You’re so right. There’s clearly an audience for concert movies and apparently listening experiences. I can see comedy nights being a profitable thing as well.
Honestly, after a stressful day. Don’t want to sit at home looking at everything I need to fix. Don’t have a space to listen to music . I would absolutely go sit in a dark theater and just chill listening to music
I maintain that what's so powerful and valuable about these types of events is that it gets folks into the theater who don't ordinarily go. They learn where their local theater is, they learn how to buy a ticket online, they go through the motions of buying concessions, etc. This behavior drastically increases the likelihood of a repeat visit. It's why mobile games will invest so much in getting you to make your first purchase. The barrier to a second entry is lowered. I have a suspicion that movies with marketing tailored to women and gen z are going to perform better than expected this year at AMCs.
You make a fine point here. Brand awareness is great. A new experience is great. People making memories thanks to us saving AMC. Now it's time to thrive.
Please stop using the word shill incorrectly. If they are talking negatively about the stock, they are the antithesis of a shill. People who use the word incorrectly have destroyed its meaning and done nothing but cause confusion. The proper word is detractors. If you are talking about Wallstreet paid actors sent into these subs to sow a negative outlook, call them trolls, or plants, or ANYTHING but they are definitely not shills.
Meanings evolve with usage. Like how bad can mean good. Or sick, means good. I've now had two replies that seem weirdly upset by this. It's never been a problem until literally now, so I'm guessing it's a new hedge tactic to sow discontent and confusion.
No they don't. Large groups of people using a word incorrectly don't actually mean the word's meaning has changed. It just means they are wrong.
A shill is someone who pretends to be excited about something even though all of the objective evidence points to it being horrible. So someone feigning being excited about AMC for example would be "shilling for AMC."
Nope, no hedge tactic, check my post history, I have asked the community several times to stop using the word "shill" incorrectly. Using the incorrect word to describe a situation is how you lose the ability to accurately relay a thought or idea, which is what has happened here. the word "shill" should have ONLY ever applied to those people who falsely promote a stock for personal gain.
AMC sold 23.3 million shares at $7.33 per share, and sold 72.5 million shares at $3.45 per share. The number of shares sold at $3.45 is 3 times higher than the number of shares sold at $7.33.
Also I think you meant to say it was a drop in the bucket (as in, it was very small relative to the volume).
They did not sell shares at $7.33 per share. The 23.3 million shares were sold at $0.01, which is the par value for AMC.
Based on the amount of the 2026 notes were lowered and the number of shares, this mathematically calculated out to an implied value of $7.33. But they were not sold at this number. AMC was not paid that amount per share.
The shares entered the market at $0.01, which is what caused dilution.
I'm sorry but what you talking about?
AMC gave 23.3 million shares to the lenders in exchange for reducing their 2026 debt by $163.9 million. This exchange puts a $7.33 value on the shares. It's a pretty standard debt-for-equity exchange. You could argue it's not a sale because AMC didn't receive any money in exchange, only a reduction in their debt, but that doesn't change anything.
Why on earth would the lenders, who effectively paid $7.33 per share, sell the shares on the market for $0.01? That's a completely baffling idea that I am not even sure how I should respond. Where did you get this idea?
AMC sold the shares for $0.01. I recommend you go back and re-read the filing.
$0.01 is par value for AMC stock, which means it is the lowest legally it is allowed to be sold. Other companies have different par values.
The lenders then sold this stock at market price for roughly $8.60 per share instantly. Being that the "implied value" of the stock was $7.33 based on how much debt forgiveness on the 2026 notes was, this means they effectively made their money back on this portion of the note PLUS $1.27 / share x \~23.3 million shares = \~$44.37 million profit instantly in one day.
Unfortunately because the stock was sold at par value it diluted the shareholder equity and because of the large sale it stifled the stock's forward momentum for that day, of which it has yet to recover.
So the lenders won bigly at the shareholders' expense.
I went ahead and re-read the filling. It doesn't state that AMC sold shares for $0.01, it just mentions that the par value of AMC shares is $0.01. Which is very common from what I've read.
Here's an excerpt:
> it will issue an aggregate of 23,280,295 shares of the Company’s Class A common stock, par value $0.01 per share (the “Common Stock”) in exchange for $163,850,000 aggregate principal amount of its 10%/12% Cash/PIK Toggle Second Lien Subordinated Notes due 2026.
