Stocks and Bonds

More stories

  • 150 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Why Tackling Gamestop's Wild Stock Rise Will be a Challenge for Gensler

    by

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }GameStop vs. Wall StreetCharting the Wild Stock SwingsWhat’s GameStop Really Worth?Your TaxesReader’s GuideAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyGensler Faces Big Challenge in Tackling GameStop’s Wild RideThere is broad agreement that the capital markets have been distorted but less consensus on what, if anything, the S.E.C. should do about it.Unlike the fraud or manipulation that regulators like Gary Gensler are used to pursuing, the GameStop frenzy involves investors who have publicly acknowledged the risks they are taking.Credit…Kayana Szymczak for The New York TimesFeb. 1, 2021Updated 4:13 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — During his last regulatory stint in Washington, Gary Gensler focused on reining in big Wall Street players that he believed were manipulating markets and assuming huge financial positions to the detriment of other investors.If confirmed to lead the Securities and Exchange Commission, Mr. