Let’s all go to the movies, then the moon. Before we begin, this is not financial advice, if you want financial advice to lose money, turn on CNBC.
TL;DR
With no more bankruptcy worries, additional liquidity, a reopening trade with more vaccines coming through the funnel, and with additional hype surrounding the brand, revenues should increase in FY2021 and FY2022+, giving AMC potential to reach prior highs at the $35 area, w/o a short squeeze. With? $60+. Important to note: The expected liquidation value post liquidity injection this past week, would be HIGHER than the current market cap. Also Blackrock now has a 5%+ stake in AMC. Bet with the suits that the FED trusts.
Prelude
What a crazy time, where the internet fights against greedy hedge funds and boomers who don’t manage their risk and over-short various equities. Not a surprise, as the wise Gordon Gecko once stated, Greed is Good. Now it seems it’s legal. Because everyone is drinking the same Kool-Aid.
Well, some of these funds got bailed out last Thursday in some of the largest VISIBLE market manipulation you can ever see, where individuals were only allowed to sell shares and many were FORCED to sell shares into a price well below the price equilibrium. What does that mean? To refresh the Econ 101 class lesson that the hedgies snorted coke through, when you cut Demand by say, 70%, yet force the supply to stay near the same or even increase, the price paid per, in this case, share, will be SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER than the fair market price. To Robinhood, TDA, and any other big firm that made a point to lower the fair market price of the various equities ranging from GME, AMC, BB, and others, I hope the SEC can get off their paid off asses and do their job for the American people. Also, to the Biden Administration that stands for the people, unity, and liberty, get off your lazy asses and do your goddamn job. We know many of the various representatives and organizations are corrupt, but at least catch the hand that’s still in the cookie jar.
Now lets begin with AMC’s true value, and most importantly, what their future value is.
The Cons:
One of the biggest issues that loomed over AMC’s head was bankruptcy. And it was a BIG fucking problem. So much so, the equity went from trading at $30+ to sub $5, especially hit by the pandemic and all it’s wonderful externalities. Back in April and May, two firms actually upgraded this stock with more positive outlooks, B. Riley FBR with a target of $4, and MKM Partners (sound familiar from 2.1.21?) with a target of $5 claiming that their risk of bankruptcy is lower and with the reopening of theatres possible from Covid presumably coming to more of a halt. Well today, the brilliant mind at MKM, Eric Handler, decided to downgrade the stock again with a price target of $1. Surprising, since they actually got a cash infusion recently by offering shares… Wait what? Oh yeah, wall street analysts are as much of a joke as their predictions of the future. No wonder they are so wrong all the time. Eric, I get you want to get your inner Kanye out but please take the medication before you put out a completely illogical downgrade compared to your firms last upgrade and PT. You do have a fiduciary responsibility, after all.
Financials:
Recently, AMC actually raised a ton of cash even before any offering of shares or anything of the like. To quote the President and CEO of AMC, Adam Aron, “Any talk of an imminent bankruptcy for AMC is completely off the table.” Then the stock RAN from 3 to 25 in a short period of time, and AMC did what TSLA does best, they raised cash. In fact they extended their cash lines by a smidge over $1B USD. Heh, not bad to combat bankruptcy.
Lets look at YOY ER:
We will get Full FY2020 results on 2.25, lets use the numbers we have already.

Attribute	FY 2020	FY2019	FY2018
Total Revenue	2,527.60	5,471.00	5,460.80
Gross Profit	1,654.30	3,493.20	3,479.70
Operating Expense	5,617.30	5,335.00	5,195.80
Operating Income	-3,089.70	136.00	265.00
Net Income	-3,656.80	-149.10	110.10

Operating Expenses aren’t pretty, but a bulk is from Q1 and since, Covid has been a slaughter. Now how to we recover from a very dreary year? Pretty simple: Have cash to stave off upcoming costs, start opening up your theatres so that you can get those rev. numbers up, and begin partnering with old and new media companies in ways that haven’t been as exposed in the past, creating new revenue streams. Now lets go through these.
News Events
AMC announced that they will be able to last months before raising additional cash this past week. They then proceeded to raise over a billion dollars.
AMC announced that they will now be opening a majority of their theatres again. Movie releases will start to come back, per the industry.
Blackrock, one of the largest investment banks on the planet, has a +5% stake within the company,
JNJ and NVAX announced their Phase 3 vaccine results with decent efficacy. Reopening needs this as larger vaccine availability means a quicker reopening trade.
A bolstering of hype surrounding the company by the common man, with hundreds of millions of eyes if not billions, increasing net exposure of this once beloved brand to the general public yet again. Think movies were coming back? Now they are going to be back, bigly.
A short squeeze was set off recently as well, costing funds who were short AMC hundreds of millions to potentially over a billion dollars. This is one of the main driving forces brought to AMC, which we will cover below.
Needs to survive:
Have cash? Well recent funding and stock sales provides liquidity. AMC will survive FY2021. Check! Start opening theatres? Vaccine distribution is to expand exponentially, especially with the results of JNJ and NVAX covid vaccines adding onto PFE and MRNA’s. Biden admin ftw? Time for AMC to get some revs back. Check! New rev streams? This is something that AMC will need to work on, and in my opinion, are underexposed to.
It is my belief that this is one thing stopping AMC from becoming a TITAN, with their reach and location across the country, there are many major and minor partnerships that can be started to generate revenue, especially in a post-covid world. NFLX on the big screen? Doable, even with potential discounts for NFLX customers. Disney+, same! Streaming will have its moment of fatigue and film will be a fad, but there are many many avenues to attack the entertainment senses of a theatre attendee. What if Epic Games utilized AMC to throw some of their concerts, having individuals log in to a server of that theatre or theatres to attend some crazy concerts with their parents and other kids/teens just like them? I would love for AMC to bring on new members into the board to enhance the theatre experience. Food for thought to CEO Aron.
Short Float:
Now this is something very important with the recent momentum in this stock. According to finviz, as of today, 2.1.21, the short float is at a whopping 43.82%. Issue with finviz that I am seeing, is that there are only 107 MM shares outstanding, looking like a pretty significant ~47 MM are short. I’m seeing that there are 339 MM shares outstanding, so if that number can align, the amount of shares short are triple at 120 MM, which wouldn’t surprise me given the lovely and reputable news stories we get from CNBC, Bloomberg, and whatever sorry piece of shit that thinks that reddit is targeting a short squeeze in a $1.5 Trillion dollar market in Silver, as well as other useless coins.
Longing the stock
With the biggest concern to AMC, bankruptcy, behind them now, we can safely say it is worth it to look at the stock in a more elevated view. Let’s proceed.
Upon our recent review on AMC, our projections for revs to increase to ~5.4 B from the meager numbers in 2020, with a now-healthier view on AMC’s financials and cash-on-hand due to recent strides to increase liquidity. With additional potential revenue streams of new partners who grew at WFH scenarios such as NFLX, DIS, ROKU, and others, we project that this company should be seeing more explosive growth in the next 3-5 years and have lower expectations of ~6B in revs per year, and a larger bull case of ~9-10 B in revs if expansions do occur and new revenue streams are fully actualized. Anything above is a gift.
Now to actually long the equity: With RH opening up more shares allowed, other brokers allowing this equity to be traded and accepting more and more users with each day as they migrate from one of the worst brokerages around (RH), this should give more buying power into the recently popular AMC and GME trades. With such a high short rate and with many traders believing that the hype is done for, I expect additional firepower in the long trade as these traders will have to cover. Without the short %, my PT would be $20, but with, this could go quite far and squeeze anywhere between 40-60 if not beyond. It’s not really a trade as much as it is a math problem.
Long AMC.🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀
someone asked about positions: 3700 shares and will buy more soon, just focusing on managing this trade. I did reenter my BB trade

What's up everyone. I created an algo that scans the most popular trading sub-reddits and logs the tickers mentioned in due-diligence or discussion-styled posts. Instead of scanning for how many times each ticker was mentioned in a comment, I logged how popular the post was among the sub-reddit. Essentially if it makes it to the 'hot' page then it will most likely be on this list. There are two parts to this post. The first is for posts that were submitted in the most active trading sub-reddits (such as this one), and the second part has the most mentioned tickers from the WSB sub-reddit.
How can I use this list?
The best way to use this data is to learn about new tickers that might be trending. As an example, I probably would have never known about the ARK etfs, or even Palantir, until they started trending on Reddit. This gives many people an opportunity to learn about these stocks and decide if they want to invest in them or not. The data on this list is limited to one post per ticker. I've taken the most 'popular' post for that ticker on whichever sub-reddit it may have been. What I've found is that normally if tickers begin to trend on one sub-reddit then generally-speaking there will be posts for the same ticker on various other sub-reddits. Here's the data from the last week.
​

Title	Tickers	Avg Hype %
(GME DD) One DD to rule them. One DD to find them. One DD to to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.	GME	300+%
People on Robinhood who own GME are most likely to also own BB and PLTR in their portfolio.	PLTR, GME	300+%
Bitcoin Plunge Has Newbies Scrambling to Google 'Double-Spend'	GOOGL	300+%
Jack Ma Emerges for First Time Since Ant, Alibaba Crackdown. BABA (9988.HK) in Hong Kong is up 5%.	BABA	300+%
If you’re young with a high risk tolerance, is there a better ETF than ARKK?	ARKK	300+%
It's time to short $Facebook	FB	300+%
Amazon Prime member total reaches 142 million in U.S. with more shoppers opting in for a full year, data shows	AMZN	300+%
AMD: Undervalued at $90	AMD	300+%
NIO price target raised to $75 by JPMorgan	NIO	300+%
Apple stock is a strong buy before earnings! What do you think ?	AAPL	300+%
PayPal becomes first foreign firm in China with full ownership of payments business	PYPL	300+%
I draw with crayons so you don't have to. The grind up continues. Tickers on the watchlist this week: CRSR, APPS, PINS, DKNG, SNOW	DKNG, APPS, CRSR, PINS, SNOW	300+%
Continuing our investing journey from PLTR to DTIL	DTIL, PLTR	294%
Is Blackberry $BB actually undervalued?	BB	275%
Disney [DIS] Stock Price Target Prediction & Analysis [Technical, Fundamental & DCF] Can Disney 2x?!	DIS	274%
PLUG will soar way beyond the current price point this year.	PLUG	273%
Biden didn't talk about clean energy in his 1.9T stimulus plan. Clean energy stocks down a lot (ICLN -5.39%, TAN -7.24%, QCLN -5.57%). Is th...	ICLN, TAN, QCLN	271%
VALE possible play?	VALE	187%
On the topic of insider trading, here's stock trading by US Senators alongside $SPY. The big negative bar is when a couple got caught doing ...	SPY	183%
What do you guys think of investing in XOM ?	XOM	181%
$PLTR - The Big DDD	PLTR	178%
Microsoft betting on GM driverless Tech	GM, MSFT	168%
Cathie added 497100 share of PLTR to ARKW today, you know what that means.	ARKW, PLTR	163%
Airbnb's market cap is now bigger than the combined market caps of Marriott, Hilton, MGM, and Wynn Resorts.	MGM, WYNN	161%
Biden to cancel Keystone XL pipeline permit on first day in office: CBC	XL	159%
Urgent: Tesla call advice	TSLA	154%
Remember when Citron Research was bullish on LUCKIN ($LK) and it turned out to be one of the biggest accounting/security frauds in recent hi...	LK	152%
Buying Calls with High IV (CCIV)	CCIV	148%
Is Nokia a good long term buy? Current market price is $4.07.	NOK	147%
AMC Entertainment CEO is shockingly close to staving off bankruptcy	AMC	145%
We remain long $GME. I reupped at 39.60 after ???? called in sick. Charts: my whale friend’s position (he bought more in the 40s), me, and $...	GME	98%
After dropping 51%, $SRPT shares show consistent increase following Cathie's ARKG interest	SRPT, ARKG	87%
ARKG selling puts	ARKG	87%
Why did square inc (SQ) increase so dramatically?	SQ	80%
$MSFT catching up	MSFT	69%
CRSR $35 2/19 Put sellers, what is your plan?	CRSR	67%
TikTok finally beat $FB in monthly time spent on the platform per user	FB	64%
previous fvrr post made me try Fiverr - it was a clown show.	FVRR	62%
Long term investing, why not go with UPRO instead of SPY? Since it 3x the returns...	UPRO, SPY	56%

​

WSB - Most Mentioned Tickers This Week

Total Comments Parsed Last 7 Day(s): 102,587
*Comment volume on GME was lower than usual because they had a separate thread specifically for GME

Ticker	Comments	Bullish %
GME - Gamestop Corpor...	11,327	86%
BB - BlackBerry Ltd	4,165	91%
TSLA - Tesla Inc	3,461	79%
PLTR - Palantir Techno...	2,672	86%
AAPL - Apple Inc	2,547	90%
ICLN - BlackRock Insti...	1,705	91%
AMD - Advanced Micro ...	1,590	86%
BABA - Alibaba Group H...	1,228	80%
AMZN - Amazon.com Inc....	1,062	84%
PLUG - Plug Power Inc	952	91%
F - Ford Motor Co.	866	85%
NFLX - NetFlix Inc	841	86%
NIO - NIO Inc - ADR	752	92%
FB - Facebook Inc - ...	740	87%
INTC - Intel Corp.	740	61%
TLRY - Tilray Inc - Cl...	707	68%
WISH - ContextLogic In...	581	71%
APHA - Aphria Inc	512	93%
NOK - Nokia Corp - AD...	509	97%
CRSR - Corsair Gaming ...	442	91%
AMC - AMC Entertainme...	394	92%
MSFT - Microsoft Corpo...	348	88%
GLD - SSgA Active Tru...	342	72%
ARKG - ARK Investment ...	325	93%
ARKK - ARK Investment ...	309	94%

From the guys who brought you The Greatest Short Burn of the Century..