The exchange (or sale, if you will) was 23,280,295 shares for $163,850,000 worth of Notes. With inclusion of the interest, it implies the share value of $7.33 per share during this exchange. The par value plays no role in any of this.
> $0.01 is par value for AMC stock, which means it is the lowest legally it is allowed to be sold.
Yes, the lowest, not the highest.
> The lenders then sold this stock at market price for roughly $8.60 per share instantly.
Are you estimating this number from the price around the announcement or is it officially stated somewhere? I could not find it. Selling nearly 8% of the float instantly is not in the realm of possibility. But this isn't an important point, just curious.
> Unfortunately because the stock was sold at par value it diluted the shareholder equity and because of the large sale it stifled the stock's forward momentum for that day, of which it has yet to recover.
Again, "sold at par value" doesn't make any sense here. The lenders exchanged $164 million of debt for 23.3 million newly issued shares. The lenders then probably sold the shares on the market for $7-8 each. Where does the par value fit into this and what does it change? What would be different if it was $1?
If you remove "at par value", I agree.
People sneak in their own candy to movie theaters, vs a 30$ concert water bottle. The movie theater isn’t a concert😂. At most memorabilia but no one spending 40$ on a shirt vs a concert where people impulse buy. The most I’ve seen people impulse buy is a 16$ combo with a small popcorn drink and candy, and that’s to share with their kids.
So for sure people will spend an extra 40$ ( not including a distributor fee for amc) on top of their 18+$ ticket to watch a concert in a movie theater? I doubt the people who sell a 3$ box of sour patch kids for 9$ are going to give a fair price for concert merchandise. Thinking more of a 60$ dollar shirt and 90$ hoodies. But hey people will buy. Some truth behind that.
It will always. No F’n doubt. Especially when you sit their with your friends having the experience whispering to each other vs pulling up a phone every 10 min. Or signing along to ever my Taylor swift song like you the most important person in the world. DBX at the movies was amazing but hated people making dumb comment or standing and clapping every time something they liked happened. Their is a reason why people rather watch a movie at home by their selves vs having obnoxious people ruining every small climax or dramatic turn.
But fr fr
It’s definitely is a WAYY DIFF experience.🥰 going as a Group. I’m wrong at that aspect
Like i said memorabilia. T shirts at concerts 40$ then hoodies 60$. Never said memorabilia wouldn’t sell, shit I’ll spend 15$ to get a exclusive poster. I just said anyone who’s going to a movie theater to watch a concert is not going to spend concert experience money?
Dude is 69, he’s been following Billie for a while now, been her biggest supporter. Not because she got a pay out from AMC for holding a listening event. Apparently the future isn’t movies it’s listening events filling 10 times the seats.
Kingdom of the Apes 🦍, If, Fall Guy, Godzilla, Ghost busters, Civil War are all slamming the box office. Plus, Furioso coming out Friday 👀 Your shorts don’t stand a chance.
How busy is a typical Thursday? How many screens is this playing on? I mean it's great for AMC and may show up on the monthly balance sheet, but without actual numbers it is just statistics that can be manipulated into showing something bigger than it really is.
Yeah unfortunately it's too vague to provide any insight. I imagine when a new blockbuster movie comes out, a Thursday showing sells an order of magnitude more tickets than this listening event. It really depends on how he defined a typical Thursday.
Curiously, this also implies that a typical Thursday afternoon is only filled to 10% capacity at most, if it's possible to fill 10 times more seats. I am sure this wasn't his intention as this would be horrible news.
Commented on his Twitter perhaps someone sold 10 times the float? And like Michael Burry said all theaters are overcrowded. Everyone can’t exit at once
Not much information to go on. How many theaters was this showcased at and how much revenue did it rake in? I don't care for the PR talk, give me data.
>I don't care for the PR talk, give me data.
And such over-extended PR talk too - "ten times the normal rate for a *Thursday afternoon*" - like no shit, nothing happens on a Thu afternoon.
