In a world where two men decided they wanted to stir the pot in the amc community, you have one hero: one wolf of my street, an ape ryan rigg, who steps in to speak out about the belligerent, freaking nonsense, that's taking place with wall street cynic and Charles gasps burrito baby, oh my freaking, guys, we've got a freaking monster story to be able to tell you. Oh my. I can't believe this is even happening in real time. What is up everybody home to trace trades, really bring it talk fast and don't skip class.

I, like your preference, by saying that i'm gon na find your advice and we're experts so take what i say the greatest. So let's get into the video. So today, my friends, my family, my fellow guru gang. I want to tell you about something: that's been taking place here in the last 24 hours in the twitter sphere, because this is actually pretty freaking.

Fascinating you've got two main characters in this plot, charles gasparino, as well as james channels. These same james channels, the billionaire james channels, who is the owner of kyneco's uh firm. Now this is actually pretty fascinating stuff, and i want to show you this here really quick before we get into the details. But you have two people wall street cynic which, by the way the handle itself is right off.

The bat should tell you everything you need to know about the way that this guy makes money in the market and charles gasparino, who put out a picture says this source of miners happened to be taking in a movie at an amc theater in nyc. I know he was not early and the apes accuse others of manipulating stocks smh. Well, it's fascinating to me that you say the apes accuse others of manipulating stocks, but then you put out stuff like this with an obvious conflict of interest in disapproval of amc. But hey to each their own, but this is you know honestly expected behavior from charles.

Whatever people know that he likes to go on the internet and troll the apes, even if they present factual information in terms of revenue in terms of stock movement in terms of disproving statements that he's made that to be completely blunt or sometimes false right. I expect that out of him, this guy is a new player, i've never seen wall street cynic active and speaking out in terms of what's happening in the mc community, mostly because his sweater kind of flies under the radar. This brings me to the beginning of this. Information is, who is james channels right? Well, we know he's the owner of kanako's associates, but how do we know he's tied to this twitter account well lucky for uh for the apes out here which, by the way, a lot of this information in the video was saved in terms of time and was Organized very well because of this man, wolf of my street at ryan, underscore rig, who is actively covering everything - that's happening here right now.

If you want to check them out, feel free to do so, but anywho. What we found is this kind of coast is actually actively tied to uh. This twitter account and the way that we know this. Why is this not popping up? Oh, it's right here so the way that we know this is because there's an sec, legally binding document that states it now.

Let's just check this out at wall street cynic. You can see it right here: twitter.com wall street senate kindacoast.com. This is for kanakos associates lp, and we just spoke about how jim chanos is literally the president and founder of kanako's associates as a new york registered investment advisor focused on short selling. Okay, all right so now that we know who this player is, we know where he kind of lies in terms of uh twitter.

It's interesting to me that he'd come out and and post this picture mostly because you know his name's not tied to it. You'd have to dig into this sec document. You'd have to know beforehand that hey this is james channels, because it doesn't really say it on his twitter account right. You look at uh, you look at this.

It says diode jeans, it says at wall street cynic searching for honesty on the street, it doesn't say his name. You don't know that. Well, there's problems here and i'm going to point these out to you. You've got ties to amc stock.

You've got conflict of interest. Very strange behavior from a psychological perspective, i'm actually fascinated by the way that this works, and then you also have a prepared statement from james channel's, thanos baby that i want to talk about after we get into that stuff. I don't want to talk about charles gasparino a little bit, but mostly i want to focus on james channels, so we know that he has ties to amc stock, but most importantly is that he has a very firm stance on short selling. In fact, he's went in front of uh.

You know some big boys in the past back in 2003 to make statements about hedge fund strategies and market participation regarding short selling. Now he said this, and i find this to be the most interesting piece, as i've outlined above short selling, is already a heavily regulated strategy with significant level uh, legal and economic constraints. I would disagree, i think, there's more things that can be done differently, but that's a whole different freaking video, strong capital markets in the us require robust short side restrictions on short selling, impede the market deficiency and decrease the amount of independent research necessary to mitigate against Irrational exuberance and outright fraud - this is the most interesting piece short selling represents only a very small fraction of market activity. It is very costly and full of risk for the short sellers to execute and maintain a position waiting for the rest of the market to realize the stock is overvalued.