Oh man, oh man, oh man.
Not again.
-Drizzy

Preface:
Please believe me when I say I really wanted to take this month off and enjoy the snow in Tahoe. But as I was driving, something caught my eye...
Make no mistake. This stock is not going to be nearly as volatile or profitable as GME. In fact, this might be so boring that most of you will ignore me yet again. And that’s exactly why I like it. I’ll do my best to make this engaging, but the fact is, this is going to be a slow grind. Both this DD and the stock.
Also, as a bonus, Reddit is currently public enemy #1 in the eyes of the media. Why don’t we do a quick heel-turn and join their side? Are they gonna hate us for buying boring value stocks? They won’t know what hit them. That will be a fun show to watch.
Anyway… let’s take a look under the hood. As always, not financial advice. Just education. NOTHING IS A RECOMMENDATION. We are just sharing knowledge here. Ok SEC?
Intro:
Ford (NYSE: $F -- NOT NASDAQ:$FORD), is another depressed deep value multiple expansion arbitrage play. No short squeeze this time. The GME asymmetry may not be seen again for 10 years.
It might seem boring and unsexy on the surface, but Ford is a fantastic company in the midst of one of the best turnarounds in American history. And with a little help from our friend Mr. Options (or as Buffett called, Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction) we can turn a boring old Ford into a lightning fast Ferrari using the quadruple income option wheel strategy. Don’t try this at home. If you don’t know what CSPs, CCs, or vega are, stick to shares. Those should work just fine.
Let’s break this down into 5 parts: electrification story and leadership, multiples expansion, technical analysis, options, and the trade.
By the way, in 2019, the Ford F-Series was second only to the Apple iPhone, which raked in $55 billion, in terms of total revenue generated. The F-Series generated more revenue than the NFL, MLB, NBA, and the NHL combined, which added up to $40 billion. Just something to think about.

The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round...

Electrification story and leadership:
Let’s jump into history for a second. Ford had a meteoric rise from 1997 - 1999 from $15 to around $32 at the peak. This was due to $F reporting massive earnings increases each quarter:

• Dec 1996 - 1997 Ford F-150 - Truck of the Year
  
• Jan 1997 - Ford profits up 82 percent
  
• Oct 1997 - Ford profits up 64 percent
  
• Jan 1998 - Ford profits up 56 percent
  

They were just feasting and feasting. Jim Farley looks like the best person alive to revitalize Ford, capable of tripling the stock in 2-3 years. Look at the last two quarters:

• Q3-2020 - Adjusted EPS: 65 cents vs 19 cents expected, Automotive revenue: $34.71 billion vs $33.51 billion expected (due to pent up demand)
  
• Q2-2020 - Adjusted EPS: A loss of 35 cents per share versus a loss of $1.17 per share expected, Automotive revenue: $16.6 billion versus $15.95 billion expected.
  

Here are excerpts from the Q3 earnings and some other notable highlights:

Farley: Now that plan, which was introduced to the Ford team and many stakeholders on October 1, is very straightforward. Among other things, No. 1, we will compete like a challenger, earning each customer with great products but as well services with rewarding ownership experiences. Number two, we're moving with urgency to turn around our automotive operations, improve our quality, reduce our cost and accelerate the restructuring of underperforming businesses.
And third, we're going to grow again but in the right areas, allocating more capital, more resources, more talent to our very strongest businesses and vehicle franchises; incubating, scaling and integrating new businesses, some of them enabled by new technology like Argo's world-class self-driving system; and expanding our leading commercial vehicle business with great margins but now with the suite of software services that drive loyalty and generate reoccurring annuity-like revenue streams; and being a leader in electric vehicle revolution around the world where we have strength and scale. So now speaking about EVs. To start with, we're developing all-new electric versions of the F-150 and the Transit, the two most important, highest-volume commercial vehicles in our industry. These leading vehicles really drive the commercial vehicle business at Ford, and we're electrifying them.

Quick sidebar here from my buddy M: "Whereas traditional manufact / consumer / industrials are valued on an EBITDA multiple, SAAS has historically been valued on a revenue multiple, which translates to flat out higher valuations. EVs themselves are not necessarily a higher margin product that justifies a higher multiple (at least not that I've seen), but tech services / subscriptions are the real money makers in this game. Hint Hint companies like Apple throwing everything they have at trying to integrate services and subscriptions over the last 5 years"
This further justifies the expansion multiples we expect will catch up to leading EV automakers (see below).

We own work at Ford. And these electric vehicles will be true work vehicles, extremely capable and with unique digital services and over-the-air capabilities to improve the productivity and uptime of our important commercial customers. The electric Transit, by the way, will be revealed next month, and you heard about it here first, for all of our global markets. We believe the addressable market for a fully electric commercial van and pickup, the two largest addressable profit pools in commercial, are going to be massive.
Now you're going to see our strategy of electrifying our leading commercial vehicles and our iconic high-volume products expand very quickly at Ford.
When you look at our results, they reflect the benefit of our decision two years ago to allocate capital to our strongest franchise, namely: pickups, a whole range of utilities across the world, commercial vehicles and iconic passenger vehicles. Additionally, we saw higher-than-expected demand for our new vehicles in the quarter.
Together, these factors, plus the strongest performance from Ford Credit in 15 years, led to a total company adjusted EBIT margin of 9.7%. That's 490 basis points higher than last year.
As an outcome of all this, we generated $6.3 billion in adjusted free cash flow.
The strong cash flow in the quarter gave us the confidence and the ability to make a second payment on our corporate revolver, which we did on September 24. So now we have fully repaid the entire $15 billion facility, and we ended the third quarter with a strong balance sheet, including nearly $30 billion in cash and more than $45 billion of liquidity, which provides us with the vital financial flexibility we need.

Check out this credit downgrade weeks before Ford paid off their revolving credit facility. Smells like GME?
Alright. What about Q4-2020 and beyond? Ford is expected to post a loss. TA is signaling a beat (see the TA section). Ford is spending this money in order further restructure and deliver on the following items in their pipeline:
Bronco:

• Within the first month of open reservations, the Bronco had received an estimated 230,000 reservations. 230,000 reservations is an incredibly impressive figure, especially when put into the context of Ford’s total vehicle sales. 230,000 sales would represent 4% of Ford’s total sales.
  
• Current estimates place over 20% of reservation holders as first-time Ford buyers.
  
• The most expensive trim, the limited ‘First Edition’, has already sold out.
  

Mach-E vs Tesla Model Y. Just the fact that there is debate between the better car is bullish for Ford.

• Source 1
  
• Source 2
  
• Source 3
  

The upcoming 2021 F-150 has positive consumer reviews as well:

• The 2021 Ford F-150 Is So Stuffed With New Tech & Gadgets That Even Tesla Owners Are Impressed!
  
• DeMuro - The 2021 Ford F-150 Is Totally New and Really Impressive
  
• Some other nice features: Fold down the shifter, lay seats down completely flat, speakers in headrest, tailgate worksurface (pen/pencil holders, rulers) C clamp, 120V outlet, bottle opener, light), sensing running board, tailgate step and railing, and more. Watch the video.
  

Ford Raptor launch (just happened today, customers are excited. Look at the comments on YouTube and IG)
Further potential tailwinds:

• Ford partnering with Rivian in a $500M deal. Product yet to be released.
  
• Google partnership that caused the intraday spike on 2/2.
  
• Ford is rumored to secure the USPS contract since deal talks are falling through with WKHS.
  

The Postal Service told Trucks.com that it expects to reach a contract with one or more of the teams bidding for the business in the federal government’s second fiscal quarter of 2021. That works out to the first quarter of next year.

• There is a historical inverse relationship between gas prices and car sizing. Tell me if I'm reaching here. But as America continues to head towards electrification and energy independence under Biden, larger gas cars will be more in demand. Furthermore, the aftershock of COVID will continue to propagate the dedensification of cities. Less commuter vehicles, and more travel vehicles. And look who is conveniently positioned to take advantage of all of this?
  
• Dr. Anning Chen is also a killer CEO of Ford China. This is largely intangibles (which Wall Street cannot model), but watch his interviews here and here.
  
• Dr. Chen used the COVID shutdown to improve the operational efficiency of the company. It has not shown on the bottom line thus far, but it will later.
  
• CTO Dr. Ken Washington bio. Ex Lockheed.
  
• Kennard on the board.. PE guy, on the AT&T board and former FCC chairman.
  
• Vojvodich. Ex CRM and ADHZ.
  
• Regarding the above leadership and BOD members, experienced executives are a better fit for running the day-to-day than any other. Add a sprinkle of savvy techfin folk and you have a recipe for a elite transition.
  

English please? Ford is a strong company. Farley is delivering on his promises and can lead the company towards an operationally efficient turnaround towards electrification. Combine this with a loyal customer base rivaled only by AAPL, and you get another special opportunity. This is the turning point.
Multiples Expansion:
Now here lies the crux of the thesis. Amidst all the EV hype, Ford is being unfairly ignored at an extremely depressed multiple compared to the other companies in the EV space. Here are some comparisons (numbers may be slightly outdated, pulled earlier this week, more relative comparison than absolute):
$Ticker - Market Cap - TTM Revenue MM - TTM EBITDA MM - Revenue Multiple - Ebitda Multiple
TSLA - $810B - $28B - $4B - 29X - 202X
NIO - $92B - $12B - ($7B) - 7.6X - (NaN)
GM - $78B - $116B - $18B - 0.7X - 4.3X
F - $44B - $131B - $10B - 0.3X - 4.4X
That’s an eyesore. Let’s focus on just TSLA and Ford, because why not. Assuming Ford can quickly turn towards electrification (from the evidence above), these two companies are fair comparisons. No Tesla is not a software/energy company, look at their automotive % of revenue. Stop it. It has only recently dropped to 80% due to the expansion of their leasing division. Energy is still a tiny part of TSLA.
Revenue Multiple:
TSLA = 29X
F = 0.3X
EBITDA Multiple:
TSLA = 202X
F = 4.4X
Yes those numbers are correct. Look at them for 60 seconds and tell me what you see. Quick quote from my buddy M:

Just zoom out and think. TSLA is for sure ahead of the rest on their tech and charging infra right now. But in terms of just overall bottom line infrastructure and manufacturing capability; once the GMs, Fs, and VWs of the world can get the ball rolling, they are way ahead in that aspect. Much more experience in production and retail / distribution channels, as well as logistics sourcing. Plenty of battery makers, and self driving tech makers out there too right now. Small to mid scale M&A will probably be the name of the game if I had to guess.

This is why Burry is short $TSLA, but two scenarios can unfold: either the high-flying stocks drop, or Ford rises. I believe we will land somewhere in the middle, with Ford rising as we begin to enter the optimism phase in the final third of our bull market.
Shorting is a dangerous game anyway... So I’ve been hearing on the news...
TA, Options:
Exhibit A from our resident chart whisperer J (who will remain unnamed because you monkeys keep bothering him).
Larger view.
As you can see, the trendline has broken out.
Exhibit B from our resident quant T (also to rename unnamed):

Starting on 1/4 you'll find right tail distributions into any liquidation which represent large buying. Which has led up to a recent run-up and eventually left tail distributions which represent short coverings which lead into the gaps and thinner distributions where there aren't any major bids. Even with the pullback on 1/22 we see more right tail distribution after the profit taking from the recent run-up, which means someone is buying up the inventory.
This is unusual for F, where F trades within tight ranges. On 2/1 you can see a bimodal distribution which means a new player has stepped in, which we assume has additional knowledge apart from the larger players that were already in the market. The recent range between 10.70 and 11.20 indicates that the market has accepted this price range as fair value. Without additional research at first glance we can see that a large player (or players) is buying up a significant amount of inventory.
On 1/4 we find that the volume increased to 77,559,128 from the previous trading of 34,462,454 (125% increase) and 33,127,776 the day before that. Volume has been higher since.
On our first major left tail distribution (which represents short covering) since the buying on 1/4 the volume was at 113,707,973.