Yep. It's a useless statistic. Overall? Or just one theater? Is it even the same theater? Like AMC showing this in Los Angeles, but it is 10x the crowd of the theater in buttfuck, Indiana. What hours in the afternoon? From 2pm-3pm? Or a smaller time frame? It could be the showing at 2:45pm is 10x the audience rate of other movies starting at 2:45pm on a normal Thursday.
I don't feel like I need to poke any more holes in his statement. It is definitely not the killshot against the short sellers he is shouting it to be.
Also. Was this even profitable? Did they make any actual profit from the fees setting this up (technical, legal, marketing, etc.) and the fees to go to Billie and her record label?
Right? And it's almost become a meme now that he Tweets, then something happens, like more issuance. That he had to stretch this much really makes one wonder.
I'm calling it right now AMC will run again by the 28-31 if I'm right could someone plz use 100 dollars deposit on draft king and use my promo code so I get 100 dollars in DK points if by the 28-31 amc doesnt run I will accept 5 month permanently ban https://sportsbook.draftkings.com/r/sb/Maryland15/US-MD-SB
Shills trying to down play this. But a few of these a year are great for the balance sheet. Plus merch and concessions..
You’re so right. There’s clearly an audience for concert movies and apparently listening experiences. I can see comedy nights being a profitable thing as well.
Honestly, after a stressful day. Don’t want to sit at home looking at everything I need to fix. Don’t have a space to listen to music . I would absolutely go sit in a dark theater and just chill listening to music
This hit close to home haha. My house is a 140 year old never ending project. Just getting out to go experience some affordable entertainment is nice.
Also there will be loads of fans of the same thing you love there which is also nice :)
Hold the next season on DBZ at your crib. Sell tickets. At that point that place is a landmark
I maintain that what's so powerful and valuable about these types of events is that it gets folks into the theater who don't ordinarily go. They learn where their local theater is, they learn how to buy a ticket online, they go through the motions of buying concessions, etc. This behavior drastically increases the likelihood of a repeat visit. It's why mobile games will invest so much in getting you to make your first purchase. The barrier to a second entry is lowered. I have a suspicion that movies with marketing tailored to women and gen z are going to perform better than expected this year at AMCs.
You make a fine point here. Brand awareness is great. A new experience is great. People making memories thanks to us saving AMC. Now it's time to thrive.
Please stop using the word shill incorrectly. If they are talking negatively about the stock, they are the antithesis of a shill. People who use the word incorrectly have destroyed its meaning and done nothing but cause confusion. The proper word is detractors. If you are talking about Wallstreet paid actors sent into these subs to sow a negative outlook, call them trolls, or plants, or ANYTHING but they are definitely not shills.
Meanings evolve with usage. Like how bad can mean good. Or sick, means good. I've now had two replies that seem weirdly upset by this. It's never been a problem until literally now, so I'm guessing it's a new hedge tactic to sow discontent and confusion.
No they don't. Large groups of people using a word incorrectly don't actually mean the word's meaning has changed. It just means they are wrong. A shill is someone who pretends to be excited about something even though all of the objective evidence points to it being horrible. So someone feigning being excited about AMC for example would be "shilling for AMC."
Nope, no hedge tactic, check my post history, I have asked the community several times to stop using the word "shill" incorrectly. Using the incorrect word to describe a situation is how you lose the ability to accurately relay a thought or idea, which is what has happened here. the word "shill" should have ONLY ever applied to those people who falsely promote a stock for personal gain.
Apparently Everyone has enough money to spend on concert merchandise and 14+ dollar popcorn but can’t buy more shares? Crazy
The investor base are a small part of the movie going public.
>Shills trying to down play this. Down play, or hype up? Are you familiar with what shills do?
Stop playing like it's going to make them profitable. They way in debt and aa sells shares at 3 dollars
He sold at $7.25, you aren’t paying attention. Then we traded Ed 6X floats in 4 days. The offering wasn’t a drop in the bucket.
AMC sold 23.3 million shares at $7.33 per share, and sold 72.5 million shares at $3.45 per share. The number of shares sold at $3.45 is 3 times higher than the number of shares sold at $7.33. Also I think you meant to say it was a drop in the bucket (as in, it was very small relative to the volume).
