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

Lyft threatens lawsuit against Morgan Stanley, accusing support of short selling

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 34 posts

Re: Lyft threatens lawsuit against Morgan Stanley, accusing support of short selling

#21

Post by fnpiop »

ikeboy wrote: post #20
fnpiop wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EDIT: I actually read the S1 excerpt wrong. Update: Note that it is carefully worded: "Our directors, executive officers and holders of a substantial portion of our capital stock and securities convertible into our capital stock". What probably happened is that the company required holders of only a "substantial portion" of stock to sign updated agreements with the underwriters. Neither I nor any of my Lyft stockhold…

Source?

Unfortunately, the actual agreements generally aren't public information. I can't provide mine without risk of loss of anonymity.

Yes, this is a lame answer, but any viewer who has Lyft stock or has friends that do can verify for themselves.

Re: Lyft threatens lawsuit against Morgan Stanley, accusing support of short selling

#22

Post by ikeboy »

fnpiop wrote: post #21
ikeboy wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source?

Unfortunately, the actual agreements generally aren't public information. I can't provide mine without risk of loss of anonymity. Yes, this is a lame answer, but any viewer who has Lyft stock or has friends that do can verify for themselves.

Seems like it'll hit the courts eventually and then we'll find out if there's a loophole or not.

Lyft is certainly claiming there isn't one, and the S1 says the same. If the S1 is false they might have a securities fraud case on their hands.

Re: Lyft threatens lawsuit against Morgan Stanley, accusing support of short selling

#23

Post by ikeboy »

fnpiop wrote: post #18
ikeboy wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It says in relevant part that “our directors, our executive officers and holders of a substantial portion of our capital stock and securities convertible into our capital stock have entered into lock-up agreements …pursuant to which each of these persons or entities, with limited exceptions, for a period of up to 180 days after the date of this prospectus, may not, without the prior written consent of J.P.Morgan Sec…

EDIT: I actually read the S1 excerpt wrong. Update: Note that it is carefully worded: "Our directors, executive officers and holders of a substantial portion of our capital stock and securities convertible into our capital stock". What probably happened is that the company required holders of only a "substantial portion" of stock to sign updated agreements with the underwriters. Neither I nor any of my Lyft stockhold…

Lyft wouldn't be getting upset with Morgan Stanley if all they did was allow minor shareholders who didn't sign agreements to hedge.

Re: Lyft threatens lawsuit against Morgan Stanley, accusing support of short selling

#24

Post by rongenre »

wyattpeak wrote: post #12
rongenre wrote: post #8

Wow, when companies complain about short sellers, it's generally pretty dumb (and a sell signal), but this sounds like MS was trying to help people get around lockup agreements which is pretty bad behavior if true.

For someone who knows nothing about shares, why is it a sell signal? I'd always assumed the issue was just that it was juvenile, not necessarily a cause for concern.

Because short sellers increase liquidity, and help the market determine an accurate price for the company.

Also short selling is far more risky than taking the long side. On the long side, your downside is the money you invested (if the price goes to zero). On the short side, your downside is infinite (if the price keeps going up).

Re: Lyft threatens lawsuit against Morgan Stanley, accusing support of short selling

#25

Post by gjap1zq »

fnpiop wrote: post #21
ikeboy wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source?

Unfortunately, the actual agreements generally aren't public information. I can't provide mine without risk of loss of anonymity. Yes, this is a lame answer, but any viewer who has Lyft stock or has friends that do can verify for themselves.

What year agreement do you have?

I also signed one - DM me if you want.

Re: Lyft threatens lawsuit against Morgan Stanley, accusing support of short selling

#26

Post by ikeboy »

gjap1zq wrote: post #25
fnpiop wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, the actual agreements generally aren't public information. I can't provide mine without risk of loss of anonymity. Yes, this is a lame answer, but any viewer who has Lyft stock or has friends that do can verify for themselves.

What year agreement do you have? I also signed one - DM me if you want.

FYI, HN doesn't have DMs - you could put a throwaway email in your profile

Re: Lyft threatens lawsuit against Morgan Stanley, accusing support of short selling

#27

Post by bcb1276 »

fnpiop wrote: post #21
ikeboy wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source?

Unfortunately, the actual agreements generally aren't public information. I can't provide mine without risk of loss of anonymity. Yes, this is a lame answer, but any viewer who has Lyft stock or has friends that do can verify for themselves.

The lock up agreement is publicly available on the SEC’s website (it’s a material contract and therefore required to be filed as an exhibit to the registration statement). The agreement itself is part of the Investors’ Rights Agreement. See section 2.12

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1759509/000119312519...

Re: Lyft threatens lawsuit against Morgan Stanley, accusing support of short selling

#28

Post by tuesdayrain »

rongenre wrote: post #24
wyattpeak wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For someone who knows nothing about shares, why is it a sell signal? I'd always assumed the issue was just that it was juvenile, not necessarily a cause for concern.

Because short sellers increase liquidity, and help the market determine an accurate price for the company. Also short selling is far more risky than taking the long side. On the long side, your downside is the money you invested (if the price goes to zero). On the short side, your downside is infinite (if the price keeps going up).

Shorters also apply downward pressure that might not exist naturally, since they're selling borrowed stock. AFAIK they could potentially short more stock than is even issued by the company. It's understandable why some companies would be irritated by people doing that.

Re: Lyft threatens lawsuit against Morgan Stanley, accusing support of short selling

#29

Post by malshe »

tuesdayrain wrote: post #28
rongenre wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because short sellers increase liquidity, and help the market determine an accurate price for the company. Also short selling is far more risky than taking the long side. On the long side, your downside is the money you invested (if the price goes to zero). On the short side, your downside is infinite (if the price keeps going up).

Shorters also apply downward pressure that might not exist naturally, since they're selling borrowed stock. AFAIK they could potentially short more stock than is even issued by the company. It's understandable why some companies would be irritated by people doing that.

You are talking about naked short selling. I think except by a few vocal opponents (e.g., Overstock CEO) generally naked short selling is not considered a major concern in the market as Long as it is not abusive.

Re: Lyft threatens lawsuit against Morgan Stanley, accusing support of short selling

#30

Post by gjap1zq »

ikeboy wrote: post #26
gjap1zq wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What year agreement do you have? I also signed one - DM me if you want.

FYI, HN doesn't have DMs - you could put a throwaway email in your profile

Thanks, I thought I had :)
Post reply on HN