Exhibit C
250k shares of F 10.92; 100k F 11.04; 3.53m F 9.78; 708k F 9.78; 500k F 9.64; 377k F 9.50; 338k F 9.50; 201k F 9.75; 192k F 9.80; 150k F 9.77
These are blocks of shares bought in the past 7 days
Top OI changes:
+19610 F 02/05/21 11 C 43821 38% 13% 48%
+12904 F 02/05/21 12 C 31929 38% 11% 52%
Top OI positions:
170902 F 02/19/21 10 C +807 26% 49% 25%
112480 F 02/19/21 12 C +3207 29% 29% 41%
The percentages are bid mid ask.
Someone is bullish on Ford.
For an earnings play, daily RSI is oversold looking towards an uptick.
Options gamma is interesting to note as well.
Open interest on 2/5 $13 and $15Cs are also notable. Could be covered calls? Could be someone knows something?
Could be Jeff reading too much into the tea leaves. Not financial advice. Just showing you what I see.
The Trade: The simplest way is just to purchase shares and collect dividends as Ford may reinstate them sometime in 2021. Possibly leaps if you feel adventurous.
For the option junkies like myself, and as a tribute to the greatest company in American history, I will use the wheel(s). The GME trade was a very special and momentous occasion. Now that we have a bankroll, we’ll just quietly play theta gang as we enjoy our lives and spend time with our families and loved ones. Here’s a good summary.
This is not for amateurs. I mean, none of this is financial advice anyway, just educational.
But in a nutshell, I will: 1) Buy shares, 2) Sell CSPs 30-45 days out with 0.3 delta, 3) sell CCs with 0.3 delta (will reconsider this if Ford goes vertical) 4) Collect dividends.
The Wheel doesn’t work on everything. Here are the qualifications from the above post, let me know if this sounds familiar:

• Profitable company that has solid cash flow
  
• Bullish, or Very Bullish, analyst ratings
  
• Priced around $10 to $50 so that I can afford to take the assignment if needed and I stay away from sub-$10 stocks as a rule
  
• A stable chart without wild gyrations (especially those caused by CEO tweets!)
  
• A nice dividend is always a good thing, both that you may collect it if assigned the stock but also that dividend stocks tend to more stable and predictable.
  

Hmm...
Conclusion:
Ford is a massive, complex, multinational corporation so I’ve likely missed very many things, but I wanted to get this out before ER so I can flex again. (No market manipulation here lol. My buddy's multi-million dollar block buys didn't move the needle one iota.) There are many things I haven’t covered, and simply don’t know yet. As more facts begin to unfold, and as I spend more time with the stock, I’ll share the information here. Also, every time I post about an equity, it seems to go down. Lol... (GME). With all this in mind, this is still a very risky bet.
Nevertheless, I like what I’ve seen thus far. Ford looks like a fantastically healthy company in the midst of a turnaround towards electrification with a phenomenally depressed multiple according to the market’s appetite. It deserves a multiple trending towards TSLA’s, not a dying auto manufacturer. Jim Farley has shown early to be a great CEO and I think he can continue the transformation. We’ve begun to enter a phase of exuberance, so I’ll choose to long Ford instead of short TSLA.
As a bonus, we have the opportunity to join forces with the boomers and talking heads and bet on one of their favorite companies. Time for America to be on the same side again. We’ve been divided for too long.
I know my GME posts were lucky. I’ll stake my reputation on another bet. One call sure is lucky. What about two? In any case, investing is a marathon, not a sprint. Glad to be a part of this journey with you all. Note: I will not discuss GME in the comments, which all depends on Ryan Cohen. There is nothing further to add until Q4 earnings.
And finally, we’ve officially entered the last phase of our very long bull market. This is not necessarily a sell signal yet, as some of the greatest returns can come in this period and can last for a long time. I will do my best to look for the signal and sound the alarm. The world will be celebrating, and I will be bearish. Burry’s passive indexing bubble call in combination with Thiel’s government debt bubble call will lead us into a dark time of unprecedented proportions. Tail risk hedging won’t work as the declines will be slow at first, and then fast and violent and unrecoverable. Be careful. Listen to Ken Fisher. Thank you very much for your time.
Positions: Bullish shares, LEAPS, on-going quadruple income wheel strategy as Ford reinstates the dividend. Timeframe 12-18 months. Watch out VIGILANTLY for macro risks. Bear market is on the horizon. Drop some Fs in the chat to pay respects.
PT: $32 with a chance of $98 if we start to see exuberance in the broader market.
-JA

This is coming from Zippo who has been known to be a credible leaker. They have leaked Mario 3D All Stars and Bowser’s Fury before official announcement. Nintendo has dealt with Zippo before, further proving credibility. I would attach a link, but for some reason it isn’t showing up on posts and comments so I’ll copy pasta it in this post. Take these leaks with a grain of salt btw:
SONIC MANAGEMENT:
Nearly management of the franchise is being done at "Sonic Pillar" in Irvine, California now. They're calling the shots, when it comes to games, merch, social media, etc. SOJ is well aware of how much more popular the franchise is in the west, so they've been entrusted with it's care. That said, here's some stuff that needs to be clarified:
They are NOT a game development studio. Producers, artists and all of that are there to ensure development on the games go smoothly. Development is still being done in Japan at the same studios as always. Iizuka and Hoshino are still the stewards of the franchise, but they're doing so in the US now.
Those 3 changes alone are pretty huge, but I would expect more to come out. There's new hands in the Sonic pie, and this is being described internally as a "new era" for the boy in blue.
Modern Sonic will be the focus of this anniversary. That detail is going to be extremely disappointing to numerous people, which is understandable, but here's why:
Classic Sonic and his series of games are seen as "old hat" at SEGA. From what I understand, Classic coming back is and was never going to be a permanent thing. Yes, I know what you're thinking, Mania was a huge success critically, and that team is immensely talented, but the thing is, SEGA doesn't want the franchise being "defined" by a 2D sprite based game that was done by fan/indie developers.
They want the games they make themselves to be the "shining beacon" of the franchise, for lack of a better word. One other big point is frankly, Classic Sonic has more than been taken care of, at this point, by fans. There are literally hundreds of ongoing fan games being made, such as Sonic Mania Megamix, Sonic Galactic, Sonic Roboblast 2, Sonic 2 HD, etc. SEGA has come out and publically supported all of these fan works, they have no need for a Mania sequel, because fans are already doing those, and then some, from their perspective. Another way to think about this is Dragon Ball. For any person not in the know, the classic Dragon Ball era of 1984-1989 has a much different art style and tone from the rest of the franchise. Akira Toriyama and his editors decided to age up the characters, increase the dramatic tone and action scenes, and completely change the art direction of the series, and for the most part, it's been that way for over 30 years. Sonic Adventure has been commonly compared to Dragon Ball Z for that very reason. Z superceded any need for Dragon Ball, and SEGA sees Sonic the same way.
Modern has much more potential in terms of merch, spinoffs, television, comics, you name it. It's what the franchise has had it's core identity in since 1998, and that's not changing, Prime sounds like it'll be continuing this sentiment.
Also, the modern cast is much bigger, is ever-growing, plenty of potential for spinoffs, has a lot of potential depth in the characters (even if the games haven't done a great job showing that), and while this may not be important for some, the much larger female cast is super important for many in the fanbase. Classic will still be around in merchandise and supplementary material, of course, so don't ever expect him to go away completely. I'd love to be wrong about this one, being perfectly honest, but all signs are pointing to this being the case.
I have heard from that this point on, that they're going back to 2D and 3D gameplay being the sole dimensions in their respective games, which is an extremely good thing. The past 15 or so years has had Sonic Team's games all be a hybrid of the two, but in that execution, they have realized neither dimension has been able to be used to it's full potential, so instead of trying to make people happy with one title that pleases no one, they're making two.
NEW SONIC COLLECTION:
I don't know exactly what's in it, but will be a celebration of 30 years of the blue blur, with games that haven't been in circulation in many years. Sonic Advance, Pocket Adventure and Sonic R all seem like likely inclusions here. Sonic Team/M2 are likely making this in tandem. If I were a betting man, I'd say this one will release in June.
This will NOT include the remakes of Sonic 1&2, by the way. I'd expect the M2 versions to be the ones included, instead. Sonic 3 will also NOT be included
NEW SONIC & MARIO OLYMPICS:
in development, but considering how the pandemic has fucked everything Olympics related, the IOC internally scrambling over a potential cancellation of the Summer Games, and the extremely controversial nature of China holding next year's Winter Games, there's a very good chance that this one may be cancelled altogether. I also strongly believe SEGA and Nintendo want no part in this controversy. It'll all hinge on how this pandemic and the situation with China shakes out in the next few months. I'm 50/50 on this one happening, at the moment.
NEW 2D SONIC:
This is the one I've heard the least about. Iizuka alluded to this one last year, but I would bet money that this is coming rather soon, as well. It's a game with the modern cast, so I think a return to Sonic Advance/Rush formula is what we're getting here. Summer-Fall is pretty much certain. Who's developing it? I'm not sure, to be perfectly honest, but I have a hunch that Dimps is developing this title, as their schedule is strangely empty at the moment. I know they're a controversial developer among many Sonic fans, but I would blame their weaker titles on SEGA's lack of oversight rather than Dimps, themselves. They're an extremely talented and diverse developer in the variety of games they make, so i'm confident in that they can make a great Sonic game again, if it is them developing.
NEW 3D SONIC:
Okay, so this is the big one. This is a make or break title for a lot of people, and it's easy to understand why. I'll do the best I can to elaborate on what I've heard.
What I know:
-It is NOT a boost game. SEGA has realized that they've done all they can with that formula, so this is allegedly a return to more of an Adventure/traditional platformer, which is seen as having much more long term potential.
-Full 3D, no hybrid nonsense here.
-Features return of the spin dash in 3D and character upgrades.
-There are more playable characters than just Sonic, but I wasn't given specifics as to who those were. Tails/Knuckles/Shadow all seem like valid possibilities.
It'll be the first game conceptualized by the "Sonic Pillar" in the US.
-SEGA CS2 R&D has had a number of new hires, post Forces, so a number of the devs involved are brand new to the series. "Sonic Team" is literally nothing more than just a brand name now. No idea if it'll be in the marketing or not.
-The game will be cross-gen, should be on every console under the sun, and a Holiday 2021 release is still on track, last I heard. However, given the very obvious circumstances going on around the world, there is still a chance it may slip into 2022. They're willing to give this game all the time it needs.
-This game is a NOT a tie-in to the movies at all. Paramount is doing their own thing with Sonic.
CAMEOS:
Sonic will apparently appear as a guest in a bunch of games coming this year, Puyo Puyo Tetris 2 being the first game of this year's big push. I don't know what the other games are, but I have a prediction that one of them will be a guest appearance in SEGA's new Super Monkey Ball game, that series will celebrate it's 20th anniversary this year, so expect a pretty big push for that one, as well.
REVEAL PERIOD:
One last tidbit I have, is that they are planning some sort of game reveal as we speak, it should be a digital presentation, similar to what was planned last year. Although, given the tenuous state of things, a press release drop is also a possibility. My guess is that this will air from between the next few weeks and the end of March, and should go over at least a good bit of what I laid out today. We seem due for a reveal here pretty soon, so i'm of the belief that we may be mere days away from something substantial.

