SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (168185)2/5/2021 6:29:58 PM
From: TobagoJack  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 218012
 
Haim, you missed four words

<<I do expect such incidents to happen again and again and again and regulators are helpless as the BIG WS firms made also a lot of money and from my knowledge they are all looking out for an easy prey without naming names.>>

I am guessing because the stimulus shall happen again and again and again ...

bloomberg.com

Why Is Larry Summers So Worried About Covid Relief?

Spending on stimulus now need not crowd out spending on infrastructure later.
Karl W. Smith
6 February 2021, 04:16 GMT+8


It’s OK to worry about risks, but not too much.

Photographer: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg

Karl W. Smith is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He was formerly vice president for federal policy at the Tax Foundation and assistant professor of economics at the University of North Carolina. He is also co-founder of the economics blog Modeled Behavior.
Read more opinion Follow @karlbykarlsmith on Twitter

LISTEN TO ARTICLE
Larry Summers is concerned that President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion Covid relief package is too big. What makes his point especially noteworthy — besides the fact that he is Larry Summers — is that he also readily admits that former President Barack Obama’s 2009 stimulus, of which he was one of the main architects, was too small.

This time he says, is different. He has crunched the numbers and concluded that the 2021 economy needs far less help than the 2009 economy did — yet Biden’s plan would provide about triple the boost of Obama’s. That’s overkill by any reasonable assessment, and Summers says it raises serious risks.

It’s worth taking a moment, however, to articulate just what kinds of risks it creates.

If the government provides “too much” stimulus, then the demand for goods and services could exceed what the U.S. economy (even once it is recovered from the pandemic) is capable of supplying. The limiting factor is labor: not just workers, but the hours they are willing and able to work.

So what then? Maybe, as in 2018 and 2019, unemployment will be driven lower than thought possible. Those who have previously given up hope will be drawn back into the work force. Employers will be willing to take a chance on applicants they would have otherwise turned away.

Yet, if Summers is right, businesses still won’t be able to meet consumer demand. As problems go, this one starts off better than most.

The downside is that if both a labor shortage and excess consumer demand persist, they could set off a wage-price spiral. Some employers would be forced to raise wages in order attract more workers, then have to raise prices to cover the higher costs. And because there aren’t enough workers to go around, other employers would have to raise wages and prices as well. This dynamic would eventually lead to ever-higher prices and an increase in inflation.

As Summers well knows, however, sustained inflation would only come if the economy were continuously overstimulated. Otherwise, the most likely outcome is a short-term bump in the inflation rate — one that the Federal Reserve would almost certainly welcome.

Summers’s more substantive objection is that spending on stimulus now might crowd out spending on infrastructure later. To his credit, over the last several years he has been consistent on the need for more and better spending on public infrastructure.

He was early in pointing out that the U.S. economy had slipped into secular stagnation, a sort of bizarro world in which the private sector’s willingness to invest is so low that savers can’t find anyone who wants to borrow their money. Interest rates drop to zero, the Fed has a hard time combating any shocks to financial system and the economy is persistently vulnerable to recession. Businesses become even more trepidatious about major investments, reinforcing the cycle.

Huge investments in public infrastructure, as Summers is fond of suggesting, is one way out of this trap. Another is to encourage greater private-sector investment, which was one of the purposes of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which Summers opposed.

Yet another way out is to do precisely what Biden is suggesting now: Stimulate consumer demand so intensely that businesses will not only be clamoring to expand, but also increasing investment in labor-saving technology. Yet Summers is concerned that there has not been “careful consideration of risks and how they can be mitigated.”

Summers’s concern appears to be that if secular stagnation is cured by private-sector spending and investment, support for public-sector spending and investment will decline. That’s a logical fear, but it’s not clear it is correct. A rapidly growing economy is likely to dampen voter concerns about the deficit.

More important, the type of long-term investments that Summers favors are precisely the ones that could use a more holistic cost-benefit analysis. It’s entirely appropriate to ask if major infrastructure projects — or universal preschool, for that matter — will provide a return on investment that society is willing to finance for decades if not longer.

The point is this: It doesn’t make sense to avoid solving near-term problems because doing so may make solving long-term problems more expensive. Instead, Congress should pass the stimulus, get the economy on the road to recovery and then begin a robust and necessary debate on how to address the economy’s deeper structural flaws.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story:
Karl W. Smith at ksmith602@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Michael Newman at mnewman43@bloomberg.net

Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal.
LEARN MORE



To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (168185)2/5/2021 7:19:24 PM
From: TobagoJack  Respond to of 218012
 
Re <<yes it is more to the story but the real run-up was driven by other hedge funds>>

zerohedge.com

The Curious Case Of The Hedge Fund That Made $700 Million On GameStop


BY TYLER DURDEN

FRIDAY, FEB 05, 2021 - 15:45

While retail was "sticking it to the suits" - the actual suits at hedge fund Senvest Management were about to net a cool $700 million on GameStop's run higher. Why? Because GME was the largest Senvest holding as of Oct 7, an oddity considering many within the hedge fund world at the time viewed it as a potential bankruptcy candidate - hardly a prudent move from a fiduciary standpoint, unless Senvest had a plan... and boy did it have a plan.



But let's back up.

Senvest principles, Richard Mashaal and Brian Gonick, started buying GSE stock equity in September, the Wall Street Journal report reveals, just weeks before they had accumulated a massive 3.6 million shares making Gamestop the fund's largest holding. Mashaal told the Journal: “When it started its march, we thought, something’s percolating here. But we had no idea how crazy this thing was going to get.”

