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 )
A SVB short seller explains red flags he saw months ago
41–50 of 186 posts
Re: A SVB short seller explains red flags he saw months ago
#42Could anyone in the know explain how "shorting" works?
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
#43Just 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.
Re: A SVB short seller explains red flags he saw months ago
#44Problem 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
#45My 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
Re: A SVB short seller explains red flags he saw months ago
#46This is all you needed to know to short SVB a month ago: https://twitter.com/WatcherGuru/status/1634246217226919937
Re: A SVB short seller explains red flags he saw months ago
#47My 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…
Re: A SVB short seller explains red flags he saw months ago
#48How 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
#49Earlier 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.
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
#50My 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.