Osterizer
Osterizer HalfDork
1/21/09 9:48 a.m.

Why?

The article said: Adolf Merckle, one of the world’s richest men, committed suicide yesterday by throwing himself under a train, Bloomberg reports. Financial difficulties, and particularly great losses he suffered on Volkswagen stock, are being cited as the key reason he ended his life: [Merckle's company] VEM was caught in a so-called short squeeze after betting Wolfsburg, Germany-based Volkswagen’s stock would fall. Merckle lost at least 500 million euros on the bets on VW stock, people familiar said on Nov. 18. VEM lost “low three-digit million euros” on VW stock, the company said in November. A “short squeeze” sounds inconspicuous enough; you wouldn’t tell it by Bloomberg’s language, but Merckle’s Volkswagen bet lost out to one of the most masterful hacks of the financial system in history. For those of us who don’t live and breathe finance, this is that story. In 1931, Austro-Hungarian engineer Ferdinand Porsche started a German company in his own name. It offered car design consulting services, and was not a car manufacturer itself until it produced the Type 64 in 1939. But things got interesting for Porsche long before then. In 1933, he was approached by none other than Adolf Hitler, who commissioned a car designed for the German masses. Porsche accepted, and the result was the iconic Beetle, manufactured under the Volkswagen (lit. “people’s car”) brand. Today, Porsche’s company is one of the world’s premier luxury car brands, while Volkswagen (VW) is itself the world’s third-largest auto maker after General Motors and Toyota. Three years ago, Volkswagen found itself fearing a foreign takeover. Porsche, the company, decided to step in and start buying VW stock ostensibly to protect the landmark brand, widely fueling market expectations that it would eventually buy Volkswagen outright. Of course, this isn’t quite what came to pass. For three years, Porsche kept accumulating VW stock without telling anyone how much it owned. Every time it purchased more, the amount of free-floating VW stock would decrease, driving the stock price up slightly; your basic supply and demand at work. Eventually the share price became high enough that, to outside observers, it wouldn’t have made any sense for Porsche to buy Volkswagen. It would simply have cost too much. To explain what happened next, I’m going to first tell you about a financial maneuver called shorting. At any given point, only a certain amount of a publicly traded company’s stock is floating freely in the market. The rest is held in various portfolios, funds, and investment vehicles. Now, everyone’s familiar with the basic idea behind the stock market: you buy stock when it costs little, and you sell it when it costs a lot, profiting on the difference. But that assumes a company’s value is going to increase. What if, instead of betting a company will go up, you want to make money betting the company will go down? You can — by selling stock you don’t own. Say you borrow a certain amount of stock from someone who already owns it. You pay a fixed fee for borrowing the stock, and you sign a contract saying you will return exactly the same amount of stock you took after some amount of time. So, you might borrow a thousand shares of Apple stock from me (I don’t actually own any, but play along), pay me $100 for the privilege, and sign an obligation to return my stock in 3 months. At the time, Apple stock is worth $10 per share. After you borrow the stock, you immediately sell it. At $10 a share, you get $10,000. Two and a half months later, another rumor about Steve Jobs’ health sends AAPL crashing to only $6 per share for a few hours, so you buy a thousand shares, costing you $6,000. You give me back those shares. Because you successfully bet the company would go down in value, you earned $4,000 minus the borrowing fee. This is called short-selling or shorting the stock, and the downside is obvious: if your bet was wrong, you would have lost money buying back the shares that you have to return to your lender. Now things get kinky. When Volkswagen’s share price exceeded the point where it made sense for Porsche to buy the company, a number of hedge funds realized that Volkswagen shares have nowhere to go but down. With Porsche out of the picture, there was simply no reason for VW to keep going up, and the funds were willing to bet on it. So they shorted huge amounts of VW stock, borrowing it from existing owners and selling it into circulation, waiting for the price drop they considered inevitable. Porsche anticipated exactly this situation and promptly bought up much of these borrowed VW shares that the funds were selling. Do you see where this is going? Analysts did. According to The Economist, Adam Jonas from Morgan Stanley warned clients not to play “billionaire’s poker” against Porsche. Porsche denied any foul play, saying it wasn’t doing anything unusual. But then, last October 26th, they stepped forward and bared their portfolio: through a combination of stock and options, they owned 75% of Volkswagen, which is almost all the company’s circulating stock. (The remainder is tied up in funds that cannot easily release it.) To put it mildly, the numbers scared the living hell out of the hedge funds: if they didn’t immediately buy back the Volkswagen stock they were shorting, there might not be any left to buy later, and it isn’t their stock — they have to return it to someone. If their only option is thus to buy the VW stock from Porsche, then the miracle of supply and demand will hit again, and Porsche can ask for whatever price it wants per VW share — twenty times their value, a hundred times their value — because there’s no other place to buy. They’re the only game in town. And that, my friends, is called a short squeeze. Porsche’s ownership disclosure sent the hedge funds on such a flurry of purchases for any Volkswagen stock still in circulation that the VW share price jumped from below €200 to over €1000 at one point on October 28th, making Volkswagen for a brief time the world’s most valuable company by market cap. On paper, Porsche made between €30-40 billion in the affair. Once all is said and done, the actual profit is closer to some €6-12 billion. To put those numbers in perspective, Porsche’s revenue for the whole year of 2006 was a bit over €7 billion. Porsche’s move took three years of careful maneuvering. It was darkly brilliant, a wealth transfer ingeniously conceived like few we’ve ever seen. Betting the right way, Porsche roiled the financial markets and took the hedge funds for a fortune. Betting the wrong way, Adolf Merckle took his life.

