|
Thanks for the link, interesting (even "riveting") reading.
I learned something about "naked short selling". I've got some obvious questions/observations.
If the option buyer made $270 million, who took the loss? Someone had to buy 9 million shares of BS for $30 a share. Do individuals typically sell put options? Is this mainly an institutional market? If an institution took the loss, did the taxpayers end up bailing it out?
The short-selling and options buying didn't bankrupt the company. They drove the share price down. If the company had been solvent (i.e. if it had assets in excess of its borrowing) the drop in share price would have been temporary. At worst, they had a liquidity problem, and a white knight should have bought them for the discounted excess of assets over liabilities. (This is really a question, not a statement.) Did JPM's later increase in purchase price indicate anything about BS's condition?
Regardless of the details, the overall drift of the article is that we are becoming a kleptocracy. Powerful people use gov't to line their own pockets. The methods are more round-about than they used to be, but the result is the same. That's not a new thing, over history most governments have probably been most interested in finding ways to help the powerful steal from the weak. (Aristotle called this the "perverted" state of gov't, at least in my English translation.) As a result, over history, most ordinary people have been pretty poor. IMO, ordinary people have good lives only to the extent that we are able to keep this activity constrained. It seems to be growing again.
This also reminds me why I don't want to be in individual stocks. It makes me more worried about whether the gov't will be able to live up to its promises to retirees regarding SS, the PBGC, and TIPS.
|