> it's easier for more people to raise a lot of money for risky endeavors. Is it easier to raise money for risky endeavors or for "hot" endeavors. I'm not sure

> it's easier for more people to raise a lot of money for risky endeavors. Is it easier to raise money for risky endeavors or for "hot" endeavors. I'm not sure this no structure to how a lot of people are now allocating capital is actually contributing anything positive, just pure malinvestment. AMC is a perfect example. It's a company that raised hundreds of millions at valuations 10x of what it had months ago. Is AMC a "risky investment" we should be allocating capital too? Box office receipts and still down 50% and may never fully recover. Why is AMC a good use of that capital rather than institutions that can replace it completely?