Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hertz, the original meme stock, is turning out to be worthless

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 326 posts

Re: Hertz, the original meme stock, is turning out to be worthless

#181

Post by addicted »

brandmeyer wrote: post #78

Hol' up. While in bankruptcy, some fools ran up the price of Hertz stock. Then, while the price was up in the middle of bankruptcy proceedings , Hertz sold some new shares to the same fools. The final result of the bankruptcy wiped out all of the shareholders. While the buyers were obviously fools, Hertz should have known that zero shareholder value was a likely outcome. How was selling more stock in that situation l…

I mean, they were in bankruptcy court. Those arent secret proceedings.

If someone still wants to buy their stock while they are in court loudly proclaiming their stock is worthless why would you make that illegal?

Re: Hertz, the original meme stock, is turning out to be worthless

#182

Post by climb_stealth »

Can someone explain to me what is happening with Hertz? They still seem to be doing business in Australia. I have rented cars with them in recent months.

In my rental contracts it looked like the company was in the US. Has it been bought up?

I have mostly good experiences renting with Hertz and I'd be sad to see them go.

Re: Hertz, the original meme stock, is turning out to be worthless

#183

Post by milesskorpen »

climb_stealth wrote: post #182

Can someone explain to me what is happening with Hertz? They still seem to be doing business in Australia. I have rented cars with them in recent months. In my rental contracts it looked like the company was in the US. Has it been bought up? I have mostly good experiences renting with Hertz and I'd be sad to see them go.

It went bankrupt, but will come out of it and continue to exist (with new owners).

Re: Hertz, the original meme stock, is turning out to be worthless

#184

Post by HPsquared »

dragontamer wrote: post #180
thaumasiotes wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I don't understand is that Hertz specifically wanted to sell an amount of shares that wouldn't raise enough money to pay off their debts. Their prospectus noted that shares sold would automatically become worthless unless their debt was paid off , which they didn't anticipate. But why not try? What if they sold so much stock that the bondholders could just be paid back? Why do the stock sale specifically plannin…

Many would suggest that such an action you propose is fundamentally immoral. Lets say a hypothetical company is overall $-4 Billion in debt (total assets - liabilities). You successfully raise $5 Billion from some means. Now you're in a position where you sold $5 Billion worth of shares on a company that (by all fair evaluations) is only worth $1 Billion after the capital raise.

The people buying the shares are making the "true" valuation of the company, being the ones buying it.

Re: Hertz, the original meme stock, is turning out to be worthless

#185

Post by renewiltord »

brandmeyer wrote: post #107
ISL wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zero shareholder value was the overwhelmingly likely outcome, but not completely certain. (If Hertz magically recovered from bankruptcy, however unlikely, the payoff might have been >1000%). The prospectus clearly stated that there was negligible likelihood of return. On the flip side, from the creditor's perspective: "We loaned you a bunch of money, you can't pay it back, and there are some people who would like to…

No. No! I reject this rationale. Just because its in the domain of finance and business doesn't make it ethical. For example, you can't just disclose your way into arbitrary medical experiments on people. Regardless of how you rationalize the principles, it will end up exploiting the most vulnerable citizens. While I readily admit that the law does not forbid all forms of unethical behavior, I do believe that it shou…

Listen, if you guys want to strict-law yourself so people can't talk to other people, I think that's fine. There should be rules that say people who have strict-lawed themselves should be protected from loose-laws and out-laws. And strict-laws can then interact with strict-laws.

In fact, I'm even okay with defaulting to strict-laws and then one takes a test to allow being a loose-law who can interact with other loose-laws.

Then, yes, strict-laws can live a nice safe life better than ever before and spend their time arguing on the Internet about how r > g etc. etc.

But the problem is that strict-laws won't allow loose-laws so until you put that distinction in place, you should know that it is true political war and no loose-law will give any quarter because while we want to let you to be able to occupy your space, you don't want to permit us to occupy ours.