I saw a post earlier about Brodie and it inspired me to try to the best of my ability to accurately gage his trade value in a points league. I tried to figure out his value in cats rank wise but I can figure out how to translate to his stats to his rank in standard 9 cat yahoo leagues. In all reality it was just a bunch of averages(both off of projections and current average). The way I did this can be used to gage the value of any player that sits back to backs. I'm not good enough to predict his future stats so all the stats used are from his current averages and his Ros projections via Hashtag Basketball.
The first thing we have to figure out is what Russell Westbrook is actually giving you. As of right now that is 19.4/9.2/9 with .8 steals, .4 blocks, 1.3 threes, with about 5 turnovers per game. Obviously Russell Westbrook doesn't actually play every game. My goal is to find a player that is healthy and will give me maybe a little more or equal total value for Russell. To do that I decided to figure out what his averages are taking into account his missed games. I used weeks 8 through 10 as my sample size(since the schedule cuts off mid week 11). In that time frame the Wizards play a total of 11 games. Russell will sit out 4 of them(one of which was Monday the 8th). He will only play in 63.6 percent of those wizards game. At this point you just take his whole stat line and multiply it by 0.636 and that will give you a stat line that gives the same total points but in 11 games played rather than 7. The new line looks like 12.3/5.9/5.7 with 0.5 steals, 0.3 blocks, 0.9 threes, with 3.1 turnovers on averages of .413 fg and .658 ft. At this point his value is based on whatever your league settings are. In standard yahoo points league that line would be worth 27.12 points. His rank is 98th in points when looking at these averages. Yikes. I also ran the same percentages as the Hashtag Basketball projections for Brodie. His projected line is 20/9.6/9.9 with 1.2 steals, .4 blocks, .9 threes with 4.4 turnovers on .41 fg percentage and .636 ft percentage. His new "projected" line would be 12.7/6.1/6.3 with .8 steals, 0.3 blocks, .6 threes with 2.8 turnovers. His true projected value in points league in that timeframe is 29.58 points. that nets him the rank of 80th in points leagues. Double yikes.
So what do you realistically do with Russ? Well I of course also own Russell and I am trying to sell but not quite yet. His numbers look poor and imo it will only get worse with the wizards practically guaranteed to play b2bs during fantasy playoffs due to all of their postponed games. But from today on he will play in 5 out of his next 6 games which is .83 percent of the value of his average line. that would mean if he average his current Line in those games hist total value would be that of someone who played 6 games averaging 16.1/7.6/7.5 with .7 steals, .3 blocks, 1.1 threes with 4.1 turnovers. That totals out to 35.39 points and ranks 49th . His projected line translate to 16.6/8/8.2 with 1 steal, .3 blocks, .7 threes with 3.7 turnovers. Fantasy points wise that is 38.6 and that ranks 35th. So what do I do with those numbers. If he continues to perform on par with his season averages during the next 12 days then im trying to sell for a top 40-50 points league player. If he meets or exceeds his projections im going to try and sell for a top 30 points league player. These players I would be targeting I would need to play in b2bs so examples of players I would try to go for consist of SGA, Gordon Hayward, Jaylen Brown, Drummond, Porzingis, Ingram, Donavan Mitchell, Grant, Siakam, Derozan, Turner, Middleton, Tobias Harris, And Ja. I believe the highest his halve will be in these upcoming weeks leading up to the 22nd and that is the time to sell(unless he starts playing in b2bs, then I'll eat my sock). If you don't manage to sell in that timeframe I would still sell Russel for a top 60-70 player and I could see an argument to stretch that range to top 80 if push comes to shove.
Sorry this was kind of a long post. I just got carried away with what Russ is really getting me value wise and since I was crunching the numbers anyways I figured some of y'all would appreciate the post. By no means am I an expert so feel free to call me out on my mistakes or if you don't agree. Any insight or criticism is welcome. Anyways, I hope you enjoyed the read (:
Edit: Update! Traded him for Valanciunas. Our league does 1.5 rebounds and awards double doubles so I figured he’s a safe bet just so I could have played games. Still feels kinda shitty but hey it is what it is.

