1
ObjectiveReality 1 point ago +1 / -0

I never mentioned etherium

You mentioned WHACKD alongside DWAC

1
ObjectiveReality 1 point ago +1 / -0

I don't think you even know what that is

1
ObjectiveReality 1 point ago +1 / -0

Obviously that's we're talking about the token since you discussed it in the same context as the security.

1
ObjectiveReality 1 point ago +2 / -1

Low volume items aren't the metric for if supplies are making it then are they?

The high volume ones are. Those do not have a stockpile and will not last a week let alone months without additional shipments making it through. I am elabotrate because somehow something isn't clicking for you and you're not making an argument as to what that is.

3
ObjectiveReality 3 points ago +5 / -2

Amazon does notoperate using a 90's fullfillment model where you maintain a large stock and reorder as it gets low. Theyutilize a just in time fullfillment system which reduces footprint massively. They don't keep stock. Those Amazon warehouses are distribution hubs for receiving and quickly distributing out.

They could not last a week, let alone months. Their just in time fulfillment model is literally what their business model relies on, (partly) why they smoked their competitors, and is entirely incompatible with the hypothesis that chinese goods are being denied offloading at US ports due to an EO from Trump.

0
ObjectiveReality 0 points ago +1 / -1

Yes, that is what the hypothesis predicts.

But the fact that they are not out of stock, refutes this hypothesis. Amazon uses a just in time inventory system (that's literally what their business model revolves around) so unless you think this EO just kicked in yesterday, then the fact that they are not out of stock is evidence the hypothesis is incorrect. They do not stock inventory to last a week let alone multiple months.

0
ObjectiveReality 0 points ago +4 / -4

No dude.

When you click 'buy', the item that they shipped 2 weeks in advance (because they sell on average x units per day) that just arrived in port yesterday and arrived in the warehouse 3 hours earlier is allocated to you and shipped out. It arrives at your local distribution hub 1 dday later, and your home same day or the next (1-2 day shiping)

And had you waited 24 hours before buying, you'd have gotten the item that arrived on the ship the following day. They order and receive constantly, in advance.

If enough orders are placed for that item from that warehouse, the supply tally will decrease to a preset replenishment level

No. They do not keep 10,000 units on hand, then place an 8k order when it hits 5,000, so they get back up to to 10,000 when their 2 week shipment finally arrives when they are then below 2k units and running real low. That's 90's fullfillment. Amazon broke the model by going 'just in time' and being able to offer lower prices in part due to needing a tiny fraction of the amount of warehouse space.

If they sell 500 units a day. They have 500 units arrive every day, with maybe a few hunded more as a buffer. The consequence is an insanely lowered warehouse footprint which saves a ton of money and allows them to redirect and instead open ton of region 'distribution' centers rather than larger stocking facilities - this regionality then allows for 1-2 day shipping.

All because they do what you can't fathom as actually being possible - have the item you purchase ordered and on a boat two weeks before you hit the buy button, using predictive statistical modeling, dynamic pricing, and product nudging (they order too much of something, it shows up in your feed for less, they order two few and it shows up costing more and you get shown alternatives first)

This is (in part) how Amazon stole the market.

0
ObjectiveReality 0 points ago +1 / -1

WHACKD was created after JM, not by him. It also has nothing to do with anything.

0
ObjectiveReality 0 points ago +1 / -1

Since you're ~97% GME, you aren't as pro AMC as you assert to be.

My post clealry doesn't apply to you.

0
ObjectiveReality 0 points ago +1 / -1

Presuming that's their direct registrar.

In any case, this only works if there's a concentrated effort to obtain the float in this manner. That will require $825 million dollars to accomplish, less if the price tanks, but still too much to effectively tackle without serious sustained buy pressure and an information campaign I'm not sure TD is up for.

2
ObjectiveReality 2 points ago +3 / -1

By being really fucking good at their supply chain. That's the point. That's why Amazon is fucking amazing. It's not their front end shit, it's their backend supply chain.