I think this piece is interesting waiting for the rest of the market to realize the stock is over value. Okay, i think if you short, sell stock same as, if you go long on a stock, you run the risk of getting squeezed out. That's part of it right: that's that's how it works in the same way that long positions buyers run the risk of short sellers trying to push the stock price down based on their own freaking claims that they make like, like you see happening right now, literally with James channels, now now that we've seen this and we've seen his stance on shortstone we've kind of covered, the fact that that's how he makes his money, which, by the way, is a very significant amount, it's 1.5 billion dollars of net worth for this guy. How is he tied to amc stock? Why is it important that uh that he made this statement? Why is it so freaking honestly absurd that it's happening? He has made public statements on his stance of amc stock in and of itself? That's not a problem right.

You can come out and say: hey. I think it's overvalued because of xyz reasons. I don't agree with you you, i think you're missing the point here, but you get what i'm saying. He also has released this twitter of that amc empty theater.

Now. Why is this problematic? Well i'll? Show you why it's problematic it's because jim chanos is short on the stock. Jim channel short amc: how to accumulate his billions of dollars. He's got this public stance right.

He thinks it's overvalued. The fundamentals have gotten worse, which i also disagree with. You can look at the numbers and see that they are actually in fact improving, but this is problematic because it represents conflict of interest. He can move markets.

This guy is worth 1.5 billion dollars. He's the president and founder of literally a firm: that's what he does. He makes money by shorting stocks so for him to come out on twitter. You know, albeit someone anonymously, and try and move the stock and change sentiment based on his own personal beliefs.

Ah, i don't know about that. I don't know about that. I believe in presenting facts, you can come out and say hey. I think that the stock is overvalued whatever that's fine, but the stance that he's, taking mostly from a psychological perspective, is what really intrigues me.

So we know he's got this short selling firm. We know his stance on amc. We know that he's bashing the stock to some extent, even though he has this conflict of interest, he's literally short on the freaking stock, my friends but his behavior is what fascinates me. The most now i want to talk about the behavior piece, because i don't think it should be worth his time to be responding to people on twitter.

This guy is the president of literally a firm he's worth 1.5 billion dollars and he's going and replying to people on twitter, with some sort of response to the picture that he ended up, putting out he's blocking accounts. He requested a public apology from the man who essentially brought this whole situation up now. You can't make this up guys. This is really freaking wild stuff.

Now look at this tweets and replies check this out, so charles won't respond to me publicly. This is wolf of my street and i now have jim channels in my dms asking for an apology using the wall. Street cynic account he also attached the alleged ticket stub, which was never the issue at hand. Why did jim dm charles, the empty theater photo anyways? This is wild.

Can i expect a public apology, charlie gasparino's post included the time stamp from a separate dm. He sent me on thursday morning. My son sent me that photo at 12 50 p.m. Yesterday, august 14th, he went out of his way to reply to this.

Guy saying hey, i expect an apology for what ended up happening here. He also showed a picture essentially a stub of hey look. I was at this movie. I was that free guy, whatever the issue at hand, isn't the fact that he posted a picture in and of itself it's the conflict of interest behind the picture, the intent behind the picture.

This guy has a very obvious conflict of interest. My friends, i mean you can't make that any more clearer than that right. So that's just one piece: there's a couple other things too he's blocking accounts right check this out, diogenes blocked many people, wolf of my street, being one of them he's also going out of his way to ask for his goddang hairball. Sorry about that he's also going out his way to ask for an apology and he's also replying to people on twitter.

This is a reuse. This is a ruse. Setup is a false statement. Right he's trying to defend himself now.

Why would a guy try to defend a situation like this? This is a great analogy that i heard from tmi the mass investor, and i think this is a very easy way to put it if the wolf barks at the moon, nobody bad tonight, that's normal. That happens, but if the moon barks back at the wolf people will lose their minds because that's not something that ever happens and that's what you have happening right here with uh with james. It doesn't make sense in this situation. He's got nothing to gain and only things to lose by engaging with people on twitter, which is why i'm so fascinated by his behavior.

