4 Unknown Stocks Being Bought Up By Hedge Funds [View article]
CJES is primarily involved in oil fracking. Their natural gas exposure is limited to liquids, it does not dry frack. The short float is enormous right now, could be poised for a big squeeze.
Revisited: The Case For Manipulation Of Sears Holdings [View article]
From a previous article of mine:
"Instead of addressing the real estate, Lampert pursued a series of aggressive buybacks. SHLD has spent over $4.7 billion dollars on share buybacks in the last five years ($2.9b - 2007 $678m - 2008, $490m - 2009 , $471m - 2010 $183m - 2011) instead of investing in their stores ($2.3b in capex over the same period)."
Yeah, and AZO and AN, two other Lampert companies, have been doing the same thing. It worked a little better with Autozone. It only helps for so long in terms of share price and definitely hurts the operation itself.
Revisited: The Case For Manipulation Of Sears Holdings [View article]
I would say much of it can be attributed to the very high institutional ownership. Especially when you saw large price jumps on very few shares during the run up. It didn't take much to make SHLD move, and it seemed like any sales were buffered with buy orders. That buffering has disappeared since the March expiration of options.
SHLD is an interesting case to make note of for the the future. When you have a high institutional ownership mixed with a high short float the price volatility can be huge. The shorts were getting burned and if anyone wanted to short the premiums were very high because the owners were not allowing their shares to be borrowed. I see no compelling argument for the rise to have originated with retail investors or groups who felt Sears was really turning things around.
Revisited: The Case For Manipulation Of Sears Holdings [View article]
Retail investor: "Of course it's going to go back down, look how low it's rating is." Only a known liar can be deceitful when telling the truth. It is theoretically worth less, but in reality is worth more in the sense that it's price is much higher.
Revisited: The Case For Manipulation Of Sears Holdings [View article]
Not likely. Some form of direct evidence would have to come out like an email from Lampert to Blankfein, and these guys aren't dumb enough to do something like this. Someone would have to get sloppy if there is an illegal manipulation occuring. The SEC needs more than speculation or comparisons to research studies.
Revisited: The Case For Manipulation Of Sears Holdings [View article]
Groups of people are manipulating the stock to specific levels in order to maximize their own profits via options. An option market maker would stand to gain from a max pain expiration. Goldman Sachs is an option market maker (among others). The funds who are holding the stocks are acting abnormally when compared to the statistics in the various studies I've read/quoted from. Also, the stock is up 2.56 right now which puts it at 74.33. As I stated in the article:
According to OptionCalc, the max pain for the 3/30/12 weekly options is $75, with $77.5 a close second.
Failing to deliver can be used as a strategy for an options market maker to increase the price of a stock, the b/a spread, and premium on the options. Their failures are not penalized in the same manner as a retail investor because of the order in which demands for delivery are processed. I plan on explaining that more in the next article.
Sears Holdings: A Comparison To Manipulated Stocks [View article]
I'm not saying Lampert was involved in that. I brought up the Deep Capture article to highlight that SHLD may have been manipulated in the past. This may have been people outside of SHLD who wanted to bring it down or swing it for trades (assuming it was purposely done). For all we know the huge drop at the end of last year was naked shorters attacking SHLD and had nothing to do with Lampert. As I have no way of knowing who these outside parties may be or may have been, Lampert and Berkowitz are the most likely (or most capable) candidates for organizing a movement due to their involvement in SHLD. As I said there is no direct evidence to support their involvement. I merely followed the money, which leads to two hedge fund managers and Goldman Sachs.
"Are you implying that Lampert bought up SHLD to squeeze the short positions so that he could then make money by selling naked shorts to people desperate to short the stock?"
It's possible, but I have no evidence whatsoever to say that Lampert was involved in this. The Deep Capture link was a topic on stock manipulation which already tied into Sears.
"but why would Lampert be engaged in this?"
Why would Lampert tank the stock? Pure speculation here, but buy low and sell high. The fundamentals support a drop in the price, why not take control of the inevitable and make a profit from it? Nothing to support this claim at all but SHLD does not appear to be flowing with an efficient market. The stock is obviously a speculation play at this point.
