Firms like citadel will run crowding analytics, who owns what, at what leverage and rough margin trigger points. Over simplifying but they could be shorting the longs and going long on the shorts. Everyone generally knew situational was heavily levered.
To be clear, I'm not claiming Citadel created double digit drops in SK Hynix / Samsung. I am saying that as market vol hits, vol traders might choose to make it worse. And when word hits the street someone has a liquidity position, prop traders WILL come and pressure. SA's filings were clear how concentrated they were, and this was known. In this case, Citadel (hedge fund) bought, while I imagine Citadel Securities would have been doing this (speculated upon) trading. We'll know more when the filings come out though. I'll be curious what of the portfolio they kept and what they worked / rolled in the market
It really sounds like market manipulation... But oh well it is the biggest boys doing it so it can't be that illegal... Free markets and everything for them right?
Im not a trader but my understanding was that some traders at Citadel heard a rumor these guys were exposed, which gave Citadel an advantage because they knew they would have to liquidate? That doesnt sound like market manipulation to me, just trading with all the information you have
Situational Awareness filed a 13F that lists a hedge fund’s long and short positions with the SEC. It’s public information, forcing an overleveraged fund to liquidate by pressuring the instruments they’re exposed to is not market manipulation, leverage cuts both ways and all of the people/institutions involved are professional/sophisticated investors
There's something amusingly circular about these conversations, because clearly laypeople like me and the person you responding to are saying "that sounds like it shouldn't be allowed" and the invariable responses are always "it is allowed!"
The comment literally says it: "it can't be that illegal"
You make it sound like a conspiracy theory but it's just rational behaviour.
Large amount of leverage / shorting / concentrated bets in a single stock => increase probability of large swings in that stock's price => bigger risk of sudden market moves => bigger risk to market makers => market makers limit their exposure.
> "Over the past week, traders at major hedge funds and other firms began sharing information about Situational’s exposure, with some placing short bets against its top holdings, hoping to profit as Aschenbrenner sold his positions to raise cash, according to two people close to the situation.
The short bets by the rivals weighed on Situational’s portfolio. Meanwhile, tech shares like SK Hynix were sliding. Over the three trading days ending Tuesday of this week, hedge funds reduced their positions at a scale not seen in three years, according to Goldman Sachs."
Having created (or at least amplified), the short squeeze on SA's position "Citadel executives reached out to Aschenbrenner, saying that the firm could be helpful if he needed ways to raise cash."
> "Aschenbrenner partially blamed short sellers who targeted the firm’s positions for exacerbating the fund’s losses"
The cause and effect don't make sense because Citadel putting out such an opinion moves the entire market by only a few basis points which barely impacts what you're saying they're trying to impact. It's one of those narratives that sounds good because it's "Citadel" in both cases, which makes it go viral on social media among people who don't know what they're talking about, but it isn't coherent.