Linky

For the record, I like how the Panamera looks.

P71
P71 GRM+ Memberand HalfDork
1/21/09 9:54 a.m.

That's a good explanation of what happened. We studied this case in one of my corporate finance classes.

aircooled
aircooled Dork
1/21/09 10:29 a.m.

F'ing greedy bastards! They got what they deserved!

Good for Porsche, they bet on greed, that is always a good bet.

924guy
924guy HalfDork
1/21/09 10:41 a.m.

Porsche has been dissecting the "rules" on a microscopic level for decades in their racing programs to get their way, applying that methodology to finances isnt a stretch for them in the least. their just racing in new territory now, and apparently, the old formula is working like a charm...

problemaddict
problemaddict Reader
1/21/09 4:19 p.m.
Osterizer wrote:
The article said: Adolf Merckle, one of the world’s richest men, committed suicide yesterday by throwing himself under a train,
You would think one of the richest men in the world could afford a gun, or a huge pile of heroin to off himself with... Throwing oneself in front of a train takes some major cajones!
Will
Will Reader
1/21/09 5:08 p.m.

In reply to aircooled:

Seems a little harsh. Those who shorted the VW stock apparently made a poor investment, but how it makes them evil is beyond me. How is their betting VW stock will go down any different from Porsche betting VW stock would go up?

AngryCorvair
AngryCorvair GRM+ Memberand Dork
1/21/09 10:44 p.m.
Will wrote: In reply to aircooled: Seems a little harsh. Those who shorted the VW stock apparently made a poor investment, but how it makes them evil is beyond me. How is their betting VW stock will go down any different from Porsche betting VW stock would go up?

Depends on how you look at shorting. There are those, like Will, who refer to it as an investment. Then there are others, sounds like aircooled may be one of them, who look at shorting as more of a theft than an investment, since the short seller profits when the stock price declines. Profiting from someone's gain is an investment. Profiting from someone's loss is, well, I don't know exactly what to call it but it seems pretty berkeleyed up to me.

aircooled
aircooled Dork
1/21/09 11:02 p.m.

I wouldn't say evil, but as Angry said it really seems to be against what you might think the point of the stock market is. It also reminds me a bit (far more simplistically of course) of the type of "made up" investments that caused the recent "problems".

Moparman
Moparman New Reader
1/21/09 11:02 p.m.

Making it worse is that you no longer need to borrow the stock, merely locate it. Also, no uptick rule means one can short the stock on the way down (essentially a naked short) What the naked shorters giveth, the short squeeze taketh away,

I am a trader in real life, but do not play one on TV

noisycricket
noisycricket Reader
1/21/09 11:05 p.m.

I'd never seen the issue put so clearly before. Heck, even I can understand it :)

My mind still asplodes at the balls it took to pull it off.

edit: Making it worse is that you no longer need to borrow the stock, merely locate it.

So, wait. I was explaining shorting to my friend using a camcorder and Craigslist analogy ("You borrow my camcorder for a month, sell it on Craigslist for $300, and then when they realize it's a POS, you buy it back for $50 in time to give it back to me")... stretching my analogy, are you saying that he'd only have to say he knows a guy who might have one, give me the money and I'll find it for you?

Moparman
Moparman New Reader
1/21/09 11:25 p.m.

Correct. Actually borrowing the stock is no longer required. This is why shorts can add up to more (in theory) than the outstanding shares. Let's say you and I wish to short 1,000 shares of IBM stock and we both know Joe has 1,000 shares which we can borrow if needed. We can both short 1,000 shares because we know where to borrow 1,000 shares, even though it is the same 1,000 shares. This is how the shorts create a bear run on a stock which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Being able to short on a down tick (keep shorting as the stock prints lower) results in shares being crushed and companies collapsing.