NEW INFO 5 Results from share redemption are posted. Less than .2% redeemed. Very bullish as investors are showing extreme confidence in the future of PLBY.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/playboy-mountain-crest-acquisition-corp-120000721.html
NEW INFO 4 Definitive Agreement to purchase 100% of Lovers brand stores announced 2/1.
https://www.streetinsider.com/Corporate+News/Playboy+%28MCAC%29+Confirms+Deal+to+Acquire+Lovers/17892359.html
NEW INFO 3 I bought more on the dip today. 5081 total. Price rose AH to $12.38 (2.15%)
NEW INFO 2 Here is the full webinar.
https://icrinc.zoom.us/rec/play/9GWKdmOYumjWfZuufW3QXpe_FW_g--qeNbg6PnTjTMbnNTgLmCbWjeRFpQga1iPc-elpGap8dnDv8Zww.yD7DjUwuPmapeEdP?continueMode=true&tk=lEYc4F_FkKlgsmCIs6w0gtGHT2kbgVGbUju3cIRBSjk.DQIAAAAV8NK49xZWdldRM2xNSFNQcTBmcE00UzM3bXh3AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA&uuid=WN_GKWqbHkeSyuWetJmLFkj4g&_x_zm_rtaid=kR45-uuqRE-L65AxLjpbQw.1611967079119.2c054e3d3f8d8e63339273d9175939ed&_x_zm_rhtaid=866
NEW INFO 1 Live merger webinar with PLBY and MCAC on Friday January 29, 2021 at 12:00 NOON EST link below
https://mcacquisition.com/investor-relations/press-release-details/2021/Playboy-Enterprises-Inc.-and-Mountain-Crest-Acquisition-Corp-Participate-in-SPACInsider-ICR-Webinar-on-January-29th-at-12pm-ET/default.aspx
Playboy going public: Porn, Gambling, and Cannabis
!!!WARNING READING AHEAD!!! TL;DR at the end. It will take some time to sort through all the links and read/watch everything, but you should.
In the next couple weeks, Mountain Crest Acquisition Corp is taking Playboy public. The existing ticker MCAC will become PLBY. Special purpose acquisition companies have taken private companies public in recent months with great success. I believe this will be no exception. Notably, Playboy is profitable and has skyrocketing revenue going into a transformational growth phase.
Porn - First and foremost, let's talk about porn. I know what you guys are thinking. “Porno mags are dead. Why would I want to invest in something like that? I can get porn for free online.” Guess what? You are absolutely right. And that’s exactly why Playboy doesn’t do that anymore. That’s right, they eliminated their print division. And yet they somehow STILL make money from porn that people (see: boomers) pay for on their website through PlayboyTV, Playboy Plus, and iPlayboy. Here’s the thing: Playboy has international, multi-generational name recognition from porn. They have content available in 180 countries. It will be the only publicly traded adult entertainment (porn) company. But that is not where this company is going. It will help support them along the way. You can see every Playboy magazine through iPlayboy if you’re interested. NSFW links below:
https://www.playboy.com/
https://www.playboytv.com/
https://www.playboyplus.com/
https://www.iplayboy.com/
Gambling - Some of you might recognize the Playboy brand from gambling trips to places like Las Vegas, Atlantic City, Cancun, London or Macau. They’ve been in the gambling biz for decades through their casinos, clubs, and licensed gaming products. They see the writing on the wall. COVID is accelerating the transition to digital, application based GAMBLING. That’s right. What we are doing on Robinhood with risky options is gambling, and the only reason regulators might give a shit anymore is because we are making too much money. There may be some restrictions put in place, but gambling from your phone on your couch is not going anywhere. More and more states are allowing things like Draftkings, poker, state ‘lottery” apps, hell - even political betting. Michigan and Virginia just ok’d gambling apps. They won’t be the last. This is all from your couch and any 18 year old with a cracked iphone can access it. Wouldn’t it be cool if Playboy was going to do something like that? They’re already working on it. As per CEO Ben Kohn who we will get to later, “...the company’s casino-style digital gaming products with Scientific Games and Microgaming continue to see significant global growth.” Honestly, I stopped researching Scientific Games' sports betting segment when I saw the word ‘omni-channel’. That told me all I needed to know about it’s success.
“Our SG Sports™ platform is an enhanced, omni-channel solution for online, self-service and retail fixed odds sports betting – from soccer to tennis, basketball, football, baseball, hockey, motor sports, racing and more.”
https://www.scientificgames.com/
https://www.microgaming.co.uk/
“This latter segment has become increasingly enticing for Playboy, and it said last week that it is considering new tie-ups that could include gaming operators like PointsBet and 888Holdings.”
https://calvinayre.com/2020/10/05/business/playboys-gaming-ops-could-get-a-boost-from-spac-purchase/
As per their SEC filing:
“Significant consumer engagement and spend with Playboy-branded gaming properties around the world, including with leading partners such as Microgaming, Scientific Games, and Caesar’s Entertainment, steers our investment in digital gaming, sports betting and other digital offerings to further support our commercial strategy to expand consumer spend with minimal marginal cost, and gain consumer data to inform go-to-market plans across categories.”
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgadata/1803914/000110465921005986/tm2034213-12_defm14a.htm#tMDAA1
They are expanding into more areas of gaming/gambling, working with international players in the digital gaming/gambling arena, and a Playboy sportsbook is on the horizon.
https://www.playboy.com/read/the-pleasure-of-playing-with-yourself-mobile-gaming-in-the-covid-era
Cannabis - If you’ve ever read through a Playboy magazine, you know they’ve had a positive relationship with cannabis for many years. As of September 2020, Playboy has made a major shift into the cannabis space. Too good to be true you say? Check their website. Playboy currently sells a range of CBD products. This is a good sign. Federal hemp products, which these most likely are, can be mailed across state lines and most importantly for a company like Playboy, can operate through a traditional banking institution. CBD products are usually the first step towards the cannabis space for large companies. Playboy didn’t make these products themselves meaning they are working with a processor in the cannabis industry. Another good sign for future expansion. What else do they have for sale? Pipes, grinders, ashtrays, rolling trays, joint holders. Hmm. Ok. So it looks like they want to sell some shit. They probably don’t have an active interest in cannabis right? Think again:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/javierhasse/2020/09/24/playboy-gets-serious-about-cannabis-law-reform-advocacy-with-new-partnership-grants/?sh=62f044a65cea
“Taking yet another step into the cannabis space, Playboy will be announcing later on Thursday (September, 2020) that it is launching a cannabis law reform and advocacy campaign in partnership with National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), Last Prisoner Project, Marijuana Policy Project, the Veterans Cannabis Project, and the Eaze Momentum Program.”
“According to information procured exclusively, the three-pronged campaign will focus on calling for federal legalization. The program also includes the creation of a mentorship plan, through which the Playboy Foundation will support entrepreneurs from groups that are underrepresented in the industry.” Remember that CEO Kohn from earlier? He wrote this recently:
https://medium.com/naked-open-letters-from-playboy/congress-must-pass-the-more-act-c867c35239ae
Seems like he really wants weed to be legal? Hmm wonder why? The writing's on the wall my friends. Playboy wants into the cannabis industry, they are making steps towards this end, and we have favorable conditions for legislative progress.
Don’t think branding your own cannabis line is profitable or worthwhile? Tell me why these 41 celebrity millionaires and billionaires are dummies. I’ll wait.
https://www.celebstoner.com/news/celebstoner-news/2019/07/12/top-celebrity-cannabis-brands/
Confirmation: I hear you. “This all seems pretty speculative. It would be wildly profitable if they pull this shift off. But how do we really know?” Watch this whole video:
https://finance.yahoo.com/video/playboy-ceo-telling-story-female-154907068.html
Man - this interview just gets my juices flowing. And highlights one of my favorite reasons for this play. They have so many different business avenues from which a catalyst could appear. I think paying attention, holding shares, and options on these staggered announcements over the next year is the way I am going to go about it. "There's definitely been a shift to direct-to-consumer," he (Kohn) said. "About 50 percent of our revenue today is direct-to-consumer, and that will continue to grow going forward.” “Kohn touted Playboy's portfolio of both digital and consumer products, with casino-style gaming, in particular, serving a crucial role under the company's new business model. Playboy also has its sights on the emerging cannabis market, from CBD products to marijuana products geared toward sexual health and pleasure.” "If THC does become legal in the United States, we have developed certain strains to enhance your sex life that we will launch," Kohn said. https://cheddar.com/media/playboy-goes-public-health-gaming-lifestyle-focus Oh? The CEO actually said it? Ok then. “We have developed certain strains…” They’re already working with growers on strains and genetics? Ok. There are several legal cannabis markets for those products right now, international and stateside. I expect Playboy licensed hemp and THC pre-rolls by EOY. Something like this: https://www.etsy.com/listing/842996758/10-playboy-pre-roll-tubes-limited?ga_order=most_relevant&ga_search_type=all&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_search_query=pre+roll+playboy&ref=sr_gallery-1-2&organic_search_click=1 Maintaining cannabis operations can be costly and a regulatory headache. Playboy’s licensing strategy allows them to pick successful, established partners and sidestep traditional barriers to entry. You know what I like about these new markets? They’re expanding. Worldwide. And they are going to be a bigger deal than they already are with or without Playboy. Who thinks weed and gambling are going away? Too many people like that stuff. These are easy markets. And Playboy is early enough to carve out their spot in each. Fuck it, read this too: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimosman/2020/10/20/playboy-could-be-the-king-of-spacs-here-are-three-picks/?sh=2e13dcaa3e05
Numbers: You want numbers? I got numbers. As per the company’s most recent SEC filing:
“For the year ended December 31, 2019, and the nine months ended September 30, 2020, Playboy’s historical consolidated revenue was $78.1 million and $101.3 million, respectively, historical consolidated net income (loss) was $(23.6) million and $(4.8) million, respectively, and Adjusted EBITDA was $13.1 million and $21.8 million, respectively.”
“In the nine months ended September 30, 2020, Playboy’s Licensing segment contributed $44.2 million in revenue and $31.1 million in net income.”
“In the ninth months ended September 30, 2020, Playboy’s Direct-to-Consumer segment contributed $40.2 million in revenue and net income of $0.1 million.”
“In the nine months ended September 30, 2020, Playboy’s Digital Subscriptions and Content segment contributed $15.4 million in revenue and net income of $7.4 million.”
They are profitable across all three of their current business segments.
“Playboy’s return to the public markets presents a transformed, streamlined and high-growth business. The Company has over $400 million in cash flows contracted through 2029, sexual wellness products available for sale online and in over 10,000 major retail stores in the US, and a growing variety of clothing and branded lifestyle and digital gaming products.”
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgadata/1803914/000110465921005986/tm2034213-12_defm14a.htm#tSHCF
Growth: Playboy has massive growth in China and massive growth potential in India. “In China, where Playboy has spent more than 25 years building its business, our licensees have an enormous footprint of nearly 2,500 brick and mortar stores and 1,000 ecommerce stores selling high quality, Playboy-branded men’s casual wear, shoes/footwear, sleepwear, swimwear, formal suits, leather & non-leather goods, sweaters, active wear, and accessories. We have achieved significant growth in China licensing revenues over the past several years in partnership with strong licensees and high-quality manufacturers, and we are planning for increased growth through updates to our men’s fashion lines and expansion into adjacent categories in men’s skincare and grooming, sexual wellness, and women’s fashion, a category where recent launches have been well received.” The men’s market in China is about the same size as the entire population of the United States and European Union combined. Playboy is a leading brand in this market. They are expanding into the women’s market too. Did you know CBD toothpaste is huge in China? China loves CBD products and has hemp fields that dwarf those in the US. If Playboy expands their CBD line China it will be huge. Did you know the gambling money in Macau absolutely puts Las Vegas to shame? Technically, it's illegal on the mainland, but in reality, there is a lot of gambling going on in China. https://www.forbes.com/sites/javierhasse/2020/10/19/magic-johnson-and-uncle-buds-cbd-brand-enter-china-via-tmall-partnership/?sh=271776ca411e “In India, Playboy today has a presence through select apparel licensees and hospitality establishments. Consumer research suggests significant growth opportunities in the territory with Playboy’s brand and categories of focus.” “Playboy Enterprises has announced the expansion of its global consumer products business into India as part of a partnership with Jay Jay Iconic Brands, a leading fashion and lifestyle Company in India.” “The Indian market today is dominated by consumers under the age of 35, who represent more than 65 percent of the country’s total population and are driving India’s significant online shopping growth. The Playboy brand’s core values of playfulness and exploration resonate strongly with the expressed desires of today’s younger millennial consumers. For us, Playboy was the perfect fit.” “The Playboy international portfolio has been flourishing for more than 25 years in several South Asian markets such as China and Japan. In particular, it has strategically targeted the millennial and gen-Z audiences across categories such as apparel, footwear, home textiles, eyewear and watches.” https://www.licenseglobal.com/industry-news/playboy-expands-global-footprint-india It looks like they gave COVID the heisman in terms of net damage sustained: “Although Playboy has not suffered any material adverse consequences to date from the COVID-19 pandemic, the business has been impacted both negatively and positively. The remote working and stay-at-home orders resulted in the closure of the London Playboy Club and retail stores of Playboy’s licensees, decreasing licensing revenues in the second quarter, as well as causing supply chain disruption and less efficient product development thereby slowing the launch of new products. However, these negative impacts were offset by an increase in Yandy’s direct-to-consumer sales, which have benefited in part from overall increases in online retail sales so far during the pandemic.” Looks like the positives are long term (Yandy acquisition) and the negatives are temporary (stay-at-home orders).
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgadata/1803914/000110465921006093/tm213766-1_defa14a.htm
This speaks to their ability to maintain a financially solvent company throughout the transition phase to the aforementioned areas. They’d say some fancy shit like “expanded business model to encompass four key revenue streams: Sexual Wellness, Style & Apparel, Gaming & Lifestyle, and Beauty & Grooming.” I hear “we’re just biding our time with these trinkets until those dollar dollar bill y’all markets are fully up and running.” But the truth is these existing revenue streams are profitable, scalable, and rapidly expanding Playboy’s e-commerce segment around the world.
"Even in the face of COVID this year, we've been able to grow EBITDA over 100 percent and revenue over 68 percent, and I expect that to accelerate going into 2021," he said. “Playboy is accelerating its growth in company-owned and branded consumer products in attractive and expanding markets in which it has a proven history of brand affinity and consumer spend.”
Also in the SEC filing, the Time Frame:
“As we detailed in the definitive proxy statement, the SPAC stockholder meeting to vote on the transaction has been set for February 9th, and, subject to stockholder approval and satisfaction of the other closing conditions, we expect to complete the merger and begin trading on NASDAQ under ticker PLBY shortly thereafter,” concluded Kohn.
The Players: Suhail “The Whale” Rizvi (HMFIC), Ben “The Bridge” Kohn (CEO), “lil” Suying Liu & “Big” Dong Liu (Young-gun China gang). I encourage you to look these folks up. The real OG here is Suhail Rizvi. He’s from India originally and Chairman of the Board for the new PLBY company. He was an early investor in Twitter, Square, Facebook and others. His firm, Rizvi Traverse, currently invests in Instacart, Pinterest, Snapchat, Playboy, and SpaceX. Maybe you’ve heard of them. “Rizvi, who owns a sprawling three-home compound in Greenwich, Connecticut, and a 1.65-acre estate in Palm Beach, Florida, near Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg, moved to Iowa Falls when he was five. His father was a professor of psychology at Iowa. Along with his older brother Ashraf, a hedge fund manager, Rizvi graduated from Wharton business school.” “Suhail Rizvi: the 47-year-old 'unsocial' social media baron: When Twitter goes public in the coming weeks (2013), one of the biggest winners will be a 47-year-old financier who guards his secrecy so zealously that he employs a person to take down his Wikipedia entry and scrub his photos from the internet. In IPO, Twitter seeks to be 'anti-FB'” “Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia looks like a big Twitter winner. So do the moneyed clients of Jamie Dimon. But as you’ve-got-to-be-joking wealth washed over Twitter on Thursday — a company that didn’t exist eight years ago was worth $31.7 billion after its first day on the stock market — the non-boldface name of the moment is Suhail R. Rizvi. Mr. Rizvi, 47, runs a private investment company that is the largest outside investor in Twitter with a 15.6 percent stake worth $3.8 billion at the end of trading on Thursday (November, 2013). Using a web of connections in the tech industry and in finance, as well as a hearty dose of good timing, he brought many prominent names in at the ground floor, including the Saudi prince and some of JPMorgan’s wealthiest clients.” https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/08/technology/at-twitter-working-behind-the-scenes-toward-a-billion-dollar-payday.html Y’all like that Arab money? How about a dude that can call up Saudi Princes and convince them to spend? Funniest shit about I read about him: “Rizvi was able to buy only $100 million in Facebook shortly before its IPO, thus limiting his returns, according to people with knowledge of the matter.” Poor guy :(
He should be fine with the 16 million PLBY shares he's going to have though :)
Shuhail also has experience in the entertainment industry. He’s invested in companies like SESAC, ICM, and Summit Entertainment. He’s got Hollywood connections to blast this stuff post-merger. And he’s at least partially responsible for that whole Twilight thing. I’m team Edward btw.
I really like what Suhail has done so far. He’s lurked in the shadows while Kohn is consolidating the company, trimming the fat, making Playboy profitable, and aiming the ship at modern growing markets.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-twitter-ipo-rizvi-insight/insight-little-known-hollywood-investor-poised-to-score-with-twitter-ipo-idUSBRE9920VW20131003
Ben “The Bridge” Kohn is an interesting guy. He’s the connection between Rizvi Traverse and Playboy. He’s both CEO of Playboy and was previously Managing Partner at Rizvi Traverse. Ben seems to be the voice of the Playboy-Rizvi partnership, which makes sense with Suhail’s privacy concerns. Kohn said this:
“Today is a very big day for all of us at Playboy and for all our partners globally. I stepped into the CEO role at Playboy in 2017 because I saw the biggest opportunity of my career. Playboy is a brand and platform that could not be replicated today. It has massive global reach, with more than $3B of global consumer spend and products sold in over 180 countries. Our mission – to create a culture where all people can pursue pleasure – is rooted in our 67-year history and creates a clear focus for our business and role we play in people’s lives, providing them with the products, services and experiences that create a lifestyle of pleasure. We are taking this step into the public markets because the committed capital will enable us to accelerate our product development and go-to-market strategies and to more rapidly build our direct to consumer capabilities,” said Ben Kohn, CEO of Playboy.
“Playboy today is a highly profitable commerce business with a total addressable market projected in the trillions of dollars,” Mr. Kohn continued, “We are actively selling into the Sexual Wellness consumer category, projected to be approximately $400 billion in size by 2024, where our recently launched intimacy products have rolled out to more than 10,000 stores at major US retailers in the United States. Combined with our owned & operated ecommerce Sexual Wellness initiatives, the category will contribute more than 40% of our revenue this year. In our Apparel and Beauty categories, our collaborations with high-end fashion brands including Missguided and PacSun are projected to achieve over $50M in retail sales across the US and UK this year, our leading men’s apparel lines in China expanded to nearly 2500 brick and mortar stores and almost 1000 digital stores, and our new men’s and women’s fragrance line recently launched in Europe. In Gaming, our casino-style digital gaming products with Scientific Games and Microgaming continue to see significant global growth. Our product strategy is informed by years of consumer data as we actively expand from a purely licensing model into owning and operating key high-growth product lines focused on driving profitability and consumer lifetime value. We are thrilled about the future of Playboy. Our foundation has been set to drive further growth and margin, and with the committed capital from this transaction and our more than $180M in NOLs, we will take advantage of the opportunity in front of us, building to our goal of $100M of adjusted EBITDA in 2025.”
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20201001005404/en/Playboy-to-Become-a-Public-Company
Also, according to their Form 4s, “Big” Dong Liu and “lil” Suying Liu just loaded up with shares last week. These guys are brothers and seem like the Chinese market connection. They are only 32 & 35 years old. I don’t even know what that means, but it's provocative.
https://www.secform4.com/insider-trading/1832415.htm
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/mountain-crest-acquisition-corp-ii-002600994.html
Y’all like that China money?
“Mr. Liu has been the Chief Financial Officer of Dongguan Zhishang Photoelectric Technology Co., Ltd., a regional designer, manufacturer and distributor of LED lights serving commercial customers throughout Southern China since November 2016, at which time he led a syndicate of investments into the firm. Mr. Liu has since overseen the financials of Dongguan Zhishang as well as provided strategic guidance to its board of directors, advising on operational efficiency and cash flow performance. From March 2010 to October 2016, Mr. Liu was the Head of Finance at Feidiao Electrical Group Co., Ltd., a leading Chinese manufacturer of electrical outlets headquartered in Shanghai and with businesses in the greater China region as well as Europe.”
Dr. Suying Liu, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Mountain Crest Acquisition Corp., commented, “Playboy is a unique and compelling investment opportunity, with one of the world’s largest and most recognized brands, its proven consumer affinity and spend, and its enormous future growth potential in its four product segments and new and existing geographic regions. I am thrilled to be partnering with Ben and his exceptional team to bring his vision to fruition.”
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20201001005404/en/Playboy-to-Become-a-Public-Company
These guys are good. They have a proven track record of success across multiple industries. Connections and money run deep with all of these guys. I don’t think they’re in the game to lose.
I was going to write a couple more paragraphs about why you should have a look at this but really the best thing you can do is read this SEC filing from a couple days ago. It explains the situation in far better detail. Specifically, look to page 137 and read through their strategy. Also, look at their ownership percentages and compensation plans including the stock options and their prices. The financials look great, revenue is up 90% Q3, and it looks like a bright future.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgadata/1803914/000110465921005986/tm2034213-12_defm14a.htm#tSHCF
I’m hesitant to attach this because his position seems short term, but I’m going to with a warning because he does hit on some good points (two are below his link) and he’s got a sizable position in this thing (500k+ on margin, I think). I don’t know this guy but he did look at the same publicly available info and make roughly the same prediction, albeit without the in depth gambling or cannabis mention. You can also search reddit for ‘MCAC’ and very few relevant results come up and none of them even come close to really looking at this thing.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gOvAd6lebs452hFlWWbxVjQ3VMsjGBkbJeXRwDwIJfM/edit?usp=sharing
“Also, before you people start making claims that Playboy is a “boomer” company, STOP RIGHT THERE. This is not a good argument. Simply put. The only thing that matters is Playboy’s name recognition, not their archaic business model which doesn’t even exist anymore as they have completely repurposed their business.”
“Imagine not buying $MCAC at a 400M valuation lol. Streetwear department is worth 1B alone imo.”
Considering the ridiculous Chinese growth as a lifestyle brand, he’s not wrong.
Current Cultural Significance and Meme Value: A year ago I wouldn’t have included this section but the events from the last several weeks (even going back to tsla) have proven that a company’s ability to meme and/or gain social network popularity can have an effect. Tik-tok, Snapchat, Twitch, Reddit, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter. They all have Playboy stuff on them. Kids in middle and highschool know what Playboy is but will likely never see or touch one of the magazines in person. They’ll have a Playboy hoodie though. Crazy huh? A lot like GME, PLBY would hugely benefit from meme-value stock interest to drive engagement towards their new business model while also building strategic coffers. This interest may not directly and/or significantly move the stock price but can generate significant interest from larger players who will.
Bull Case: The year is 2025. Playboy is now the world leader pleasure brand. They began by offering Playboy licensed gaming products, including gambling products, direct to consumers through existing names. By 2022, demand has skyrocketed and Playboy has designed and released their own gambling platforms. In 2025, they are also a leading cannabis brand in the United States and Canada with proprietary strains and products geared towards sexual wellness. Cannabis was legalized in the US in 2023 when President Biden got glaucoma but had success with cannabis treatment. He personally pushes for cannabis legalization as he steps out of office after his first term. Playboy has also grown their brand in China and India to multi-billion per year markets. The stock goes up from 11ish to 100ish and everyone makes big gains buying somewhere along the way.
Bear Case: The United States does a complete 180 on marijuana and gambling. President Biden overdoses on marijuana in the Lincoln bedroom when his FDs go tits up and he loses a ton of money in his sports book app after the Fighting Blue Hens narrowly lose the National Championship to Bama. Playboy is unable to expand their cannabis and gambling brands but still does well with their worldwide lifestyle brand. They gain and lose some interest in China and India but the markets are too large to ignore them completely. The stock goes up from 11ish to 13ish and everyone makes 15-20% gains.
TL;DR: Successful technology/e-commerce investment firm took over Playboy to turn it into a porn, online gambling/gaming, sports book, cannabis company, worldwide lifestyle brand that promotes sexual wellness, vetern access, women-ownership, minority-ownership, and “pleasure for all”. Does a successful online team reinventing an antiquated physical copy giant sound familiar? No options yet, shares only for now. $11.38 per share at time of writing. My guess? $20 by the end of February. $50 by EOY. This is not financial advice. I am not qualified to give financial advice. I’m just sayin’ I would personally use a Playboy sports book app while smoking a Playboy strain specific joint and it would be cool if they did that. Do your own research. You’d probably want to start here:
WARNING - POTENTIALLY NSFW - SEXY MODELS AHEAD - no actual nudity though
https://s26.q4cdn.com/895475556/files/doc_presentations/Playboy-Craig-Hallum-Conference-Investor-Presentation-11_17_20-compressed.pdf
Or here:
https://www.mcacquisition.com/investor-relations/default.aspx
Jimmy Chill: “Get into any SPAC at $10 or $11 and you are going to make money.”
STL;DR: Buy MCAC. MCAC > PLBY couple weeks. Rocketship. Moon.
Position: 5000 shares. I will buy short, medium, and long-dated calls once available.

