Live data from Hacker News

A “short squeeze” sounds innocuous enough...

radian.org

21–30 of 54 posts

Re: A “short squeeze” sounds innocuous enough...

#21
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You get different brokers to buy it on your behalf bit by bit, anonymously. From there it depends on the laws of the country you are operating within. Companies often do this when selling stock too, so as to not draw attention to themselves or their positions.

Except that, in the US and UK, that's illegal. In Germany, though, where this happened, it's not. That's not a good thing for Germany.

... and it's not a good thing for hedge funds playing with billions to apparently not know about the laws of the market they are investing in:-)

Re: A “short squeeze” sounds innocuous enough...

#22
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that, in the US and UK, that's illegal. In Germany, though, where this happened, it's not. That's not a good thing for Germany.

It's only illegal for companies though, right? If individuals do it they don't need to declare anything do they?

I've poked through FEC data (lots is available free online via FTP) and seen releases indicating when an individual owns mroe than 5% of a public company. I understand that to be the reporting threshold but could be wrong.

Remember, in the US legal system, companies are people. And the legal system is reluctant to create laws restricting only corporate behavior.

Re: A “short squeeze” sounds innocuous enough...

#23
post #15
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the author should also made it clear that Porsche took advantage of poor securities laws in Germany rather than showed any 'financial genius'. In US and UK there are explicit regulations forbidding secretly building a stake in a company. This 'hack' is illegal here just like insider trading is.

Indeed - and it should be illegal. The lack of transparency means that hedge funds will now think twice before investing in a company that's based in that jurisdiction.

Not before "investing". Before speculating on the shares of companies in the region. The investors are only the people who purchase the stock as sold from the company - and those people have nothing to lose by this affair.

Re: A “short squeeze” sounds innocuous enough...

#24
post #5

The key phrase is "infinite squeeze" which is a condition where shorts are forced to buy at any price determined by owners, http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12523898&... ...this is the worst possible condition of a financial market, in which a class of investors can literally dictate prices without limit (IIRC, German authorities stepped in at some point to prevent catastrophe).

And since (theoretically) there's no upper bound on the price of a stock, then (theoretically) there's no upper bound on the losses one can incur when engaging in short-selling practises either. Porsche is an evil genius of Finance. Their predatory trading practises have become legendary. Some more links on this: http://www.nuclearphynance.com/Show%20Post.aspx?PostIDKey=12... http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2008/10/2…

Amusing quote from the first link:

"Porsche exhibiting their excellent cornering ability"

Re: A “short squeeze” sounds innocuous enough...

#25
post #15
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the author should also made it clear that Porsche took advantage of poor securities laws in Germany rather than showed any 'financial genius'. In US and UK there are explicit regulations forbidding secretly building a stake in a company. This 'hack' is illegal here just like insider trading is.

Indeed - and it should be illegal. The lack of transparency means that hedge funds will now think twice before investing in a company that's based in that jurisdiction.

Why would the German government care about what happens to hedge funds who get screwed by speculating with stupid unhedged short bets in the secondary market? That has no relationship to actual investing in German companies.

Re: A “short squeeze” sounds innocuous enough...

#26
post #25
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed - and it should be illegal. The lack of transparency means that hedge funds will now think twice before investing in a company that's based in that jurisdiction.

Why would the German government care about what happens to hedge funds who get screwed by speculating with stupid unhedged short bets in the secondary market? That has no relationship to actual investing in German companies.

I am not sure you understand how hedging works. You don't go short and long on the same stock to hedge. You generally take one position (long or short) on the stock you are speculating on, and you take the opposite position with stocks in its peer group to protect against swings in the industry. The basis of the hedge is that stock performance is correlated within sub-industry. With a short squeeze like the one of VW stock, this type of a hedge wouldn't have helped.

But that was not my main point for this reply.

The German regulators should care about financial transparency, because even hedge funds (and even naked speculators) provide an counter force to the natural tendency of the stock market to always go up. if shorting was not allowed, the market has a natural tendency to go upwards. everyone benefits from the market always going up -- the buyer, the seller, the company, etc. a buyer can always sell the stock for more later. no one would benefit from a price drop. however, the stock price growth may not have anything to do with reality of company's books. shorting stocks helps keep the stock at a reasonable price point because when the stock price rises unreasonably, plenty of people would like to gain from its pending downward spiral.

as an example, look at china. no shorting is allowed there. their stock market went up, up, up. the balance shorting provided was not not presence. when people realized how vastly over rated the stock market was, it got hit. hit hard. now, it is one of the hardest hit market out there.

shorting (and other financial maneuvers) only work with greater transparency of information.

note that the hedge funds did take a big gamble and paid the price. I do not feel sorry for them.

(Anyway, I am sure I didn't do a thorough job of explaining the benefits of shorting and transparency.)

Re: A “short squeeze” sounds innocuous enough...

#27
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed - and it should be illegal. The lack of transparency means that hedge funds will now think twice before investing in a company that's based in that jurisdiction.

Not before "investing". Before speculating on the shares of companies in the region. The investors are only the people who purchase the stock as sold from the company - and those people have nothing to lose by this affair.

I don't quite follow. Isn't buying shares de facto "investing" ?

(You may have a point on the shorting of shares, but that serves a purpose too; to devalue overpriced assets)

Re: A “short squeeze” sounds innocuous enough...

#28
post #25
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed - and it should be illegal. The lack of transparency means that hedge funds will now think twice before investing in a company that's based in that jurisdiction.

Why would the German government care about what happens to hedge funds who get screwed by speculating with stupid unhedged short bets in the secondary market? That has no relationship to actual investing in German companies.

Note that "hedge funds" is kind of a misnomer. A hedge fund is just like any other fund, except that it's less regulated and exclusively for rich people (the thinking being that rich people need less gov't regulation over their money because, well, they're rich).

They don't make money by literally "hedging their bets."

Re: A “short squeeze” sounds innocuous enough...

#29
post #19

Question: how is it that nobody knew how much VW Porche owned? Is there no way to see who owns a certain stock, or what stock a company owns?

The regulatory loophole they exploited only exists with cash settled options [1] - IIRC the hole will be closed this spring with new legislation. Btw. another German Company (Schaeffler) used the same loophole last summer to secretely buy Continental (with much less success, it seems). [1] Cash settlement - Cash-settled options do not require the actual delivery of the underlier. Instead, the corresponding cash value…

Thanks. Every article I read mentioning the Porsche/VW affair simply said Germany didn't require large shareholders to disclosure their ownership, which surprised me. Now it makes a little more sense.

I figure one could buy deep in-the-money options and practically own the stocks, but nobody (except one's counterpart) would know.

Post reply on HN