The behavior to me speaks about someone who actually does have something to maybe not hide but defend, and you shouldn't have anything to defend. If you haven't done anything wrong and i would say, he's done something pretty freaking wrong. I mean this guy's got a 1.5 billion. This is the problem for me, this is where i get pissed off truly.

Is it's obvious that he has a conflict of interest? He has this twitter account he he can remain anonymous if people don't know that he's tied to this twitter account and then come on and try and bash the stock and push it down which, by the way, you stop bashing this technique of trying to scare people Out of an investment based on your beliefs based on spreading fun, is an illegal practice. You can't do that. That's infiltration to a t. This is the exact sort of stuff.

That months ago i said i was worried about in terms of what could happen. I'm so glad people freaking didn't buy into this nonsense and caught it. This quick, i mean this dude is a freaking genius. The heck is that oh, it's my chair, i'm rubbing against my mic.

Sorry about that, but the behavior behind this is not somebody. That's trying to be transparent per se, it's something that shouldn't have even happened to begin with, because this is conflict of interest, it's uh the whole. Let me think the best way to put this the issue at hand is that this guy is not in a seat to be able to do that. Like adam aaron, for example, ceo of a company, he can do things, he can't do things.

There are certain things that, as a ceo of a company you're not allowed to do, this should be one of them as the president of kinecos. You should not be able to go on twitter and hide anonymously behind a freaking twitter handle and uh trash talk with with with people. I mean this is nuts check this out. I want to come back to uh his actual twitter account, but i'm going to show you some of his tweets and replies check this out right here: hey wall street synthetic, we appreciate you showing your cards and your son support.

The box office looks like partly due to him free guy overachieved hollywood is just hitting its recovery stride as it moves into a heavy pipeline of blockbusters after an expected. Slow start, congratulations, but this weekend's box office of 75 million was still down almost 40 from 2019's, comparable 120 million. This is already addressed, he's not saying anything in factually correct uh in factually wrong factually incorrect, i should say and uh he goes on. This conversation continues.

He's engaging with just regular everyday people like you and me over something that literally is not worth engaging over because you're like he's not going to change anybody's minds and they're, not going to change his mind. What's the point this keeps me going on my point of this: is the moon barking at the wall theater's, not 100 capacity. He continues to engage. You can see this this strange, behavior, the i doesn't just raise some red flags for you guys like at first.

He put out the picture whatever, but he continued. The continuation is where i'm starting to raise an eyebrow, because charles gasparino, whatever i expect this out of this freaking silly chicken this guy. This guy goes out of his way to make these sort of claims which we're not i'm, not i'm not done with him either. I want to talk about this guy too, but it's very obvious.

There's no more. I can say in terms of the conflict of interest, of having a short position and going out of your way to bash a stock and try and change people out of the amc community, but after they made their own financial responsibility and decision right. They've made that decision for themselves. That's not for you to change! It's not anybody's place to change their decision.

Unless there's money on the line, people only care these big dudes. They only care about what you do with your money. If it affects their money, that's it! That's it, i mean that's exactly what you're watching happen right now. This is where i think more regulation needs to be happening.

Now. I want to talk about charles gasparino fox business network right if you're not familiar with him very firm stance in not liking amc, but he also likes robin hood, and this is an example that i want to get into here a little bit because he actually ran With a story here a little bit to make robin hood move, i firmly believe robin hood moved it's this robin hood gets boost as congress declines banned for now on sales tactic, and this ban quote unquote was on payment for order flow. Now i don't want anybody to get this twisted, so i pulled this up the bill itself. This bill was proposing a study be done on payment for order flow, not necessarily that they would ban it entirely, which would be freaking awesome, but that's a different story right.

What they did was twist words a little bit, which you have seen happen more than once and note the author, by the way, charles gasparino, in order to have a favored position on the stock, robin hood. What ended up happening? Well, robin went up that day. Robin was up like five percent overall and that that certain move he proposed hey. Look this bill to ban payment for order flow is the reason.