Note: Made an edit 12 hours after posting here. I didn't like where Rondale was ranked so I did move him up two spots to more closely match his athletic profile to other players. To make someone upset, looking at these rankings and having spent more time thinking about it I may also move Smith down to 9. I'll leave it for now.
​
2020 series:

• Notes on the 2020 Class
• Let's Talk: 2020 Rankings
• 2020 Post Combine Rankings
• 2020 Rookie Ranking Capstone

​
2021 series:

• Notes on the 2021 Class
• Scouting List 2020
  • ^{Yes, an inconsistent title, it’s scouting the 2020 school year, but technically it’s 2021 prospects exclusively.}

​
^{Quick note: I am not going to be providing a formula change relative to last year, and I'll be citing past work in this post rather than bringing in new concepts. To that point I suppose we will talk more about rankings today. I'm going to avoid tiering in this case but will certainly enter discussions below; I intend to describe more of my takes in the comments rather than the body of the post.}
​
Contents:

• 2020 Season Recap
• Draft Capital Expectations
• Positional Rankings
• Top 12 Rankings

​
​

2020 Season Recap

Like every year, the sands shift under our feet every couple of weeks. We had players opt out, we had players lose the season due to injury, we had players lose their careers due to medical events. We see this frequently, Mike Williams and DK Metcalf having their careers threatened by neck injuries, Ahmonn Richards losing his career due to a neck injury.
This year we nearly lost Justyn Ross due to a birth defect (and given Clemson’s history may be likely to return to school) and lost Journey Brown (my pre-season RB3) to a career ending heart defect. Throw in Ja’Marr Chase’s opt out--which gave Terrace Marshall the lead spot at LSU, Javonte Williams usurping Michael Carter and thundering into the top RB conversation, Kylin Hill opting out; the sands shifted.
For all that sand shifting, I do not feel my rankings in this iteration are changing much. There were some stand out performances that re-organized my WR rankings, and my uncertainty around Hubbard has only grown, but the complexion of the rankings are fairly solid now 8 months later.
​

Draft Expectations

I reference my thought process around this in the 2020 Let's Talk under the heading "Setting Draft Capital Expectations." The cliff notes version is I currently use historical precedent to determine just how many players we can expect to go in rounds 1-3 each year. This was born out of countering the idiocy of takes like "30 wide receivers are going to go in the first 3 rounds" when there have never been more than 17 taken. Generally, we know that draft capital is a large portion of opportunity and the wide body of top ranked prospects any given year will come out of day 1 and day 2.
This doesn't mean we disregard everyone that falls out of that conversation--this year there are a number of players I am intrigued with that I currently don't project to have day 1 or day 2 draft capital--but it gives us a place to start.
Since 2013, we know on average 5 QBs, 7 RBs, 12 WRs, and 6 TEs go Day 1-2. Over that course of time we have not seen more than 8 RBs or 16 WRs go in the first two days of the draft and from past examination since 2002 it was only in 2007 that 17 WRs went in the first two days. The general thought here, like we observed in 2019, you may get a record 13 receivers go in the first 2 rounds but then you are only going to get 2 in round 3..on average. Any year can be an outlier, but we don't set expectations on outliers.
Having said all of this my current expectation for the coming class is:

Round	QB	RB	WR
1	3	0-1*	4-6*
2	1-2*	3-4*	4-6*
3	1-2*	3	2-3*
Total Taken	6	7	12

* My current read is there is a player(s) between rounds.
One quick note, every year there tends to be a small school guy that creeps into the day 2 conversation. This year, I wouldn't bet against 13-15 receivers being taken, however I believe there is value in being measured and conservative in these numbers as we must thin the herd and think about who deserves to be in the conversation instead of assuming every player that is ever mentioned is just in the conversation. That's how you get Equanimeous St. Brown Round 1 lock.
^{PS: Dang I did a pretty good job ballparking players last year. Maybe I should have spent more time on it this year to make sure I do just as well.}
​

Positional Rankings

First, no, I don't talk about tight ends until after the draft. It's outside of my wheel house. A lot of people I respect LOVE Pitts though.
As I've spoken in the past, draft capital is a good guide, and often times out performs ADP in straight rankings, especially early in a players career (opportunity > talent, but talent eventually brings the opportunity). However, if we are looking at success rates, or the probability of finding success by draft position, we find there isn't a significant difference in rate of success between a runner taken 65th overall and a runner taken 90th overall. A receiver taken 25th overall or a receiver taken 65th overall.
More succinctly, if you know DK Metcalf is a hard worker, comes from a football family, has a production profile that mirrors hall of famers when extrapolated out and has gone to a good team--you ignore what people are saying and take the 9th drafted WR as your WR1. Take the 6th drafted WR (Michael Thomas) as your WR1. It may fail, the best odds in fantasy predictions are a coin flip, the BEST odds, so don't haggle between the difference of 20% and 15% odds.
​
Quarterback

1. Trevor Lawrence, Clemson (Top 3)
2. Justin Fields, Ohio State (Top 5)
3. Zach Wilson, BYU (Round 1)
4. Mac Jones, Alabama (Round 2)
5. Trey Lance, North Dakota State (Round 2)
6. Kyle Trask, Florida (Round 2-3)

Haven't fallen in love with a specific QB yet, but I think there is a lot of noise around each player. Find your favorite and cling to him.
​
Running Back

1. Najee Harris, Alabama (Round 2)
2. Travis Etienne, Clemson (Round 2)
3. Javonte Williams, North Carolina (Round 2)
4. Jermar Jefferson, Oregon State (Round 3)
5. Michael Carter, North Carolina (Round 3)
6. Chuba Hubbard, Oklahoma State (Round 2)
7. Kenneth Gainwell, Memphis (Round 3)

Honorable Mentions:

• Trey Sermon, Ohio State
• Kylin Hill, Mississippi State
• Brian Robinson, Alabama
• Javian Hawkins, Lousville

I'm not saying there won't be first round runners, but if there are, I think they seep into the 20s or 30-32 like last year.
​
Wide Receiver

1. Ja'Marr Chase, LSU (Top 15)
2. Terrace Marshall, LSU (Top 40)
3. Justyn Ross, Clemson (Round 2)
4. Rashod Bateman, Minnesota (Top 40)
5. Jaylen Waddle, Alabama (Top 20)
6. DeVonta Smith, Alabama (Top 30)
7. Seth Williams, Auburn (Round 3)
8. Elijah Moore, Ole Miss (Round 2)
9. Rondale Moore, Purdue (Top 40) [+2]
10. Chris Olave, Ohio State (Round 2)
11. Tylan Wallace, Oklahoma State (Round 2-3)
12. Dyami Brown, North Carolina (Round 3)

Honorable Mentions:

• Amon-Ra St. Brown
• Dazz Newsome

Let it all burn.
Before everyone goes thermonuclear in the comments, 5-11 are a fairly large tier for me. I think Rondale Moore is roughly where Tyreek was coming out of college, more game tape being used as an extension of the ground game than as a true wide receiver. I think in the right situation (with the reading I've done on Rondale Moore) gives him a similar career arc to Tyreek. But if you are asking me to give up someone like the more technically savvy players ahead of him for Rondale and I need to hit on that pick? It's scary so far out from the start of the season.
​
​

Top 12 Rankings (Superflex)

1. Trevor Lawrence, QB, Clemson
2. Ja'Marr Chase, WR, LSU
3. Najee Harris, RB, Alabama
4. Justin Fields, QB, Ohio State
5. Travis Etienne, RB, Clemson
6. Javonte Williams, RB, North Carolina
7. Terrace Marshall, WR, LSU
8. Rashod Bateman, WR, Minnesota
9. Justyn Ross, WR, Clemson
10. Zach Wilson, QB, BYU
11. Jaylen Waddle, WR, Alabama
12. Rondale Moore, WR, Purdue

I always do my top 12 rankings a little differently than my positional rankings because here I think player value has to come into play. I may not be as high on some people on Rashod Bateman, Rondale Moore--but at some point you are taking him in a draft because of the value and the potential trade outs late in the summer and early in the season. It quickly becomes situational and an examination of upside.
​
​
Let's talk.

This video attempts to explain why one should believe the things the christian bible says, specifically because:

it's a reliable collection of historical documents written by eyewitnesses, during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophesies, and claim that their writings are divine rather than human in origin.

THESIS: The arguments and evidence presented in the video completely fail to support the above position.
It's a huge post: feel free to only tackle a specific section or 2, I think they're mostly self-contained.
In some cases I say that I suspect the speaker of being dishonest. If you don't like that, just know that he straight up calls people "ignorant, or evil, or both" [34:07] and "fools" [56:03] (stated as a fact, not merely his opinion) for using specific arguments or not accepting his conclusion. I think he opened up the Pandora's Box of guessing others' intent and so I've done it as well, though I've tried to be as responsible as possible. If you think I've been unfair, please let me know why.
TL;DR and conclusion next, for your convenience...

TL;DR & Conclusion

The speaker first presents the question: "why the bible?" (I've tried to phrase this more rigorously as: "why should anybody consider the bible authoritative on the truth of the Universe?") The speaker then presents his answer, and dissects it to address and support each claim within it.
However, his methodology for investigating the question actually rests on the premise that "there is no higher authority than the bible" (in his own words, 12:35-ish). This is a direct answer to the question he's investigating, and therefore any answer which rests on this premise is circular. I demonstrate that important portions of the speaker's argument do seem to rest on this premise and other lines of fallacious reasoning, and so his answer seems to be based on invalid reasoning and should not be trusted.
The speaker also fails to present compelling evidence for any of the claims which make up his answer, and often relies on fallacious arguments. His arguments include:

• Questionable interpretations of biblical passages: citing passages widely believed to be forgeries as if they are eyewitness testimony, and reading "between the lines" and other forms of motivated interpretation
• Unsound interpretations of the history of the bible: preferring a "very early" authorship of New Testament books, against the consensus of modern scholars and without giving any justification; and citing absence of evidence as evidence of absence (argument from silence), in a case where the old adage actually holds true
• Errors in analyzing probabilities: preferring less likely explanations over more likely ones, or not applying Occam's Razor where it would help
• Straw men, an appeal to consequences, an argument from popularity, affirming the consequent, and other fallacious arguments

Even ignoring the circularity of his methodology, the speaker fails to come close to proving his point. That's not to say he's wrong: the bible could be an authoritative source of information about the Universe, and he's just failed to piece together a valid argument which supports that position. I don't think that's the case (and I've done just a bit to rebut that position), but it's possible. However, after viewing this video and considering all the poor arguments it presents, I still think it's far more likely that christianity and its bible originated entirely due to mundane natural events, maybe akin to what's proposed here.
In my own experience, however flawed the arguments presented in this video are, I've seen them used a lot. I hope that some readers might see how to debunk an argument they consider sound, so that those folks can reconsider their position and build stronger arguments in the future.

Video Overview

First off, this video attempts to answer the question "why the bible?" In the context of the video it's pretty clear what he means, but it's vague out of context, so I'll rephrase it more rigorously:
"Why should anybody consider the bible authoritative on the truth of the Universe?"
For the most part the video is a systematic dissection of the speaker's position.