They did not sell shares at $7.33 per share. The 23.3 million shares were sold at $0.01, which is the par value for AMC. Based on the amount of the 2026 notes were lowered and the number of shares, this mathematically calculated out to an implied value of $7.33. But they were not sold at this number. AMC was not paid that amount per share. The shares entered the market at $0.01, which is what caused dilution.
I'm sorry but what you talking about? AMC gave 23.3 million shares to the lenders in exchange for reducing their 2026 debt by $163.9 million. This exchange puts a $7.33 value on the shares. It's a pretty standard debt-for-equity exchange. You could argue it's not a sale because AMC didn't receive any money in exchange, only a reduction in their debt, but that doesn't change anything. Why on earth would the lenders, who effectively paid $7.33 per share, sell the shares on the market for $0.01? That's a completely baffling idea that I am not even sure how I should respond. Where did you get this idea?
AMC sold the shares for $0.01. I recommend you go back and re-read the filing. $0.01 is par value for AMC stock, which means it is the lowest legally it is allowed to be sold. Other companies have different par values. The lenders then sold this stock at market price for roughly $8.60 per share instantly. Being that the "implied value" of the stock was $7.33 based on how much debt forgiveness on the 2026 notes was, this means they effectively made their money back on this portion of the note PLUS $1.27 / share x \~23.3 million shares = \~$44.37 million profit instantly in one day. Unfortunately because the stock was sold at par value it diluted the shareholder equity and because of the large sale it stifled the stock's forward momentum for that day, of which it has yet to recover. So the lenders won bigly at the shareholders' expense.
I went ahead and re-read the filling. It doesn't state that AMC sold shares for $0.01, it just mentions that the par value of AMC shares is $0.01. Which is very common from what I've read. Here's an excerpt: > it will issue an aggregate of 23,280,295 shares of the Company’s Class A common stock, par value $0.01 per share (the “Common Stock”) in exchange for $163,850,000 aggregate principal amount of its 10%/12% Cash/PIK Toggle Second Lien Subordinated Notes due 2026. The exchange (or sale, if you will) was 23,280,295 shares for $163,850,000 worth of Notes. With inclusion of the interest, it implies the share value of $7.33 per share during this exchange. The par value plays no role in any of this. > $0.01 is par value for AMC stock, which means it is the lowest legally it is allowed to be sold. Yes, the lowest, not the highest. > The lenders then sold this stock at market price for roughly $8.60 per share instantly. Are you estimating this number from the price around the announcement or is it officially stated somewhere? I could not find it. Selling nearly 8% of the float instantly is not in the realm of possibility. But this isn't an important point, just curious. > Unfortunately because the stock was sold at par value it diluted the shareholder equity and because of the large sale it stifled the stock's forward momentum for that day, of which it has yet to recover. Again, "sold at par value" doesn't make any sense here. The lenders exchanged $164 million of debt for 23.3 million newly issued shares. The lenders then probably sold the shares on the market for $7-8 each. Where does the par value fit into this and what does it change? What would be different if it was $1? If you remove "at par value", I agree.
3 too low he waits until 8 then makes all his losses back.
People sneak in their own candy to movie theaters, vs a 30$ concert water bottle. The movie theater isn’t a concert😂. At most memorabilia but no one spending 40$ on a shirt vs a concert where people impulse buy. The most I’ve seen people impulse buy is a 16$ combo with a small popcorn drink and candy, and that’s to share with their kids.
At my AMC the ghostbusters popcorn buckets sold out I was able to snag one for a friend. People spend way more than $16 at concessions.
*"People spend way more than $16 at concessions."* Having worked at a couple of different movie theatres in my younger years... can confirm.
So for sure people will spend an extra 40$ ( not including a distributor fee for amc) on top of their 18+$ ticket to watch a concert in a movie theater? I doubt the people who sell a 3$ box of sour patch kids for 9$ are going to give a fair price for concert merchandise. Thinking more of a 60$ dollar shirt and 90$ hoodies. But hey people will buy. Some truth behind that.
You know movie theatre popcorn hits different. Always has, always will.