In retrospect, he just might have had an idea.

GameStop turned into the firm's most profitable ever investment by dollars earned and IRR. Senvest's fund has ballooned from $1.6 billion to $2.4 billion as a result of GameStop's move and, for the month of January, the fund was up 38.4%. Gamestop is also the reason why Senvest is currently the top performing fund tracked by HSBC's popular Hedge Weekly report.



Thomas Peterffy, chairman of Interactive Brokers, noted what many had suspected: “It is not just little people on the long side here. There are huge players playing both sides of GameStop.”


Richard Mashaal, left, and Brian Gonick made $700 million in GameStop in just three months. He was right. Senvest says their interest in the name was "piqued by a presentation from the new GameStop chief executive at a consumer investment conference in January 2020." The Journal writes:

But as they spoke with management, sussed out competitors and noted the involvement of activists in the stock, including Chewy Inc. co-founder Ryan Cohen, they eventually started buying. By the end of October, Senvest owned more than 5% of the company, paying under $10 a share for the bulk of the stock.
They thought that if GameStop could hold on until the next generation of videogame consoles came out and stoked demand for games and accessories, the company would get a boost. And they reasoned that if Mr. Cohen could help transform GameStop from a largely bricks-and-mortar operation into an online gaming destination, the company could be worth far more.


Sure there are fundamentals, but we doubt that was the reason for the accelerated accumulation of GME stock by Senvest. Something tells us there were other factors that prompted the urgent buying spree, especially since the original "short burn of the century" article on Reddit which sparked the retail interest in the name, appeared in early September right around the time Senvest started acquiring shares, according to the Journal. One almost wonder if the two aren't linked.

The post reads: "Sup gamblers. Feel bad about missing the gain train on TSLA? Fear not - something much greater and stupider is here. You know Citadel? The MM that took all our money today? Well now we finally won’t be at the mercy of the MMs. Instead, we’re going to temporarily join forces with the Galactic Empire and hijack the death star."

The post then launches into a relatively sophisticated explanation of the hows and whys of orchestrating a short squeeze:

The this turn around is going to make TSLA's short burn look like warm afternoon tea.
Why? Well, most short squeezes are mostly math. This one is special because we have math AND great underlying news.
To be clear, this will happen whether or not we participate. I prefer us idiots to be a part of history. Here’s what’s up:
Short interest:
GME currently has between 85% - 99.8% short interest, depending on what site you use. For context, 20% is already considered high as the moon. TSLA and NFLX were around 30-40% at their peak. But GME’S ACTUAL SHORT INTEREST IS OVER 110%.
Here is a simple way of framing the timeline:


Just a few months later, in December the GameStop long thesis got a major boost among both the retail (outside of WSB) as well as C-grade institutional community, when Hedgeye, which sells research to clients, pitched the name.

On Dec. 17, when GME stock closed at $14.83, Hedgeye told its clients that GameStop was one of their "Best Ideas" and held a presentation as to why the equity, then trading at $14.83 could eventually be worth $100. What Hedgeye's clients did not know - according to the WSJ - is that Senvest had pitched the idea to them.

Of course, for Hedgeye it would be a knockout blow if it emerged that the firm wasn't an "independent provider of research" but middle-man and facilitator for hedge funds who had put on trades and then used Hedgeye's client network as an amplification system... similar to what many accuse hedge funds of doing to r/wallstreetbets right now. Which is why the advisory denied that the upgrade was promptly solely by Senvest's whispers (we can only assume that Senvest is also a client): “I respect Senvest a lot. We vetted it independently and we came up with a similar conclusion,” said Hedgeye analyst Brian McGough said.

In any case, by late December - between wallstreetbets and Hedgeye clients, the thesis was already widely spreading among the retail community, a process that would eventually culminate with the explosion of the stock price in late January. Why? Because the prevailing narrative was one where one or more hedge funds would never be able to cover their shorts because there was not enough short available in the float to cover, a process the world first encountered with Volkswagen, leading to a huge squeeze.

A squeeze, incidentally, which Senvest was all too familiar with. The WSJ writes:

Messrs. Mashaal and Gonick had been on the wrong end of short squeezes before at Senvest. One case was with opioid maker Insys Therapeutics Inc., though they ultimately made money on their short position. GameStop’s stock could soar if it got caught up in a situation in which its rising price forced bearish investors to start buying back shares to curb their losses, they thought.

They thought... and they were right. All they needed was the critical mass of buyers to ramp an initial buying cascade which would then trigger the squeeze and the rest is history. That's precisely what happened in mid to late January, when the stock price exploded from $20 to over $500.

Unable to believe their eyes (or perhaps knowing precisely how such a massive short squeeze would play out) Senvest was just waiting for the catalyst to dump it all. They got it on on January 26, when Tesla CEO Elon Musk joined the stock-pumping fray and Tweeted out: "GameStonk!!".

“Given what was going on, it was hard to imagine it getting crazier,” Senvest's Mashaal concluded.


So just a series of very lucky coincidences leading up to a record, $700 million payday, or a masterfully executed plan that was laid out and executed far better than most Hollywood scripts?

We hope to have the answer once Congress holds its Gamestop hearings, although considering that Maxine Waters is in charge we won't be holding our breath.