Citadel din't bail them out and they didn't close the positions, if they did, the "bailout" would be a complete writeoff -- why would Citadel do that?
Citadel probably gave them the cash to avoid a margin call, knowing they can later manipulate the market and the shorts would payoff in the end, and Citadel would get their share of the spoils.
Otherwise a bailout makes no economical sense, Citadel is not the FED, they can't print money just to cover someone elses losses.
> if they did, the "bailout" would be a complete writeoff
What? No it wouldn't.
Melvin faced cash calls. To raise cash fast they could (a) get it from their LPs (fat chance), (b) raise it from someone else or (c) sell other assets. The last option is a fire sale. You figure out what the fire sale discount would be, say it's 50%, and then use that to get (b).
I don't know what the terms of the bailout were. If I were structuring, I'd make it a loan with a super-high interest rate triply collateralized by their remaining assets. If they pay it back, I get the super high interest rate. If they default, I get the rest of their assets for 33¢ on the dollar. Between those two, the latter is frankly the higher-payoff scenario. (I would also require all short positions be closed out within N days, with the borrower's investors bearing the losses.)
Are you saying that Citadel just lent someone money to close short positions worth a very significant percentage of their total assets? (Melvin having 11 bilion in total assets and Citadel giving them 3 billion).
That's what I was pointing out!
Melvin did not close their shorts(as they said they did), they just got more rope from Citadel, and Citadel was willing to do just that knowing they can manipulate the market.
The narative of Melvin was "Citadel gave us 3 billion dollars, we closed our shorts at a loss, you won wsb, aren't you happy, you won, now leave us alone and stop buying".
> Citadel just lent someone money to close short positions worth a very significant percentage of their total assets?
Yes. Those other assets are presumably uncorrelated to this short position. If they were fire sold, depending on the assets, they could have gotten 20¢ or 30¢ on the dollar.
That discount gives Melvin the incentive to borrow, even at exorbitant rates. It protects the rest of the portfolio. With the bailout, the GameStop loss is capped and eaten by LPs. That sucks. But it sucks less than eating that loss and selling off the rest of the portfolio for peanuts.
> Melvin did not close their shorts(as they said they did)
You're alleging securities fraud. This may be the case! But we have zero evidence of it. And if Citadel and Point72 invested $3bn to aid and abet securities fraud, that would be quite stupid.
I stare at this crap all day and I've seen no indicator that Melvin has closed a large percentage of their position, let alone all of it. I will 100 percent allege securities fraud.
No "they" didn't. Wall Street is not a homogenous thing. You're thinking of banks in particular, which are about as different from hedge funds categorically as Facebook and Salesforce. Sure they're both tech companies with software products, but they have entirely different business models.
Think about it, you're staring at a mob of people willing to buy the stock at absurd prices... Why would you announce that you've closed your shorts instead of keeping quiet and profiting of the mob?
The answer is they didn't close it, they were trying to get the mob to back off.
And no, it technically wouldn't be fraud, they were very careful with their words...
Citadel, Point72 to Invest $2.75 Billion Into Melvin Capital Management - WSJ [0]
Read As: Melvin no longer has a short position. Citadel (edit: or like someone else said, a 3rd party) does. Citadel will handle this. Melvin is in time out.
We'll figure out who holds the chips in a few weeks time when filing deadlines are due. Thus it's dark.
Thus explains the perfectly executed short ladder today - could only be pulled off by someone with more dry powder than Melvin - but if you look at the Level II data, this is going to take a long, long time.
Well surely that never happens. No large organization has ever committed securities fraud in order to make or save billions.
I hope you have a better reason why that's not likely than "but that's illegal." Them actively committing securities fraud seems to be the most likely occurrence from where I'm sitting.
> No large organization has ever committed securities fraud in order to make or save billions.
Who would save billions? For how long?
Let's assume the statement is fraudulent. Before the statement was made, Melvin's LPs were set to get hosed. Melvin's general partners, the ones making the statements, have a lot of egg on their faces. But they didn't do anything wrong. They keep their money and houses and yachts. And in all likelihood, after a few months, craft a lessons-learned pitch and raise more money.