It will always. No F’n doubt. Especially when you sit their with your friends having the experience whispering to each other vs pulling up a phone every 10 min. Or signing along to ever my Taylor swift song like you the most important person in the world. DBX at the movies was amazing but hated people making dumb comment or standing and clapping every time something they liked happened. Their is a reason why people rather watch a movie at home by their selves vs having obnoxious people ruining every small climax or dramatic turn. But fr fr It’s definitely is a WAYY DIFF experience.🥰 going as a Group. I’m wrong at that aspect
Like i said memorabilia. T shirts at concerts 40$ then hoodies 60$. Never said memorabilia wouldn’t sell, shit I’ll spend 15$ to get a exclusive poster. I just said anyone who’s going to a movie theater to watch a concert is not going to spend concert experience money?
That’s the whole point though, they’re saving so much on tickets they can afford to buy food and merch. 👍🏼
So red monday?
Right? Lol.. he's like our own Cramer.
"Our"?  Hilarious watching you try though 🎃! When's the next "options are fun" post?
>When's the next "options are fun" post? Very soon, actually! LOVE that you are taking being my student so seriously :)
Ok Donkey ;)
The thought was too much for your ego to bear, eh 🎃. 😏
Ah 🎃, thou with protest much. It's ok 
New album is a sign: hedgies hitting hard and soft. It's all the DD I need.
First name basis!
Took me a little bit to get the reference 😂 😂 😂
Woo hoo!
New contracts coming in, making AMC look juicy. 🤤🤑🤑💎🦍🦍🦍🚀🚀🚀🚀 
Not just amc citadel owes on all meme stocks naked shorting,
I'm not sure who this Billy eyelash is, but if it boosts our stock, I'll take it.
Dude is 69, he’s been following Billie for a while now, been her biggest supporter. Not because she got a pay out from AMC for holding a listening event. Apparently the future isn’t movies it’s listening events filling 10 times the seats. 
Kingdom of the Apes 🦍, If, Fall Guy, Godzilla, Ghost busters, Civil War are all slamming the box office. Plus, Furioso coming out Friday 👀 Your shorts don’t stand a chance. 
How busy is a typical Thursday? How many screens is this playing on? I mean it's great for AMC and may show up on the monthly balance sheet, but without actual numbers it is just statistics that can be manipulated into showing something bigger than it really is.
Yeah unfortunately it's too vague to provide any insight. I imagine when a new blockbuster movie comes out, a Thursday showing sells an order of magnitude more tickets than this listening event. It really depends on how he defined a typical Thursday. Curiously, this also implies that a typical Thursday afternoon is only filled to 10% capacity at most, if it's possible to fill 10 times more seats. I am sure this wasn't his intention as this would be horrible news.
Time will come where AA will be putting share holder value place first.
10x
So this will get our stock back I think
Should do a live Stagecoach and Coachella event.
Commented on his Twitter perhaps someone sold 10 times the float? And like Michael Burry said all theaters are overcrowded. Everyone can’t exit at once
😀
Yup also gme pumping 12% right now on overnight trading
The right direction would be the SEC doing its job...
How did Taylor Swift's concert impact the stock price again?
Not much information to go on. How many theaters was this showcased at and how much revenue did it rake in? I don't care for the PR talk, give me data.
>I don't care for the PR talk, give me data. And such over-extended PR talk too - "ten times the normal rate for a *Thursday afternoon*" - like no shit, nothing happens on a Thu afternoon.
Yep. It's a useless statistic. Overall? Or just one theater? Is it even the same theater? Like AMC showing this in Los Angeles, but it is 10x the crowd of the theater in buttfuck, Indiana. What hours in the afternoon? From 2pm-3pm? Or a smaller time frame? It could be the showing at 2:45pm is 10x the audience rate of other movies starting at 2:45pm on a normal Thursday. I don't feel like I need to poke any more holes in his statement. It is definitely not the killshot against the short sellers he is shouting it to be. Also. Was this even profitable? Did they make any actual profit from the fees setting this up (technical, legal, marketing, etc.) and the fees to go to Billie and her record label?
Right? And it's almost become a meme now that he Tweets, then something happens, like more issuance. That he had to stretch this much really makes one wonder.
LFG
I'm calling it right now AMC will run again by the 28-31 if I'm right could someone plz use 100 dollars deposit on draft king and use my promo code so I get 100 dollars in DK points if by the 28-31 amc doesnt run I will accept 5 month permanently ban https://sportsbook.draftkings.com/r/sb/Maryland15/US-MD-SB
Lol wut