This is from the SEC's Regulation SHO:

Locate Requirement: Regulation SHO requires a broker-dealer to have reasonable grounds to believe that the security can be borrowed so that it can be delivered on the date delivery is due before effecting a short sale order in any equity security.6 This "locate" must be made and documented prior to effecting the short sale.

I can short and cover without ever borrowing the stock. If I short and cover the same day, I have no fail to deliver. If I fail to deliver, I have to compensate the counterparty for failing. I may risk that fail if I determine it is in my best interest not to cover (or continue shorting) in hopes of covering at a lower price.

The same is true with Credit Default Swaps on bonds. One need not own the reference bond to purchase default insurance on that security (one can settle for cash difference instead of delivering the bond in case of default). The result is that there are more CDS outstanding for some companies than actual bonds. This is the much talked about counterparty risk you hear about when discussing the large financial institutions.

P71
P71 GRM+ Memberand HalfDork
1/21/09 11:51 p.m.

My brain asploded all over the computer...

I actually understood that, and it's totally crappy! If they don't have to borrow the stock it's extremely risky. How did this become legal?

noisycricket
noisycricket Reader
1/22/09 12:00 a.m.
P71 wrote: My brain asploded all over the computer... I actually understood that, and it's totally crappy! If they don't have to borrow the stock it's extremely risky. How did this become legal?

As a guess, it involved the confluence of powerful lobbyists, and an ill-informed electorate...

Jensenman
Jensenman SuperDork
1/22/09 8:13 a.m.

Naw, it's the usual: the traders etc take care of their own and to hell with the rest of the country. Of course, sometimes it backfires like it did for this guy, then there's ENRON and also those two brothers in Texas who tried to corner the silver market several years ago.

Snowdoggie
Snowdoggie Reader
1/22/09 9:36 a.m.

This stuff would be fine if they were doing it in a gambling casino and when the house went broke there would be no government bailout. But dropping stock prices lead to layoffs and these guys are often playing with other people's retirement money.

Will
Will Reader
1/22/09 9:45 a.m.

I'm a pretty conservative investor, so this is the sort of thing I would never do. But I still don't have a problem with it. People seem to be upset that those shorting the stock are making money for doing essentially nothing, and over a short period of time. Aren't the people lending the stock to those engaged in shorting doing the exact same thing? Is that wrong too?

As for the idea that it's a little shady because you're making money off of someone else losing money, isn't that pretty much the case whenever you sell a stock? You sell because you don't think it will go up any more and is due to go down. You're betting that you'll make money and whoever buys will probably lose money. I just don't see the distinction.

RobL
RobL New Reader
1/22/09 10:02 a.m.
noisycricket wrote:
P71 wrote: My brain asploded all over the computer... I actually understood that, and it's totally crappy! If they don't have to borrow the stock it's extremely risky. How did this become legal?
As a guess, it involved the confluence of powerful lobbyists, and an ill-informed electorate...

This is only a little different than options trading. Only in options trading, you are not actually trading stock - only the option to buy stock.

If you've ever rented a car, you "borrowed" it. You agreed to bring it back. Maybe a better example is sub-letting. I leased an apartment and then sub-letted it out. I'm not the owner but I'm collecting the income from it. Big companies and market funds lend and borrow stock all the time for all kinds of reasons - well, mostly shareholder voting but that's another story.

99.99999% of the time there is enough circulating stock to handle the shorts. Porsche played the market and this could easily have gone the other way with Porsche losing all kinds of money.

aircooled
aircooled Dork
1/22/09 10:15 a.m.

I more have a problem with it because this is yet another one of those made up "services" that the financial institutions (or whoever) have come up with. It works out great for them, they get there money either way (fees etc.) but I really don't think in the overall scheme of things it is doing any real "service" other than generate fees.

Its a bit like stock brokers. Probably more because I don't really understand what they actually do (so please feel free to correct me), but I don't really see as much of a need for them these days as there might have been in the past. With electronic trading and such, it seems like the stock broker is just an unnecessary middle man taking a cut. Which is pretty much what many financial services are, just another way to leach off of the money flow and get there cut.

Snowdoggie is right on. This is the sort of crap that should be in Vegas, not in the inner workings of our economy.