After the statement, they have engaged in fraud. Not only is criminal prosecution a risk. All those deep-pocketed LPs can now sue the general partners, personally, for breach of fiduciary duty.
Add to that the Citadel bailout, which removed the risk of the fund going under, and there is no reasonable explanation for lying about closing out the short. If you wanted to show resilience, you'd say something like "we've fully hedged our shorts with long-dated puts, reducing our expected profit but capping our losses."
This will probably be my least popular post ever, but the explanation needs to get out there for why Robinhood stopped trading on GME.
Selling a stock short is NOT illegal. It is a perfectly valid type of investment according to the SEC:
“D. Are short sales legal?
Although the vast majority of short sales are legal, abusive short sale practices are illegal. For example, it is prohibited for any person to engage in a series of transactions in order to create actual or apparent active trading in a security or to depress the price of a security for the purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of the security by others. Thus, short sales effected to manipulate the price of a stock are prohibited.”
Basically – you can’t short sell a stock to manipulate the price down so you can buy a lot more of it later. If you believe a stock is overpriced and short sell it, that is legal. That is exactly what tons of retail traders and hedge funds do every day, including on Gamestop.
On the other hand, manipulating a stock price upwards to cause a short squeeze IS illegal according to the same SEC article:
“Although some short squeezes may occur naturally in the market, a scheme to manipulate the price or availability of stock in order to cause a short squeeze is illegal.”
Unprecedented numbers of people on Reddit, Twitter, and elsewhere collaborated to intentionally create a short squeeze on GME in the last week. No one talked about a fundamental case why Gamestop the company was worth a lot of money and would be successful in the future; instead everyone made the argument that due to a very high short interest of 100%+, that a short squeeze would send the price “to the moon”. That is illegal according to the SEC.
Multiple brokerages, especially Robinhood, probably had their attorneys tell them that “Hey, you are aiding and abetting illegal activity by enabling a short squeeze and could be liable criminally or civilly if you continue to allow this blatant illegal activity on your platform”. So they decided to stop it by only allowing people to close their positions rather than open new ones in support of the short squeeze.
Another strong reason is that if the short squeeze caused the GME stock to go to 5000 in a sudden leap, tons of traders (both retail and professional) could instantly go broke, and then the brokerage (Robinhood) would be left holding the bag. For example, picture a retail investor with a Robinhood account had sold call options in the amount of $100,000 and their account was worth $200,000. If the price gapped from 300 to 5000 and those options were exercised, that trader could have a loss of $10,000,000. He would lose the value of his account, $200,000… but the brokerage would have to make up the rest of the settlement and take a loss of $9,800,000. Now multiply that by thousands of accounts…. no brokerage wants to take the risk of being bankrupted, so they shut it down.
The two strong reasons Robinhood and other brokers stopped trading was to prevent legal liability from enabling illegal activity on their platform, and for wanting to avoid potentially massive banktuptcy from traders unable to cover their losses.
> No one talked about a fundamental case why Gamestop the company was worth a lot of money and would be successful in the future; instead everyone made the argument that due to a very high short interest of 100%+, that a short squeeze would send the price “to the moon”.
All of this started on Reddit because someone made a case for their fundamentals.
He is considered a legend by all of the people on WSB (of which I am not one) for it and kicked the whole thing off.
My question is.. how does a guy on Reddit and YouTube giving a fundamental analysis of why he valued a stock, and millions of people seeing value and buying it, differ from something akin to Mad Money?
DFW made his fundamentals case months ago and had a real (if possibly mistaken) case at that point.
In the last week though, after the massive increase in GME's stock price, the arguments on WSB have all been about the planned short squeeze and gamma squeeze to convince people to hold on or buy more.
> Unprecedented numbers of people on Reddit, Twitter, and elsewhere collaborated to intentionally create a short squeeze on GME in the last week.
You're missing a party in that analysis. For this party, maybe it was a stupid idea for them to try and short sell in a market where the fed had pumped trillions into the economy and market activity, retail and otherwise, is at an unprecedented level of froth. But with that said, they are supposed to be professionals. It seems to be within reason to expect them to be able to hedge against the risk of a bunch of amateurs deciding to protest buy a piece of their childhood against being raided by Wall Street, no?
