What is up, everybody welcome back to trace trades river talk fastest, don't skip classical properties by sending them out five financial advice. Do what you got to do, take whatever i say the grandstand. Let's do this uh. The share offering theory is, is interesting, to say the least right i'll make this apparently very clear right.

I want to make this extremely extremely clear. I do not i i i want nothing to do with it, but there is some interesting thought process to it right. My thoughts, i don't want any more offerings, i don't want any more dilution right. Dilution is great for the short term piss poor for the long term.

In my opinion, i think it's a short-term band-aid to raise cash uh to take care of some problems, but in the long term all you're doing is diluting how high a stock price can go right. So here's sort of the theory right. The theory is, if you look at two separate stocks, amc tesla right both of these tickers uh when they have done share offerings in the past. In order to raise uh raise capital, the stock price went up.

This is actually factual. It is factual right as much as people dislike offerings. I'm with you believe me, uh stock price went up right, amc's done it twice in the last two years. Price went up both times, tesla's done it and when they do it, the stock price also goes up.

We can think back right uh, they did an offering. I think it was back in march for amc and the stock price went up when they did it right. You look back at the daily candles. You look back in in march, stock price went up.

Did it back here, stock price went up right. It's not a coincidence right. If something happens twice like that, it's not a coincidence, because in the short term it is a band, it raises capital, you get shares in good hands and to be frank, if retail owns 90 of the float who's buying, what shares are there to buy synthetic ones? Well, that's not really gon na do much for the for the stock price right. I can understand that part of the theory, but this is my problem.

This is my problem. I'm going to pitch it to you completely straight right: i don't i i'm not for it. I don't agree with this theory because i think there are different ways to approach the situation that are not going to require you diluting stock and pissing off your investors, who want nothing to do with dilution anymore. So here we go right.

These are the problems. One dilution sucks people are done with dilution. I want nothing to do with it. They've got 1.8 billion dollars in cash.

Right. Amc is sitting on a lot of cash. If they want to pay off debt, they can do it. They can pay off a big chunk of debt, they can do it right now.

They can pay off a lot of their debt uh. They don't need the money they don't. They don't need the money uh because they have a lot of money. This is the most money they've ever had on hand.

So to say they need to dilute, doesn't make sense. Uh two you're, never gon na get people to agree on it. Right shareholders, don't want it, shareholders, don't want it. Third, you can dilute a stock too much too much dilution.

I think you're crossing that line. If you dilute again, i think a lot of people would argue that it's already been crossed that the stock has already been diluted too much i mean if you look at amc compared to a year ago, uh we were not a 500 million float. You know. 500 million share float stock.

I think people are just done with it. They're done with it. You know: uh dilution, sucks right. It lowers the overall uh long-term perspective of a stock price.

Sp right, let's put a dollar sign, lowers the you just have more shares right, makes sense. Nobody likes that shareholders, don't want it. You're gon na piss people off. Let's just be completely honest here.

If a.a tomorrow were to pitch more dilution, another share offering people would sell. There are people i can guarantee you, because i've seen it on twitter, not bots real people. People have followed i've watched for some time who said if adam aaron asked for more dilution, i'm out they're gon na dip right, i don't think everybody will, but i think that enough people will and retail owns the stock. 90 of this stock is owned by retail, excluding etfs.

That's a fact right. We don't want that right. The power of this company is the shareholders. It's that it's retail, if retail, doesn't want it 90 of your company, you probably shouldn't pitch it and me personally.

I believe there's been too much dilution, so i can sit here and poke holes at it all day, but what's the solution what's an easier way to do this? What's a better way to avoid dilution, you don't even need to do it. You, don't you don't i'll. Better tell you exactly why i know that they don't because if you take out this 1.8 billion dollars right that they already have, this is a phenomenal amount of cash. They have 1.8 billion dollars in cash.

That's more money than i or you or many people ever see in their entire life. Uh! That's a lot of money. Aside from that here's, the current situation with amc you've got the market right. This is sort of the prime market.

Amc exists in this space. Their shares trade on a day-to-day it's a day-to-day basis. We know that 90, excluding etfs, excluding etfs, is owned by retail right. Well, if that's the case, that means that ten percent ish, plus or minus, maybe five, ten percent trades back and forth on a day-to-day day-to-day basis and the stock price can't really move much.