Snowdoggie
Snowdoggie Reader
1/22/09 10:23 a.m.
Will wrote: I'm a pretty conservative investor, so this is the sort of thing I would never do. But I still don't have a problem with it. People seem to be upset that those shorting the stock are making money for doing essentially nothing, and over a short period of time. Aren't the people lending the stock to those engaged in shorting doing the exact same thing? Is that wrong too? As for the idea that it's a little shady because you're making money off of someone else losing money, isn't that pretty much the case whenever you sell a stock? You sell because you don't think it will go up any more and is due to go down. You're betting that you'll make money and whoever buys will probably lose money. I just don't see the distinction.

My question is where do you draw the line. Short selling as an individual may not hurt anybody. Short selling, getting all your buddies to short sell and then spreading rumors about a company can actually drive away customers and lead to layoffs or even bankruptcy, for no other reason than the fact that somebody wants to get rich and they don't care who they hurt in the process. Other investors, employees and executives of the company and so on.

Jensenman
Jensenman SuperDork
1/22/09 10:28 a.m.

[Gordon Gecko] 'Greed is good.' [/Gordon Gecko]

Snowdoggie
Snowdoggie Reader
1/22/09 10:49 a.m.

The problem I have is with investment banks that play with all kinds of funny money deals, then after going broke, go crying to the Federal Government that if they don't get lots of taxpayer money the whole economy will go up in smoke. Our children will still be paying for this bailout when we are dead and gone.

Even the guys in Vegas don't have the balls to ask for a Federal Bailout when they lose big. When you gamble and lose everything, you should lose everything. Your mansions, your yachts, your jets, your business and your reputation.

daytonaer
daytonaer New Reader
1/22/09 2:05 p.m.

Thanks for the article.

I was talking to my uncle about him buying a Porsche (he has been in the market on and off) and he told me there are no good deals now because Porsche is making more $$ from VW than they are from selling new cars.

He lost me, but now I think I understand.

Moparman
Moparman New Reader
1/22/09 8:30 p.m.

I don't want to turn this post into a lesson on the capital markets, but the air needs to be clear.

First, wealth management (your investment advisor who manages your money) and investment banking (traders, deal structurers, etc.). An investment adivsor assesses your financial situation, your goals, objectives and risk tolerance and makes recommendations.

Investment bankers bring various securities deals and investment vehicles to market. They also provide liqiuidity my maintaining liquid markets. Products, services, vehicles and strategies will be determined by demand. You may be surprised where much of the demand comes from.

Much of the demand for products and money making strategies does not come from Wall Street, but from Main Street, although Wall Street is only too happy to be accomodative.

Pensions funds, endwoments, mutual funds and charities make up a large part of the demand for financial products. They are always looking for an edge. Did you ever wonder how a fund beat the market or how a money market fund offered returns far beyond what was availble from treasuries or at the bank? Well it wasn't from smart buying or clever trading of T-bills or blue chip stocks. No, these funds or plans engage in shorting, bets on the direction of markets or commodities through sophisticated structured vehicles or make bets on the creditworthiness of various companies.

Any of these strategies and vehicles can move the markets up or down. They can cause share prices of fly-by-night companies to rise, as during the tech bubble, or cause the shares of good companies to fall as with VW.

Another area which investors carried much influence was in the mortgage market. Things are different very different now than during the days of Ward and June Cleaver. Banks may issue mortgages, but the really only service them. Investors own the mortgages via mortgage-backed securities. There is no way banks could ever accumulate enough deposits to float the mortgage market. What banks do is lend capital, securitize mortgages into bonds, sell the bonds, the capital back and lend it out again. Mortgages can be securitized into private lable MBS or into GSE (Freddie, Fannie and GNMA) mortgage bonds. Without these bonds, only those borrowers with stellar credit ratings and significant downpayments could purchase homes, cars or even receive credit cards. Auto leases are also bundled into securities. Investors looking for yield gladly buy, even demand, these products, especially funds, pensions and municipalities.

We may be heading back to the 1950s as investors have had enough of these vehicles. This means that home prices have to fall to levels where the average person can afford to make a 20% downpayment and make payments with "normal" interest rates, rather than teaser rates on adjustable-rate mortgages.

Middle class peopel will no longer be able to afford the $45,000 Tahoe if they must put down real money and take out a loan instead of a lease. People will be buying $24,000 vehicles, vehicles which are unprofitable for the Detroit Three at current wage and benefit levels.

Before anyone bashes the markets for adding pain to there lives, remember, the reason you have a home, car and eletcronics which are probably more expensive than you can really afford is because of the markets and investor demand for yield at all levels.

You'll need to log in to post.

Our Preferred Partners
EwUqjGoFksrbXhZ2vb1fkQVU8cHzSDRP0rWETEKRLaENvjZmwKc1Q85DQXMVznAG