Recently I have been clipping articles, and arranging them by category, so that I can comment on them as a group more easily. Tonight’s topic is speculation again, but these articles are all of the odd bits that don’t follow any particular theme.
- Sometimes I think that the major financial press that covers Wall Street should send chocolates to Jim Cramer for creating TheStreet.com. Where else would they get high quality journalists the understand the markets? Writing for RealMoney, Matthew Goldstein would occasionally e-mail me with a question. He was the one who covered financials in the news group for TSCM. Financials are harder to learn than industrials, and I thought he would go far.
Well, he has gone far, to Business Week. The advent of hedge funds has created a great demand for shorting stock, and there are concerns on the part of some with naked shorting, where one does not borrow the shares before they are sold. This article describes the probe into stock lending, and what may come of it. Personally, I wonder why investment banks don’t create single-name total return swaps. E.g., receive three month LIBOR plus or minus a spread, pay IBM total return. That would allow the same economics of shorting, without the stock borrow, and no charges of naked shorting. Why not?
- Brave new world; the uptick rule is history. Well, that should provide more liquidity to buyers. I’m indifferent on this one, though I would warn anyone doing a death-spiral convert that the elimination of the uptick rule means there is no way that the short sellers won’t win.
- Once you have derivatives, almost anything is possible. Insider trading can be hidden through derivative instruments, because they are not publicly reported. Now, in practice, it may not be that simple, because derivatives are a zero sum game, and the counterparty loses what the one with information wins, unless they are hedged. Whoever bears the loss after the takeover is announced has a concentrated interest to find the one who ended up winning, because they might get back what they lost.
- I think it is inevitable that there will be different ways of trading large and small blocks of stock. Most industries have different distribution methods for wholesale and retail. Dark pools of liquidity don’t surprise me; when I was a bond trader, if I wanted to trade a large fraction of some bond deal, quietness and anonymity were crucial. My view: have the SEC serve as trading apprentices a large equity or bond shops, and see why large trading is different from small trading.
- Fitch gets it, maybe. They see why hedge funds might be weak holders during a crisis. I’m not sure what Fitch will do with it, but that skepticism will make for a better rating agency.
- 130/30 seems to be coming along at the wrong time. There is too much pressure on the borrow from hedge funds already. My opinion is that short-selling is getting close to useless on average, given the high level of shorting. When the bad event happens, the covering keeps the stock afloat.
- No more earnings guidance? Yay!! Let analysts be real analysts, and not just take what management has fed them. I like it when companies I follow eliminate earnings guidance, because it increases the advantage of analysts who really understand what is going on.
- Investing in commodities was a great idea until players started to invest in an indexed manner on the front month. This has forced the front month to be low versus future months, and the continuing roll depresses returns. If I were running such a fund, I would invest in a ladder of contracts similar to the pro-rata ladder of contracts currently traded; that would minimize the antiselection.
- Finally, be wary of funky ETFs that don’t actually own the underlying assets in a direct way. There are too many ways for those vehicles to go wrong. Good ETFs have direct ways of hedging that keep the prices in line with what they are trying to replicate.
That’s all for now. My own investing has gone well so far this week, but who can tell what the future will bring?