The "Egregious Flaw" in Methodology

At [12:35] the speaker says the following, to rebut the objection that 'proving the bible using the bible constitutes circular reasoning'. He's trying to get in front of this objection because most of his reasoning is, in fact, an attempt to prove the bible using the bible.

The question is "why I choose to believe the bible". ... The answer to that question for me resides in the bible itself. Now why would I appeal to the bible in this way? Because there is no higher authority than the bible. See, if I were to appeal to another authority, then I would be conceding that there is a higher authority than the bible. So this might be a problem in any other area, and any other field -- however, I'm making the argument that this is the higher authority, and therefore by definition I cannot appeal to another authority.

He asks the question "why do I consider the bible authoritative?", and he investigates it under the premise that "there is no higher authority than the bible". The main premise underlying his entire investigation is a direct answer to the question he's investigating: this is the definition of circular reasoning.
​
But doesn't he make a good point? Wouldn't any other premise corrupt his investigation and bar him from reaching the conclusion that "there is no higher authority than the bible"?
No, that's ridiculous, and here's why...
For one thing, when the speaker says that his question is different from any other question in any other field, and yet fails to give a sufficient explanation for how it's different -- that's special pleading. Sure, maybe it's impossible to investigate whether any given thing is the ultimate authority. But even if that's the case, it doesn't make circular arguments valid.
Including an answer as a premise forces one to interpret all the evidence in a manner consistent with the premise, or to only consider evidence that's consistent with the premise -- which of course forces the investigation to reach the conclusion stated in the premise. That's what a premise is: a foundational assumption which guides all subsequent reasoning. It is not constraining in any way to assume that a thing might not be authoritative, in order to investigate whether or not it is authoritative -- it's the only honest way to investigate any question.
The speaker should be more than willing to assume that he might be wrong, and then undertake a fair investigation from there. If he's right and the bible is the ultimate authority on the Universe, then he can only demonstrate that by comparing it to extrabiblical reality. And again, if he's right, everything in the Universe should agree with the bible -- and even the nay-sayers ought to accept that as proof!
Why is he unwilling to strike the killing blow to his opponents' arguments, if he's certain that he's right?
​
In the following sections I'll show how this circular reasoning appears to lead the speaker back to his assumed conclusion.

The Speaker's Answer

Presented at 11:05: see very top for quote.
I'll address it claim by claim, as done by the speaker...

Claim 1: "... it's a reliable collection of historical documents ..."

At 15:08, the speaker cites the following as evidence in for this claim:

• The bible was written on 3 different continents
• In 3 different languages
• By over 40 authors from multiple walks of life: kings, generals, fishermen, tax collectors, doctors, historians
• In 66 volumes, covering hundreds of subjects
• Over more than 1500 years

So what? In all these ways it's similar to the Hindu scriptures, but does the speaker give any credence to those? Though he does mention other religious texts [3:57] and even presents them as alternatives to the bible, he doesn't discuss these so-called "strengths" of the Hindu scriptures (or any others) in his lecture: I think either he's unaware of them, or his premise -- that the christian bible is the highest authority -- has caused him to exclude Hindu and other scriptures from his investigation, because analyzing them the same way he analyzed the bible would cast doubt on his assumed conclusion. So, "why the bible?" when the Hindu scriptures and perhaps others are so similar in the ways the speaker cares about? Who knows? He didn't address it, though he should have.
But even if there were nothing remotely comparable to the bible in these ways -- why should it matter? Does the number of languages used to compose something somehow affect is authority? For that matter, does composing one work on the corner of 3 continents somehow make it more authoritative than another one composed on the edge of the Indian subcontinent, or in the middle of North America? And why should we care how many people wrote it, or their backgrounds, or how many separate books it's composed of, or how long it took to write?
I know what he's getting at: he's trying to say, "how could this many people, over such a long time, across such large swathes of multiple societies, all be wrong in the same way?" Well, that's a fallacy called 'argumentum ad populum', an argument from popularity. Just because a bunch of people believe something, that doesn't make it true, or even likely to be true. All the bible authors were Jews and early christians living in Eastern Mediterranean societies; they were well aware of earlier Jewish oral and written traditions, and likely tried to constrain their work to enhance rather than refute the existing traditions; and the works which weren't popular or didn't agree with existing traditions were not included as canon! The bible's internal consistency (such as it is) doesn't indicate that its contents are true -- it indicates that its authors prioritized internal consistency.
The speaker has made an argumentum ad populum, derived from evidence heavily affected by sample selection bias and observer bias. It's a terrible argument, built on terrible evidence. After a bit of thought, anybody who isn't operating under the speaker's circular premise should be able to see the problems with this argument.
​
At 17:40, the speaker seems to claim that the author of Luke was a historian, and that we should trust them at their word when they make claims, because as a historian they researched the claims before publishing them:

Luke was not an eyewitness -- he doesn't claim to be an eyewitness. He's a historian who claims to have traced the information from the eyewitnesses. ... The fact that this man was not an eyewitness, but collected information from individuals who were eyewitnesses [...], and has followed everything closely for some time past, and he wanted to write an orderly account. ... Luke's goal is history and chronology.

Well, Luke probably wasn't a historian in any modern sense of the word, so "history and chronology" in any modern sense probably weren't his real goal. Modern historical research didn't really happen in ancient times, so I'm reluctant to accept that when the author of Luke says he has "followed all things closely for some time past", he actually means he's found enough objective evidence to support the claims he's heard. It's not what he explicitly says, and that was not the common practice at the time, so I find it hard to believe that's what he meant.
Also, I don't think Luke 1:1-4 (cited by the speaker) implies that Luke tried at all to investigate the claims he received from others. Instead, this passage can easily mean that the author of Luke was told some stuff by people who claimed to be eyewitnesses, and he's just writing those things down because he believes them based on the story alone. It's not even clear that the author talked to the eyewitnesses -- he could have just talked to the "ministers" in verse 2, who told him they got it from eyewitnesses.
The Lucan author could be recounting pure hearsay, 100 retellings deep, as if it's fact -- or he could have gone to the ends of the Earth to verify what he heard. But he doesn't describe his sources or methods, so we don't know, and it's hazardous to guess... Yet the speaker hazards a guess, and tries to pass off that guess as truth. In this case, I think he's forcing his interpretation of the passage to match his assumed conclusion, and to do so he's made a lot of seemingly unwarranted assumptions.
​
Then at 27:47 the speaker says this:

"There have been more than 25,000 archaeological digs related directly to the subject matter of the bible. ... Not one of them has contradicted anything that we have in the bible, and the overwhelming majority of them have confirmed and affirmed the things that we find in the bible."

First off, I don't accept this claim at face value -- I'd like to see some citations, but the speaker doesn't give any. Also, biblical claims like the Genesis flood have been thoroughly debunked (though I think archaeology only played a small part). I bet a lot of archaeology has proved parts of the bible wrong, and Wiki seems to agree with me so I think I'm right to doubt the speaker's claim. But that's irrelevant to the point I'm going to make, so I'll move on...
I accept that some places and events in the bible are factual. That's no problem. These were people writing about their society and their time, so it would be ridiculous if nothing in the bible were factual. But the fact that it contains some facts does not imply that all its contents are facts.
"My name is Andrew Joslin. I live in the United States. I have black hair. I love cats."
Those 4 statements are internally consistent, and 3 of them are true -- so does that mean they all are? No. One of them is false.
In just the same manner, some things in the bible can be true, and verified by archaeology and science, while other things in the bible might be false. Just because we verified the Babylonian Captivity with reasonable certainty (Jer 52), that doesn't at all support the claim that a deity had anything to do with it (Jer 52:2-3).

Claim 2: "... written by eyewitnesses ..."

First off, from 19:31 - 20:50, the speaker very strongly implies that he thinks the traditional authors -- the apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke, John -- are the real authors of the 4 gospels. Over and over he says "Matthew is writing...", "his favorite words are...", "that's why we have his gospel written the way it's written", and other phrases which make it very unlikely that he is personifying the books, and far more likely that he is talking about the authors themselves and believes they are the same as the tradition says. But those authors are merely the church tradition, and this tradition is very much doubted by modern scholars.
Additionally, multiple times in the video [13:54, 40:30] he cites 2 Peter as if it's authoritative on what Peter experienced and thought. But modern scholars believe this book to be a forgery and not written by Peter, so I don't know why anybody would consider 2 Peter authoritative on what Peter experienced or thought. If 2 Peter is a forgery then the reference at 51:20 is also problematic, because I suspect that a person who forges a book by Peter may also be so bold as to claim that all scripture is divine in origin, as an attempt to give more credence to their own forgery.
All this makes me wonder how much the speaker actually knows about how the bible was written -- and if he does know what modern scholarship says about these things, I wonder whether he might just be throwing out the modern scholarly consensus in favor of his personal, pet beliefs (his premise that the bible is the ultimate authority). Neither is a good option, and either way you cut it this lowers my trust in the speaker.
​
Finally, at 21:20 the speaker claims that John was an eyewitness to... something. He cites John 1:1-3 to support this:

1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— 2 the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— 3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.

Okay, the author clearly says that he has both seen and heard certain, unnamed things, which have apparently convinced him of the truth of the message he is about to relay in the rest of his gospel.
I grant that the author is saying he "saw and heard" things -- but what? It seems like poetic language, and it doesn't make any distinction between the things the author has personally seen, and what he has heard second- or third- or nth-hand from others. True, the author may have personally experienced some stuff as an eyewitness, but it's unclear from these verses what that stuff was, and how much of the remainder of this gospel is hearsay versus eyewitness testimony. I'm not even sure that the author of John ever claims to have seen Jesus -- perhaps the rest of John proves me wrong, but from this passage it's entirely possible that the things the author experienced firsthand were more akin to what modern parishioners experience in church, than to personally witnessing the things Jesus said and did. People today say they are convinced by their own experiences without ever having seen Jesus in the flesh, so perhaps that's what the author of John is saying in this passage.
But even if the gospel of John were eyewitness testimony, that's still not great... Wiki says that "most scholars believe that John reached its final form around AD 90–110", so this would be eyewitness testimony that is, per most scholars, at least 57 years old at the time it was written down. We know for a fact that eyewitness testimony can be very unreliable. This study demonstrated the unreliability of eyewitness testimony for a somewhat mundane event. These are known cases where mistaken or perjured eyewitness testimony resulted in a wrongful conviction and death row sentence, and here's a study which indicates that high stress negatively impacts the quality of eyewitness testimony (specifically, it affects the eyewitness's ability to accurately recall the events).
If a crucifixion of a man named Jesus or Jeshua did indeed happen, then eyewitnesses to that event might have had some difficulty accurately retelling what they saw, even the first time they retold the story. This could be compounded with the eyewitnesses having heard rumors that he was a prophet, which might render their interpretation of what they saw vulnerable to suggestion. The long time period between the writing of this gospel and the events it describes is also problematic, because during that time it was passed on as an oral tradition, and continued retelling as a shared oral tradition can cause the recalled experiences to degrade in accuracy and become poisoned by later changes. That's how memory recall works: it's subject to errors and changes each time we do it. It happens to everybody, and to individuals as well as groups. It's not necessarily lying: errors can and do accumulate very quickly despite people's best intentions to be truthful.
So from the passages presented by the speaker, it's far from a certainty that the author of John was an eyewitness to the events described in the gospel of John. And even if he were, eyewitness testimony is extremely problematic, and frankly I'd consider it more likely that this eyewitness testimony has been corrupted by the factors described above, than the purported supernatural events in the story actually happened as described. Maybe there's more evidence to be found in John, but I find the speaker's use of this passage alone insufficient to support his argument: to call this evidence is wishful thinking or motivated interpretation at best.

Claim 3: "... during the lifetime of other witnesses ..."

At 23:22, in support of this claim the speaker says there's a huge problem "dating the problem late". I don't know what problem he's referring to, because he didn't explain it as far as I could tell. He then cites 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 as support for "... during the lifetime of other witnesses ..." -- however, in those verses Paul explicitly says that he's recounting a story he's been told. I've heard some speculation as to whether this may be some type of early christian creed, in which case it would have been meant as a statement of faith, rather than a discussion of facts in evidence (I find this plausible, but I can't back it up with evidence so I'm treating it as mere speculation).
But all speculation aside, in 1 Corinthians 15:1-7 Paul literally admits that he is not personally attesting to the veracity of what he's saying: he's repeating something he was told. Obviously he is personally attesting his own experience in verse 8, but all the rest is stuff that he was told and cannot attest to personally.
So Paul was told that "the 500" and a bunch of other people witnessed the resurrected Jesus, and that most of them are still alive. Therefore, when the speaker later [24:22] says this:

"If you do the math, there are at least 301 eyewitness to the resurrection who are alive when 1 Corinthians was written.