What are you doing? Buddy is the reason that the stock didn't end up. That stock went up on that day, but the bill never had anything to do with banning payment for order flow to require the securities exchange commission to carry out a study on payment for order flow to require the investor advocate of the commission to provide recommendations on Payment for order flow and for other purposes they twisted the words here, a little bit, which is just another scenario where you have the exact same thing happening back to back to back to back where people will twist information to try and move a stock right in This instance: it's not stock bashing, but market manipulation and market movement is not as simple as just computers. Moving stocks, it's not as simple as high frequency trading naked choices, deliverers. It's real players behind the game.

Doing stuff like this to move stocks, because this news article focused on payment for waterfall ban denial, was incorrect. That's not what it was. It was never about that. It was about investigating payment overflow to maybe move into that and, as we know, robinhood makes a vast majority of their income based on payment for order flow.

So it went up that day. He also has consistent, banter and jabbing at amc stock. He also replied to this empty theater sort of situation which, by the way, this isn't even relevant. This isn't important, because this, the picture in and of itself is the problem, not necessarily that it was empty, but check this out.

I want to show you the actual picture check this out these these seats black seats, blue lighting. Whatever you look up, uh amc, uh, you know amc, theater, interior amc, god dang it. I have never been to an amc theater that looks even remotely like that. The seats are always red, that's the thing i mean the logo is red.

That's that that's literally their trademark is the red comfortable lounge seats, because it's an amc theater, but that that's a whole different subject whatever we can get into that in a different point in time. But you can see these these two players essentially having some sort of position on the stock and the way that they feel about how the company you know the stock trades whatever, but i want to connect some dots. What are the issues? What are the connections between these guys, charles and james, have had previous relationships and interaction both with sizable power and conflict of interest, and this is the kind of takeaway from the story that i want to get into here. The statements came from james on improper news, reporting and ties with charles and that's regarding this news.

Article focused on payment for overflow band denial, so i want to show you this. This is actually pretty fascinating. Let me switch this back over to my monitor and read you this statement, so this came directly from uh james. It says this gasparino calls and say that he doesn't think channels could have talking about him, although he does admit that he was the person who did all the reporting on layman for cnbc.

Essentially, what the story is talking about is some misreporting quote: unquote that ended up hurting uh james and his short selling firm, and he came back to say this. This is james. Actually, trading on or inducing others to trade on information you know to be false. Is a crime, the security is fraud and is a criminal, not civil offense.

Now this came directly from the man himself. He recognizes legal implications behind some of the things that take place within news reporting within talking about stocks, but get this guy and as well as uh freaking charles gasparino go out of their way to twist things and and make a picture that fits their narrative and Their own position in the stock - i mean you literally can't make this stuff up. Look at this robin hood gets boost as congress declines ban never happened. You also have this freaking picture coming out by uh by the man himself.

Diogenes wall street cynic. Talking about how he thinks amc's overvalued, look i mean you've got a million freaking articles out here, jim channel says amc, entertainment fundamentals have gotten worse. He's got a short position in the stock he's a billionaire. This guy is not in a position to be able to do this stuff.

When you do certain things in life, there are just certain paths: you cannot walk down. You can't walk down this path. This is not something that you can do as the president of a firm focused on short selling, literally coming out of the internet and trying to troll people over something a stock. That literally doesn't even i guess it does affect him.

So you get the point guys holy crap. I mean this is just crazy. Look at this. You think this is a freaking movie.

Oh man, i just wanted to take the time to be able to walk you through what i thought was some pretty interesting, uh drama on twitter this weekend and remind you to be diligent, to pay attention to what people say: uh on the internet and try and Fact, check stuff because infiltration remains my greatest concern within amc within the ape community and it's the idea of outside players trying to come in and sway your opinion on a stock to affect the stock price. That's the greatest weapon that i think these guys have, and this is an example two examples of it happening in real time. So i just wanted to take the time to be able to kind of talk about this story in case you were able to catch it and hopefully pull some value away from that. So i'll put out an update video here in the morning tomorrow.

If you want to check that out, feel free to do so, otherwise blah blah blah dropped like instead of governments catch me on the next one, like that's always much: love and peace.