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.
A “short squeeze” sounds innocuous enough...
21–30 of 54 posts
Re: A “short squeeze” sounds innocuous enough...
#22Earlier 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?
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...
#23Earlier 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.
Re: A “short squeeze” sounds innocuous enough...
#24The 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…
"Porsche exhibiting their excellent cornering ability"
Re: A “short squeeze” sounds innocuous enough...
#25Earlier 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.
Re: A “short squeeze” sounds innocuous enough...
#26Earlier 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.
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...
#27Earlier 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.
(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...
#28Earlier 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.
They don't make money by literally "hedging their bets."
Re: A “short squeeze” sounds innocuous enough...
#29Question: 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…
I figure one could buy deep in-the-money options and practically own the stocks, but nobody (except one's counterpart) would know.