After all, "irrationally" holding assets that have sentimental value and allocating a large portion of whatever surplus earnings you have to it is a well known American tradition. Whatever the socioeconomic bracket, people have traditionally found ways to support causes and brands that they hold dear. Shouldn't large institutional clients be asking these fund managers why they're poking a beehive right now, and whether it might just be a little unnecessarily risky?
Robinhood has no stake in whether or not individual trader actions are legal, and the entire distinction between legal and illegal here is based on being able to determine individual trader's motives. Robinhood is acting illegally by your own argument by manipulating the price and availability of a stock.
Basically there was a good fundamental analysis with due diligence that GameStop was over shorted and priced under value. Some people thought it was a good analysis and started buying. When more people buy... the price goes up.
As the price goes up more people started to believe the thesis and piled in. At some point this just becomes momentum training which last I knew was legal.
It seems like you have taken a very narrow and biased view of the law that fits the narrative you like.
Especially when they're staring at billions of losses and maybe all it takes to save them is a carefully worded public statement that they think they can later argue is technically truthful.
The higher the price goes, the more incentive for new people to buy short, who aren't subject to the same pressure to get out fast that the ones who've been there longer were.
Doing this all in such a publicly-coordinated way on Reddit means you're wide open to people trying to directly play against your goals.
So much of the "proof" of things around this seems to be making big assumptions about who is on the other side that the aggregate numbers don't seem to indicate one way or another.
> How have they exited their short position when the short interest is still ~130% though?
Lots of people are short? I know at least half a dozen people who bought puts over the last few days. Those puts hedge into shorting the same way calls turn into buying.
Hmm. There seems to be a lot of unknowns right now. Do you think the information about how this all went down will come out once it's over?
I'd say most of the wallstreetbets traders still believe Melvin has their position, but you're saying otherwise. Though the still extremely high short interested doesn't seem to make sense if the big losers already exited...
> Do you think the information about how this all went down will come out once it's over?
I do. This will make partners out of a solid suite of securities lawyers around the country. But we won't have clear answers for at least another 6 months.
High short interests make a lot of sense right now, you have a shitty company with a market cap above 50% of the S and P 500 trading at multiples higher than IP rich tech companies like Apple. The stock is overvalued many times over regardless of whether you use sentiment or NPV’s. The more overpriced a stock becomes the more bears will join the marketplace, that’s inevitable. Most hedge funds take losses once the price goes about 30% over their position, most early bears definitely went above this but there is little chance they are still holding. That means that these new shorts are likely to have set prices in the $250 plus range, where the potential returns are astronomical and the little guys trying to stick it to the man are likely to foot the vast majority of the Bill whilst making the man and a small number of early buyers a shit load of money
If the early bears have already exited I would have expected the price to jump higher though.
Also, from what people are saying on WSB, there's no liquidity left in the market which is why some platforms halted trading for $GME.
If the early shorts were all out I wouldn't expect a lack of liquidity, since more recent short positions wouldn't be under as much pressure.
I'm a complete noob, but it seems like literally no one can agree on what's happening and why even though there seem to be valid arguments on all sides.
> There isn't enough stock for them to close their position
Tens of billions of dollars of GameStop have been bought and sold over the past few days. If you can buy GameStop to go long, you can buy it to cover a short.
Note that there isn't a limit on rehypothecation. A share sold short by Bob can be used by Anna to cover her pre-existing short.
Yes, even if it's the same share that Anna sold to Bob short in the first place. That's how you get short interest > 100%. The market doesn't care, it only cares that a share was sold from Anna to Bob and then from Bob to Anna. The individual shares are completely fungible. (They don't actually exist, they're just numbers in a contract.)
Weather or not Melvin has the position, you can look at the borrow rates and short interest. Someone is balls deep in shorts and they have to cover one of these days.
Citadel probably gave them the cash to avoid a margin call, knowing they can later manipulate the market and the shorts would payoff in the end, and Citadel would get their share of the spoils.
Otherwise a bailout makes no economical sense, Citadel is not the FED, they can't print money just to cover someone elses losses.