... I don't think the speaker has any justification to reach this conclusion. Even if Paul believed it was true, does that mean we should believe it? Again, Paul need not be lying here, nor do his sources need to be lying, in order for this passage to be a falsehood. Everybody in the chain from the eyewitness(es) to Paul could be doing their best to report the events accurately, and they could still have gotten it wrong.
Not knowing how long the chain from the eyewitness(es) to Paul actually was, again I'd say it's far less likely that the events described in the story are true, than that the message Paul delivers here was corrupted by false memories and erroneous retellings -- or even outright lies or exaggeration*** -- and therefore false. (***We don't know the pedigree of the story before it reached Paul, so we can't say that every middle-man retelling of it was honest. Even if you would die defending Paul's honesty, that still says nothing for all the people in the chain that passed this information to him.)
​
The speaker uses these verses again at 29:06, where he says this:

But what we find here in this text is, again, over 301 eyewitnesses to the resurrection who were still alive when 1 Corinthians was written. Why is this important? This is important because that means that the gospel message, that the message of the bible, is falsifiable. ... When you're testing the veracity of a claim, if somebody's making a claim and that claim can't be falsified, that means you can't test the claim. Not a very strong claim, if you can't test the claim -- that means I just gotta trust you, because there's nothing I can do to falsify your claim, I just gotta trust you. This claim is falsifiable. When Paul wrote it, it was a falsifiable claim, and yet it was never falsified. That's a piece of evidence that has to be weighed.

First off, even if the claim was falsifiable at the time it was made, it's not falsifiable now, and now is when we are being asked to believe the claim. People of Paul's time may have been able to interrogate these supposed eyewitnesses, but we can't -- and we can't even be sure they ever existed -- so their testimony can't falsify Paul's account for us. It's unfortunate that the evidence we need to falsify Paul's claims may be lost to time -- but that doesn't mean we should believe what he says, and as far as we can tell it actually renders his claims unfalsifiable to us. Per the speaker's own logic, this is a good reason to doubt what Paul says.
Second, as explained above, I don't accept that there were "over 301 eyewitnesses to the resurrection" still alive in time to read 1 Corinthians. Even if there were living eyewitnesses at that time, the following problems must be overcome before claiming this as evidence:

• Maybe 1 Corinthians wasn't published anywhere these eyewitnesses could have seen it, in time for them to falsify it. It's a letter to the church of Corinth (far from Judea, where we'd expect most eyewitnesses to remain), written in a language foreign to them (Greek), at a time when few people could read
• Maybe eyewitnesses saw it and didn't falsify it because it matched their (incorrect) understanding of what happened. It is possible for everybody to be wrong in roughly the same ways, that's how witness collusion and legends work
• Maybe eyewitnesses saw it and did falsify it -- but one of the following happened:
  • They chose to leave the area instead of risking voicing their objections to a popular belief
  • Their objections were overshadowed by the louder and more numerous voices which ended up informing the books of the bible
  • They voiced their objections verbally and never wrote them down
  • Their written objections were lost over the centuries (including the purposeful destruction of "heretical" texts by the church, rulers, and individuals)
  • We just haven't found the document yet

All of the above are perfectly reasonable explanations for why we don't have a specific, ancient document in our hands.
Also, for what it's worth, I'd like to mention that here the speaker is literally using absence of evidence as evidence of absence: this is an argument from silence, and it's fallacious here because it affirms the consequent by completely ignoring other very plausible explanations. Arguments from silence are perfectly fine when the absence of the thing necessarily implies the falsehood of the claim: for example, the claim "I have a green horn sticking out of my forehead" is falsified by the absence of a green horn sticking out of my forehead. Arguments from silence also be okay evidence (though not very conclusive) when there are good reasons to believe that if the claim were true we should likely have the evidence we lack. But here it is a no-no because what we know about the production, preservation, etc., of ancient documents gives us the most likely explanation for why we don't have the evidence.
So yeah, that's a horribly fallacious argument... And this one's obvious enough, and the speaker seems intelligent enough, that I'm going to just say it: of all the arguments the speaker makes, this is the one that most makes me suspect dishonesty. Maybe he's chosen to present this paper tiger in place of a good argument because he knows he has nothing better. It makes me suspect he's consciously chosen not to investigate his question, but instead seeks to prove his foregone conclusion by any means necessary.
Not that he's outright lying -- I think he really does believe his foregone conclusion. But I think he hasn't set out to honestly investigate it, and this awful argument is, in my opinion, a direct result of that flaw in his methodology.
​
At 30:44 the speaker states that the NT was written "very early", which I guess is supposed to support the "by eyewitnesses, in the lifetime of other eyewitnesses" prong of his answer. Yet he gives no evidence for this "very early" claim. I think these are the points where he tries to support the argument, but both seem to be non sequiturs (fallacies):

• At 31:30 the speaker argues against a straw man of the popular "telephone game" argument
  • It's a straw man because the telephone game argument is a description of how both transcription and translation errors accumulate in hand-copied texts over time -- however, the speaker presents it as if everybody who ever translated the bible had the same source material to translate or transcribe from. That's simply not true. It's been proven that differences exist in the earliest known copies of every book of the bible, and these differences grew over time. Medieval scribes didn't have the originals to copy or translate from: they were working from copies of copies of copies, etc. Indeed, Bart Ehrman says that the earliest scribes tended to make more errors than the later ones.
  • It's a non sequitur, because it was brought up in the context of trying to prove that the NT was authored "very early", and it actually has nothing to do with that, so it's probably a relevance fallacy of some type. The "telephone game" argument explains how copies of copies become less and less true to the originals. It does not comment on the date of the originals, yet that's what the speaker is trying to prove here.
• At 34:54 the speaker claims that we have over 6000 manuscripts or fragments of the NT, which is more than we have for other ancient texts of similar age
  • This is a non sequitur for a number of reasons, at least one of them a relevance fallacy. First, the books cited by the speaker are generally quite a bit older than the books of the NT -- by many hundreds of years, in some cases. Second, the number of fragments has nothing to do with when the books were written, which is the point the speaker is trying to prove.

I feel that these two arguments actually distract the audience rather than supporting the speaker's claim. I don't know whether this was his intent, or a mistake, or I'm just being dumb -- mainly because I have no idea how he thinks these points support his claim. At the very least they distracted me, and after re-watching them multiple times I still couldn't make any better sense of these arguments than as non sequiturs based on straw men.
If you think he's supported his "very early" NT authorship claim at all with these points, then please let me know how.
​
But regardless of my poor understanding of this section of the video, or the speaker's lack of evidence, or whatever happened here, I don't think it even matters. Even if the NT books were written "very early", it would not mean that the lack of contemporaneous objections to the NT's claims constitutes evidence in favor of the NT's claims. Again, arguments from silence are not appropriate here, and I really do suspect that the speaker is being intellectually dishonest here, as discussed toward the beginning of this section.

Claim 4: "They report supernatural events that took place ..."

At 40:30 the speaker cites 2 Peter in support of this claim. Aside from the problems I already mentioned with 2 Peter, and how (in my opinion) the speaker's usage of that book diminishes his credibility --
Why would it matter that the authors claim that supernatural events happened? Should we just... believe them? It's one thing to say "I saw X". It's another entirely to say "I saw X, and I know that Y caused it". The first is a statement of one's own experience, whereas the second is an experience plus an inference. Why should we believe that these peoples' inferences about the supernatural are reliable, and that the reported events (assuming they actually occurred) were actually supernatural?
Note that my objection isn't based on demeaning ancient peoples. I don't think this problem really gets any easier with more knowledge. Inferences about the supernatural should always be treated as speculation, until and unless we find some way to objectively investigate the supernatural. We don't have a way to do that now, so we should not believe the claims (yet).
More support for this claim is given at 41:33, but it suffers from the same problem.
The speaker should be treating these claims as what they are -- claims, which need to be substantiated before anybody should believe them. He's not doing that. I don't know if he just doesn't suspect that they could be wrong, or if he's turning a blind eye to a problem he's aware of. Either way, it's just very unsatisfying, and consciously or not I wonder whether his circular premise "there is no higher authority than the bible" has crept into this part of his analysis, too.

Claim 5: "... in fulfillment of specific prophesies ..."

The speaker supports this argument with Isaiah 53 at 43:02, and with Psalm 22 at 45:44.
I read Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12, and to me it's not that impressive. It's not a specific prophesy, because it doesn't tell when the thing will happens, and many people (and even whole nations) of that area and timeframe probably fit that description. Jesus is just the guy that got super popular (though he was not the only one).
​
I agree that Psalm 22 seems to describe somebody being crucified. Or it could be another method of torture that I don't know of, but let's just assume it's crucifixion for the sake of argument. However, it shares the same problems as Isaiah 53: it doesn't give any specifics, so it could be talking about literally anybody from that time and place who was crucified. Jesus quoting the first line while on the cross could easily have been a detail made up by the gospel authors (or the people who participated in the oral tradition), as a way to heighten the image of Jesus as the messiah. They wanted to tell a compelling story, and that would be a great way to make it more compelling to a Jewish audience.
Anyway, the speaker says that at the time of writing Psalm 22, crucifixion had not yet been invented -- but he didn't cite any sources so I don't know if he's right or wrong. I looked it up quickly, and Wiki says "The psalms making up the first two-thirds of the psalter are predominantly pre-exilic and the last third predominantly post-exilic", I think referring to the Babylonian Exile from 586-539 BCE. Since I can't read Wiki's reference I don't know if Psalm 22 is in that pre-exile group, but I'd guess so, and that's the most generous assumption I can make so let's work with that. That gives us an early 6th Century BCE date as the latest possible date for Psalm 22 being written down...
... And here's a reference saying the Persians were crucifying people "systematically" in the 6th Century BCE, and that they probably got the idea from the Assyrians and Babylonians, so those countries may have been doing it earlier than that. So contrary to the speaker's bald assertion, there's some plausible overlap (as far as I can tell) between when Psalm 22 was first written down, and when crucifixions were performed in the region. Yes, I'm working off of the manuscript date rather than the actual date it was composed, but I think that's fine: Psalm 22 began as an oral tradition, and perhaps the crucifixion details were added into it before it was written down, once people became aware of the practice. I think that's far more likely than Psalm 22 being a prophesy, and since we can't reconstruct the original oral tradition we'll just have to wonder.
​
Also, prophesy in general has a few big problems:

1. People who know of the prophesy can work to fulfill it
2. People retelling a story can alter the details of the story to make it seem like the prophesy was fulfilled
3. It's sometimes not clear whether something is a prophesy at all, or what is being prophesied

Both "fulfilled prophesies" cited by the speaker suffer from all these problems.
The authors of the New Testament obviously knew the OT books well, and were motivated to make Jesus seem like the Hebrew messiah -- that's why they wrote the gospels in the first place. That would give them a strong incentive to either make up parts of the gospel stories wholesale to better match the prophesies, or to selectively interpret the things they heard or experienced in a way that makes the events fit the prophesy better.
And even if there wasn't much embellishment, couldn't it be that Jesus and the apostles actively worked to fulfill as much of those "prophesies" as possible? A great quote from Matt Dillahunty: "If I go to a restaurant and order a steak medium rare, and the server gives me exactly that, is he fulfilling prophesy?" In my opinion, nope, he's merely following instructions, just like Jesus and the apostles may have merely been following a script. I understand that some people might still call this "fulfilling prophesy", but given the other 2 problems I think this idea of "fulfilled prophesies" is still on super thin ice.
Finally, Isaiah 53 is often interpreted by Jews as a prophesy for the nation of Israel, not the messiah. And I think they believe Psalm 22 is just a poem or song, not a prophesy. You can claim they're prophesies, but it's not clear that they were intended to be, or what exactly they predict, so when they're "fulfilled" (especially as questionably as in this case) I'm not sure how much that really means.
​
This isn't a great case for the "... in fulfillment of specific prophesies ..." claim. It looks like wishful thinking to me, again perhaps motivated by the speaker's premise that the bible is the ultimate authority. Or maybe I'm wrong and somebody here can do a better job supporting this position than the speaker did.

Claim 6: "... and claim that their writings are divine rather than human in origin."

At 51:20, the speaker cites 2 Peter 1 to support the claim that the bible authors claimed their writings are divine in origin. I've already noted my objections to using 2 Peter (a likely forgery) as evidence for anything that Peter the apostle experienced or thought --
But just as with claims for supernatural events, even if 2 Peter is not a forgery, why would it matter that the authors claim the bible is divine in origin? As discussed above I think it's very unlikely that Psalm 22 or Isaiah 52/53 are fulfilled prophesies, so now where are we?
We're left without any supporting evidence for the claim. They said it, so should we just believe it? As with claim 4, this is just very unsatisfying, and I wonder whether the speaker's circular premise had something to do with it.

Final Bones to Pick

I wish I could address his points at 52:12 and 53:15, even though they're not directly related to the rest of the talk -- but I'm out of space.
The first is an appeal to consequences built on an equivocation fallacy, and in the second he describes the questions one must ask in any historical investigation -- questions which he addressed poorly or not at all in this video.
These two attempts to twist logic into a shape that supports his point -- well, they disgust me.