪行。</blockquote></p><p>The company is going to \"have to pay $16,000 to each of the thousands of owners affected in the country\", until it appeals,&nbsp;according to the pro-Tesla lot over at&nbsp;<i>electrek.</i></p><p><blockquote>据支持特斯拉的拍卖行称，在提出上诉之前，该公司将“必须向全国数千名受影响的业主每人支付 16,000 美元”。<i>电。</i></blockquote></p><p>Dating back to 2019,<i>electrek</i>had pointed out reports that Tesla owners were seeing drops in range of 12 to 30 miles after a software update. The affected vehicles appear to only be&nbsp;Model S and Model X vehicles with 85 kWh battery packs.</p><p><blockquote>追溯到2019年，<i>电动</i>曾指出有报道称，软件更新后，特斯拉车主的续航里程会下降 12 至 30 英里。受影响的车辆似乎只有配备85千瓦时电池组的Model S和Model X车辆。</blockquote></p><p>Tesla owner David Rasmussen told the blog at the time:&nbsp;<b>“My 2014 Model S 85 was getting Rated Range of 247 miles until May 13. Now after the next update, it continued to drop to now 217 miles. This is an 11% drop in 5 weeks.”</b></p><p><blockquote>特斯拉老板 David Rasmussen 当时告诉博客：<b>“我的 2014 款 Model S 85 在 5 月 13 日之前的额定续航里程为 247 英里。现在，在下一次更新后，续航里程继续下降到现在的 217 英里。这在 5 周内下降了 11%。”</b></blockquote></p><p>He even plotted the battery capacity of his Model S, showing the obvious dropoff in capacity around&nbsp;the time of the update.</p><p><blockquote>他甚至绘制了他的Model S的电池容量，显示了更新时容量的明显下降。</blockquote></p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3c1f6de87b1971580e94f5568ca61f01\" tg-width=\"764\" tg-height=\"348\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p>Around the same time, the DC fast-charging rate at Supercharger stations had also been reduced, the blog notes, stating: \"Affected owners are seeing much slower charging sessions.\"</p><p><blockquote>该博客指出，大约在同一时间，超级充电站的直流快速充电率也有所降低，并指出：“受影响的车主看到充电速度要慢得多。”</blockquote></p><p>Tesla, meanwhile, claimed that the update would&nbsp;“protect the battery and improve battery longevity”. The company claimed that range loss only happened for&nbsp;“a small percentage of owners.”</p><p><blockquote>与此同时，特斯拉声称此次更新将 “保护电池并延长电池寿命”。该公司声称，范围损失只发生在 “一小部分车主 ”身上。</blockquote></p><p>The controversy led to a \"series of lawsuits\", one of which was in Norway. When Tesla didn't respond to the lawsuit, the 30 owners<b>\"were automatically awarded 136,000 kroner (~$16,000 USD) each in compensation\"</b>unless Tesla appeals.</p><p><blockquote>这场争议导致了“一系列诉讼”，其中一起发生在挪威。当特斯拉没有对诉讼做出回应时，30 名业主<b>“每人自动获得 136,000 克朗（约 16,000 美元）的赔偿”</b>除非特斯拉上诉。</blockquote></p><p>But the real devil could be in the forthcoming details: there could be over 10,000 other Tesla owners affected by the update in Norway&nbsp;<i>alone,</i>not to mention owners involved in similar lawsuits in other countries.</p><p><blockquote>但真正的问题可能在于即将公布的细节：挪威可能还有超过 10,000 名其他特斯拉车主受到此次更新的影响<i>独自一人，</i>更不用说其他国家卷入类似诉讼的业主了。</blockquote></p><p>The affected update was&nbsp;Tesla’s 2019.16.1 and .2 update.</p><p><blockquote>受影响的更新是特斯拉的 2019.16.1 和 .2 更新。</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>Tesla Found Guilty Of Throttling Charging Speed And Battery Capacity In Norway<blockquote>挪威特斯拉因限制充电速度和电池容量而被判有罪</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\">\nTesla Found Guilty Of Throttling Charging Speed And Battery Capacity In Norway<blockquote>挪威特斯拉因限制充电速度和电池容量而被判有罪</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">zerohedge</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-05-25 08:55</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>Tesla has been found guilty of throttling charging speed and battery capacity by a court in Norway.</p><p><blockquote>挪威一家法院裁定特斯拉犯有限制充电速度和电池容量的罪行。</blockquote></p><p>The company is going to \"have to pay $16,000 to each of the thousands of owners affected in the country\", until it appeals,&nbsp;according to the pro-Tesla lot over at&nbsp;<i>electrek.</i></p><p><blockquote>据支持特斯拉的拍卖行称，在提出上诉之前，该公司将“必须向全国数千名受影响的业主每人支付 16,000 美元”。<i>电。</i></blockquote></p><p>Dating back to 2019,<i>electrek</i>had pointed out reports that Tesla owners were seeing drops in range of 12 to 30 miles after a software update. The affected vehicles appear to only be&nbsp;Model S and Model X vehicles with 85 kWh battery packs.</p><p><blockquote>追溯到2019年，<i>电动</i>曾指出有报道称，软件更新后，特斯拉车主的续航里程会下降 12 至 30 英里。受影响的车辆似乎只有配备85千瓦时电池组的Model S和Model X车辆。</blockquote></p><p>Tesla owner David Rasmussen told the blog at the time:&nbsp;<b>“My 2014 Model S 85 was getting Rated Range of 247 miles until May 13. Now after the next update, it continued to drop to now 217 miles. This is an 11% drop in 5 weeks.”</b></p><p><blockquote>特斯拉老板 David Rasmussen 当时告诉博客：<b>“我的 2014 款 Model S 85 在 5 月 13 日之前的额定续航里程为 247 英里。现在，在下一次更新后，续航里程继续下降到现在的 217 英里。这在 5 周内下降了 11%。”</b></blockquote></p><p>He even plotted the battery capacity of his Model S, showing the obvious dropoff in capacity around&nbsp;the time of the update.</p><p><blockquote>他甚至绘制了他的Model S的电池容量，显示了更新时容量的明显下降。</blockquote></p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/3c1f6de87b1971580e94f5568ca61f01\" tg-width=\"764\" tg-height=\"348\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p><blockquote></blockquote></p><p>Around the same time, the DC fast-charging rate at Supercharger stations had also been reduced, the blog notes, stating: \"Affected owners are seeing much slower charging sessions.