They may have enough for three days, with additional projected replenishing supply arriving daily, but they definately don't have weeks, let alone months sittign around.

If in general they sell 1,000 units of something a day, they have 3,000 arriving every three days on a boat and keep 4,000 spread in warehouses across the US. So even though it takes two weeks to arrive from China, they can still meet same day shipping.

And I'm probaly over estimating. They probably don't even keep a supply, and only have a projected number arriving daily - and everytime your shipping delays to a two day or a threeday delay, it's because there was a spike their algorithm didn't predict despite showing and guiding you to other products they did have in supply.

3
ObjectiveReality 3 points ago +5 / -2

If they are going public they are going to have to fight off sustained attempts to dilute the stock through naked shorting by entities brought into existance solely to take on the liability risk to fight the threat this holds to entrenched interests.

I would NOT invest in this. In case anyone was considering doing so.

3
ObjectiveReality 3 points ago +7 / -4

Amazon built it's supremecy on the back of a 'JUST IN TIME' delivery model, not a warehousing one. Their warehouses aren't for stockpiling, but for in and out distribution. There is no way they have weeks let alone months stockpiled.

3
ObjectiveReality 3 points ago +4 / -1

So the ports are backed up... and his solution is to find State land to store additional containers so the backup can just continue backing up on land? And how, pray tell, are you going to move those containers from the ports to that state land, if you already don't have the throughput to load the containers onto trucks and ship them out??

removes weight limits on trucking freight routes to transport more goods

Can't wait for that to backfire.

4
ObjectiveReality 4 points ago +12 / -8

Pretty sure Chinese made Amazon products are still entering the country through LA despite the delays and shipping to US consumers so ... I'm not onboard with this delusion

1
ObjectiveReality 1 point ago +1 / -0

I posted the data. 11% SI in January. There's nothing to squeeze.

1
ObjectiveReality 1 point ago +1 / -0

The report is not 10 months old, it was just released.

What is shows is that AMC was never a play - There was no short interest to squeeze then, and none now. Locking up the float is irrelevant if no one is fucking short. Particularly if no one was short at low prices putting them deep under water.

1
ObjectiveReality 1 point ago +1 / -0

They will not 'both' pop.

Only GME has entrenched short positions under water. AMC with 11% SI in January means there isn't anything TO pop.

1
ObjectiveReality 1 point ago +1 / -0

It shows AMC was never overshorted so wasn't a credible play. It doesn't matter how much AMC you bought sinve then, you can't force people to take out short positions back at $5 putting them deep under water as is the case with GME.

0
ObjectiveReality 0 points ago +1 / -1

You have no idea what the play is if you think being up is an indication of the value of your play. Do you even know what a short squeeze is??

1
ObjectiveReality 1 point ago +1 / -0

Retail is 80% in AMC. More than GME.

How can you be so wrong?? And it doesn't matter how much AMC you own if short positions are non existant (ie AMC). Gamestop is over shorted, AMC wasn't. AMC still isn't.

1
ObjectiveReality 1 point ago +1 / -0

That's two shares of GME that will squeeze vs 10 shares that won't

1
ObjectiveReality 1 point ago +1 / -0

Only because the other 80% was collectively owned by two competing interests both quietly trying to buy up controlling interest in VW who both refused to sell, meaning the actual flaot was closer to 20%, creating the 100% SI that created the squeeze. No such factors are at play with AMC

5
ObjectiveReality 5 points ago +5 / -0

Link to the SEC report from Gary Gensler's team

https://www.sec.gov/files/staff-report-equity-options-market-struction-conditions-early-2021.pdf

GME exceeeded the float all the way back in January (god only knows how over shorted it is now) while AMC only hit 11% in January. Maybe it's higher now, but no way high enough to make a short squeeze possible.

Anyone still holding AMC really need to switch it out

The report also makes it clear that data from January is not consitent with shorts closing, or a gamma squeeze - the price spike was entirely from natural buy pressure. This confirms what we already knew from our own independant research - the shorts never closed and that the play is still on.

view more: Next ›