That's why the volume is low. That's why you really don't see a whole lot of action. You're only seeing 30 40 million shares of volume a day compared to what you used to see way up here right, so stock is kind of is in an interesting spot, because there's not a lot of pressure on shorts right now. So how can you raise money without diluting the stock price in the short term? Maybe boosting it up right, that's possible, but i think it's a band-aid effect.

You can create a secondary market. I've talked about this before i'll say it again. I think the way that you raise money and it has to be done correctly - you can't rug, pull you can't scam, you can't take shortcuts, it has to be a legitimate product or i would not buy into it right. You have to create a secondary market now.

What do i mean by that something backed by blockchain that you cannot manipulate because you can track it? Everyone has a ledger. Everybody can see, it would just be straight by creating some form of nft or creating some form of a coin, and what you could do here is every time there is a transaction between bob, the builder over here and uh bob, the guilter they trade stuff back And forth, just like this and amc gets some sort of a commission off of those transactions, whether it be an nft or a crypto coin. You are able to raise capital right. This capital adds up over time over time over time through the secondary market without ever diluting your stock.

Ever ever ever ever ever ever, you don't have to do it. There's no reason. There's no reason to do it. They already want to dabble in nfts adamer's made that painfully clear.

They want to dabble in cryptocurrency adams made it painfully clear. They want to create some sort of a crypto coin right. Do it do it? This is your. This is your free ticket.

This is your ticket man. The the investors in amc are so devoted to the company. It's already apparent because the investors saved it right. We have saved this company.

We did that. You guys did that. We did that right. It's apparent that that people are willing to buy something of value, so if you create an nft, some sort of a collectible around, maybe it's like uh, like a benefits thing you own, this nft from this specific movie theater you get free popcorn for a year for Lifetime right, maybe you buy this coin, you get the same thing.

Maybe you get an nft as a collectible that you can purchase with any sort of movie. You can pay an extra. I don't know 50 bucks 100 bucks to be able to get a collectible that maybe five 10 years from now. If the movie does well or the actor does well or it becomes sort of a meme who knows right, a cruise in value just create something of value sell it people buy it.

You pay off debt. This to me makes way more sense than diluting the stock, because this provides value this dilutes value right. Why would i want dilution when my value goes down instead of buying something that has a chance of value going up? I mean this is this? It just makes sense to me: i don't know, that's my opinion. I know that are some people out there who are trying to pitch it uh i can see how it makes sense.

One million percent i've looked into the theory uh and the main takeaway is that in the past uh they want debt to get lowered right. They want to wipe out debt and every time that amc is done an offering. It has moved the stock price up. But if you're gon na argue that the stock price went up, you also have to look at the fact that the stock price has gone down right.

Stock price went up after an offering, then it went down. Stock price went up after an offering, and then it went down it's a band-aid. It's it doesn't fix the problem. The problem is that the shorts are betting on a lot of debt and that amc will never be able to grow right.

If that's the case. Well, you have to take care of the debt and you have to grow. They have enough cash to grow, they still have the debt. I think this makes more sense.

That's me at the end of the day, i'm not the ceo, i don't know what the solution is. He's got to do it himself. You know i can't make that decision for him, but that makes sense offering that's just so divisive you're, not gon na get four million people to agree on that you're. Just not there's enough people that are tired of it, i'm tired of it.

I know a lot of people in chat are tired of it that want nothing to do with it that are just they're, not gon na agree to it. You know, so that's my thoughts. I don't know, i'm sure there are people in chat that disagree with me, but i that's my i mean that's just my opinion. Man, you don't know, you know, we don't have to agree because at the end of the day, we're not the ones pulling the trigger adam aaron.

Isn't the executives are so they have to make that decision themselves and then uh. We, you know, we give our input. We say whether we agree, whether we don't and then they they uh they roll from there. So i will make it painfully clear that if adam aaron asks for more dilution, i will say no, i want nothing to do with it.

They have the war chest. They have 1.8 billion dollars that has been uh successfully done. They have enough cash to grow. If they want to pay off debt, they can pay off some and if they want to pay off more, they got to do some work.

I want to see some work right. You got to do something yourself to pay off the cash. Don't depend on the shareholders anymore, create a product, a service, a good sell. It make some money.

I will gladly gladly gladly gladly buy an nfc or a cryptocurrency. If i see value intrinsic value in uh in that product, that's it that's all. I have to say about that. You know.