\"</p><p><blockquote>该博客指出，大约在同一时间，超级充电站的直流快速充电率也有所降低，并指出：“受影响的车主看到充电速度要慢得多。”</blockquote></p><p>Tesla, meanwhile, claimed that the update would&nbsp;“protect the battery and improve battery longevity”. The company claimed that range loss only happened for&nbsp;“a small percentage of owners.”</p><p><blockquote>与此同时，特斯拉声称此次更新将 “保护电池并延长电池寿命”。该公司声称，范围损失只发生在 “一小部分车主 ”身上。</blockquote></p><p>The controversy led to a \"series of lawsuits\", one of which was in Norway. When Tesla didn't respond to the lawsuit, the 30 owners<b>\"were automatically awarded 136,000 kroner (~$16,000 USD) each in compensation\"</b>unless Tesla appeals.</p><p><blockquote>这场争议导致了“一系列诉讼”，其中一起发生在挪威。当特斯拉没有对诉讼做出回应时，30 名业主<b>“每人自动获得 136,000 克朗（约 16,000 美元）的赔偿”</b>除非特斯拉上诉。</blockquote></p><p>But the real devil could be in the forthcoming details: there could be over 10,000 other Tesla owners affected by the update in Norway&nbsp;<i>alone,</i>not to mention owners involved in similar lawsuits in other countries.</p><p><blockquote>但真正的问题可能在于即将公布的细节：挪威可能还有超过 10,000 名其他特斯拉车主受到此次更新的影响<i>独自一人，</i>更不用说其他国家卷入类似诉讼的业主了。</blockquote></p><p>The affected update was&nbsp;Tesla’s 2019.16.1 and .2 update.</p><p><blockquote>受影响的更新是特斯拉的 2019.16.1 和 .2 更新。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/tesla-found-guilty-throttling-charging-speed-and-battery-capacity-norway\">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":{"TSLA":"特斯拉"},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/tesla-found-guilty-throttling-charging-speed-and-battery-capacity-norway","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1189735723","content_text":"Tesla has been found guilty of throttling charging speed and battery capacity by a court in Norway.The company is going to \"have to pay $16,000 to each of the thousands of owners affected in the country\", until it appeals, according to the pro-Tesla lot over at electrek.Dating back to 2019,electrekhad pointed out reports that Tesla owners were seeing drops in range of 12 to 30 miles after a software update. The affected vehicles appear to only be Model S and Model X vehicles with 85 kWh battery packs.Tesla owner David Rasmussen told the blog at the time: “My 2014 Model S 85 was getting Rated Range of 247 miles until May 13. Now after the next update, it continued to drop to now 217 miles. This is an 11% drop in 5 weeks.”He even plotted the battery capacity of his Model S, showing the obvious dropoff in capacity around the time of the update.Around the same time, the DC fast-charging rate at Supercharger stations had also been reduced, the blog notes, stating: \"Affected owners are seeing much slower charging sessions.\"Tesla, meanwhile, claimed that the update would “protect the battery and improve battery longevity”. The company claimed that range loss only happened for “a small percentage of owners.”The controversy led to a \"series of lawsuits\", one of which was in Norway. When Tesla didn't respond to the lawsuit, the 30 owners\"were automatically awarded 136,000 kroner (~$16,000 USD) each in compensation\"unless Tesla appeals.But the real devil could be in the forthcoming details: there could be over 10,000 other Tesla owners affected by the update in Norway alone,not to mention owners involved in similar lawsuits in other countries.The affected update was Tesla’s 2019.16.1 and .2 update.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"TSLA":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1952,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":131528588,"gmtCreate":1621868568644,"gmtModify":1631892245277,"author":{"id":"3567808422493554","authorId":"3567808422493554","name":"greenpepper","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3567808422493554","authorIdStr":"3567808422493554"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Amazing!!","listText":"Amazing!!","text":"Amazing!!","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/131528588","repostId":"1113349208","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2041,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":131866078,"gmtCreate":1621846436494,"gmtModify":1631892245292,"author":{"id":"3567808422493554","authorId":"3567808422493554","name":"greenpepper","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3567808422493554","authorIdStr":"3567808422493554"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Wow!!","listText":"Wow!!","text":"Wow!!","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/131866078","repostId":"2137413949","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1953,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":133213652,"gmtCreate":1621751852676,"gmtModify":1631892245305,"author":{"id":"3567808422493554","authorId":"3567808422493554","name":"greenpepper","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3567808422493554","authorIdStr":"3567808422493554"},"themes":[],"title":"","htmlText":"Unstopperable!","listText":"Unstopperable!","text":"Unstopperable!","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/133213652","repostId":"2137190485","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":2435,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"defaultTab":"posts","isTTM":false}