Sears Holdings: A Comparison To Manipulated Stocks [View article]
I just wonder how much his plan has changed. You could say that his intentions changed with the economic downturn but he has never operated SHLD like a retail business. The recent rise is step N of step N+X, the question is how far along he is in his plan, and how much is left. Maybe he does something similar and acquires a more profitable business with the cash he's making from store closings, so that they help offset the future losses from them. I'm still curious about Eddie starting a position in iStar Financial (SFI), a commercial real estate firm.
Sears Holdings: A Comparison To Manipulated Stocks [View article]
I would say the fall it experienced last year is just as questionable as the rise this year. The difference is the fall was surrounded by possible bankruptcy and store closings, though it was still quite drastic. The failure to deliver method has also been cited in cases where people believed a stock was 'attacked' and driven down. Perhaps if there was some illegal manipulation it only occurred in the fall, and the rise is a natural response to it. Obviously there is no proof either way, I just thought it was an interesting stock to analyze in light of the papers I read.
Sears Holdings: A Comparison To Manipulated Stocks [View article]
What I'd like to know is if there are other examples in the past of stocks with such poor fundamentals rising in this manner? I would like to be able to compare SHLD to another stock but I have yet to find one with similar parameters.
Sears Holdings: A Comparison To Manipulated Stocks [View article]
Yeah that's a very tentative possibility. It's way too expensive right now but I figured I should put that on there as way of saying which side I'm on. I don't think it's run will be sustained in the future, but I'm not going to pay extreme premiums just to get a piece of it.
4 Unknown Stocks Being Bought Up By Hedge Funds [View article]
Revisited: The Case For Manipulation Of Sears Holdings [View article]
"Instead of addressing the real estate, Lampert pursued a series of aggressive buybacks. SHLD has spent over $4.7 billion dollars on share buybacks in the last five years ($2.9b - 2007 $678m - 2008, $490m - 2009 , $471m - 2010 $183m - 2011) instead of investing in their stores ($2.3b in capex over the same period)."
Yeah, and AZO and AN, two other Lampert companies, have been doing the same thing. It worked a little better with Autozone. It only helps for so long in terms of share price and definitely hurts the operation itself.
Revisited: The Case For Manipulation Of Sears Holdings [View article]
SHLD is an interesting case to make note of for the the future. When you have a high institutional ownership mixed with a high short float the price volatility can be huge. The shorts were getting burned and if anyone wanted to short the premiums were very high because the owners were not allowing their shares to be borrowed. I see no compelling argument for the rise to have originated with retail investors or groups who felt Sears was really turning things around.
Revisited: The Case For Manipulation Of Sears Holdings [View article]
Revisited: The Case For Manipulation Of Sears Holdings [View article]
Revisited: The Case For Manipulation Of Sears Holdings [View article]
According to OptionCalc, the max pain for the 3/30/12 weekly options is $75, with $77.5 a close second.
Failing to deliver can be used as a strategy for an options market maker to increase the price of a stock, the b/a spread, and premium on the options. Their failures are not penalized in the same manner as a retail investor because of the order in which demands for delivery are processed. I plan on explaining that more in the next article.
Sears Holdings: A Comparison To Manipulated Stocks [View article]
"Are you implying that Lampert bought up SHLD to squeeze the short positions so that he could then make money by selling naked shorts to people desperate to short the stock?"
It's possible, but I have no evidence whatsoever to say that Lampert was involved in this. The Deep Capture link was a topic on stock manipulation which already tied into Sears.
"but why would Lampert be engaged in this?"
Why would Lampert tank the stock? Pure speculation here, but buy low and sell high. The fundamentals support a drop in the price, why not take control of the inevitable and make a profit from it? Nothing to support this claim at all but SHLD does not appear to be flowing with an efficient market. The stock is obviously a speculation play at this point.
Sears Holdings: A Comparison To Manipulated Stocks [View article]
Sears Holdings: A Comparison To Manipulated Stocks [View article]
Sears Holdings: A Comparison To Manipulated Stocks [View article]
Sears Holdings: A Comparison To Manipulated Stocks [View article]
Sears Holdings: A Comparison To Manipulated Stocks [View article]
Sears Holdings: A Comparison To Manipulated Stocks [View article]
Sears Holdings: A Comparison To Manipulated Stocks [View article]
Sears: The Poor Life At A High Price [View article]