Re: Hertz, the original meme stock, is turning out to be worthless

#186

Post by renewiltord »

0xy wrote: post #144
brandmeyer wrote: post #78

Hol' up. While in bankruptcy, some fools ran up the price of Hertz stock. Then, while the price was up in the middle of bankruptcy proceedings , Hertz sold some new shares to the same fools. The final result of the bankruptcy wiped out all of the shareholders. While the buyers were obviously fools, Hertz should have known that zero shareholder value was a likely outcome. How was selling more stock in that situation l…

Hertz in official filings: "Hey guys, this stock is most likely totally worthless" Meme stonk buyers: buys stock Hertz: "Hey guys, here's some new stock. Remember we disclosed that it's likely totally worthless" Meme stonk buyers: continues buying worthless stock Meme stonk buyers: "How could you do this to us?"

Actual last few lines are actually look like the following.

Meme stonk buyers: Guys, look at this loss porn. I lost $2.5 mil on Hertz LMAO my trust fund is gone.

Other meme stonk buyers: HAHAHA you fucking retard

Third party worrywarts: How could we let this happen?

Re: Hertz, the original meme stock, is turning out to be worthless

#187

Post by rjbwork »

tomjakubowski wrote: post #175
ENOTTY wrote: post #173

I deliberately bought a share of Hertz during the craze. I knew it had filed for bankruptcy. If Hertz was somehow rescued, I could make some money and have an interesting story. Maybe the shareholder meetings would be ridiculous parties with other crazy retail investors. But even if existing shareholders would be wiped out, I wanted to see first hand what happens in this sort of situation. (So far I haven't received…

I never understood how stock market options worked (calls, puts) so I've spent a few dozen dollars buying various stupid out of the money options and following them (and then, agonizing over when to sell!). This has made me understand "the Greeks" better than any textbook alone could have done.

Yup. You gotta pay your tuition to the school of hands on trading for sure. It took quite a while for me to really grasp how they can all work in concert to move a position for and against you even if you are ostensibly right or wrong in your overall thesis.

Re: Hertz, the original meme stock, is turning out to be worthless

#188

Post by dragontamer »

HPsquared wrote: post #184
dragontamer wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many would suggest that such an action you propose is fundamentally immoral. Lets say a hypothetical company is overall $-4 Billion in debt (total assets - liabilities). You successfully raise $5 Billion from some means. Now you're in a position where you sold $5 Billion worth of shares on a company that (by all fair evaluations) is only worth $1 Billion after the capital raise.

The people buying the shares are making the "true" valuation of the company, being the ones buying it.

Do you think the buyers of HTZGQ at $5.50 in June 2020 will be proven correct?

Or do you think, that like most other bankrupt companies, HTZGQ will be worthless once these bankruptcy proceedings are done?

The stock is almost certainly going to go to $0. That's just what happens as bankruptcies play out. If you disagree, you're welcome to toss your money into buying some HTZGQ yourself.

----------

The issue is that Hertz CEOs / board / CFO have extra information and better ideas into how those bankruptcy proceedings are happening. For them to issue shares in this time is grossly immoral. Especially when they're publicly pointing out that yes, bankruptcy proceedings are carrying on as expected: shareholders are expected to be wiped out and assigned a big fat $0.

Re: Hertz, the original meme stock, is turning out to be worthless

#189

Post by vkou »

brandmeyer wrote: post #78

Hol' up. While in bankruptcy, some fools ran up the price of Hertz stock. Then, while the price was up in the middle of bankruptcy proceedings , Hertz sold some new shares to the same fools. The final result of the bankruptcy wiped out all of the shareholders. While the buyers were obviously fools, Hertz should have known that zero shareholder value was a likely outcome. How was selling more stock in that situation l…

> How was selling more stock in that situation legal?

Why should it not be?

Consider the following situation:

1. Alice owns 5 shares of Hertz.

2. Hertz owns 5 shares of Hertz.

3. Bob is an ape. For some stupid reason, Bob wants to buy 5 shares of Hertz.

Is it immoral or illegal for Alice to sell her 5 shares to Bob?

If not, why should it be immoral or illegal for Hertz to do so? Especially if they are up front about their incredibly bleak financial prospective.

Is the sale defrauding someone? Who is it defrauding? Bob? Bob wants to buy the stock anyways, because it's a meme stock - why does he care if it's Alice, or Hertz selling him that stock?

If allowing Bob to buy stock is such a bad thing that we need to protect Bob from it, then the correct thing to do is for the stock to be delisted.

Post reply on HN