Live data from Hacker News

A SVB short seller explains red flags he saw months ago

fortune.com

41–50 of 186 posts

Re: A SVB short seller explains red flags he saw months ago

#41

Just wondering, why do posts like this consistently have an unpaywalled archive link as the top comment, and it's unreply-able? It almost seems automated except it's a different commenter every time. Is there some system detecting those comments and floating them to the top, then disabling replies? ( @dang )

I imagine it’s unreplyable to prevent hijacking - we all think we have something important to say, so there’s a temptation to put it as an unrelated reply to a top comment so more eyeballs see our comment. You’d want this in place regardless of whether the link is organically voted up or artificially pushed to the top for convenience.

Re: A SVB short seller explains red flags he saw months ago

#42
post #28

Could anyone in the know explain how "shorting" works?

When you buy a stock, you pay money and someone else gives you a stock. Once you have it, you can hold it for as long as you want. Its value can go up or down. When you sell, you get money, which might be less or more than what you paid. If the value goes to zero, you can no longer sell and you will never get any money.

When you short a stock, you are basically selling a stock you don't have. Thus you get money and owe someone else a stock (in practice what happens is someone else unknowingly gives you a stock for free and then you sell it, and they get an IOU for a share of the stock later; but let's not worry too much about the mechanics). Once you have this IOU, you can hold on. The value of the liability associated with the IOU can go up or down. If it goes down, then when you discharge that liability by buying the share you owe, you will pay less than you were paid for the short, thus making a profit. If it goes up, then you will pay more and thus lose money. One risk with a short is that your liability is unbounded. In a traditional stock purchase, the worst that can happen is that you lose the money you put in. In a short sale, you can lose many multiples of the money you put in if the stock does very well. Under a few circumstances, the IOU can be called, forcing you to prove that you have the money to buy a share; for instance, if you were to short $1,000,000 in shares and the share price triples, you owe $3,000,000.

To summarize: when you buy a stock, it's because you think it will be worth more later (again, let's set aside dividends and other things). When you short a stock, it's because you think it will be worth less later.

The reason shorting is permitted is because in general, there is a belief (mistaken or not), that additional liquidity -- more trading -- benefits everyone involved in a market by reducing the spread between prices for buying and selling; additionally, shorting makes it possible to hedge your exposure to a sector (i.e. to trade off some upside in a sector with some corresponding downside and vice versa).

Re: A SVB short seller explains red flags he saw months ago

#43
post #36

Just wondering, why do posts like this consistently have an unpaywalled archive link as the top comment, and it's unreply-able? It almost seems automated except it's a different commenter every time. Is there some system detecting those comments and floating them to the top, then disabling replies? ( @dang )

I guess comments consisting only of a link are automatically set to be unreplyable? The posting and the floating to the top is just the normal posting and voting system, it seems to me.

Hmm no, some link-only comments are replyable, so archive links must be handled specially.

Re: A SVB short seller explains red flags he saw months ago

#44
My company has seen quite a few sell side analysts talking about SVB earlier this year, so I guess the risks were not unknown to financial markets.

Problem is, we are in a scenario of great macroeconomic uncertainty. That can make borrowing costs (needed for shorting something) quite high, because everyone and their moms want to protect themselves from market downturns.

So even if you guess correctly that some company will fail, you might still lose money if you're not lucky with timing. Many short sellers were squeezed in the last months, but we don't hear their stories on Fortune.

Re: A SVB short seller explains red flags he saw months ago

#45
post #6

My eyesight rapidly deteriorated once I reached the second paragraph.

for anyone else suffering with poor sight, if you paste this in your console it should help. document.querySelector('.paywallActive').style='filter: none' of course reader mode also helps

Is it not easier to select the paywall element in the inspector and delete it? Well, not easier than reader mode, of course, but easier than fiddling with styles.

Re: A SVB short seller explains red flags he saw months ago

#47
post #44

My company has seen quite a few sell side analysts talking about SVB earlier this year, so I guess the risks were not unknown to financial markets. Problem is, we are in a scenario of great macroeconomic uncertainty. That can make borrowing costs (needed for shorting something) quite high, because everyone and their moms want to protect themselves from market downturns. So even if you guess correctly that some compan…

“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent“. This was also the case with Burry and others shorting in 2008.

Re: A SVB short seller explains red flags he saw months ago

#48
Bleecker Street Research, of course, has made out quite nicely from the demise of Silicon Valley Bank (The team won’t comment on how much they made off their short bet).

How much could it be? 60-70%? That is how much the stock fell. The problem with these kind of stories is you don't hear about all the times these firms sold short and or were wrong or lost lots of money before eventually being right and would have been better off with an index fund. It's easy in hindsight to explain what was wrong with the bank or why the trade was a success.

Re: A SVB short seller explains red flags he saw months ago

#49
post #33
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Their reasoning can still be interesting.

But is it more interesting than the reasoning of the losers? I'm tempted to say the losers' reasoning is more interesting. A winner's reasoning could be completely unrelated to the event at hand and we'd never know the difference. A loser's reasoning is definitely wrong in some way, so we can learn something from it.

Generally yes, that’s how engineers figured out where to reinforce war planes so they could survive longer in battle.

In markets the loser’s reasoning often comes down to poor timing. They see similar red flags but can’t quite catch the right time. Predicting markets is relatively straightforward, predicting when something will happen is infinitely harder :)

Re: A SVB short seller explains red flags he saw months ago

#50
post #47
post #44

My company has seen quite a few sell side analysts talking about SVB earlier this year, so I guess the risks were not unknown to financial markets. Problem is, we are in a scenario of great macroeconomic uncertainty. That can make borrowing costs (needed for shorting something) quite high, because everyone and their moms want to protect themselves from market downturns. So even if you guess correctly that some compan…

“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent“. This was also the case with Burry and others shorting in 2008.

One may argue the markets were irrational during the ultra low interest rate period and this disaster here is the result of hoping they would return to irrational before liquidity ran out.
Post reply on HN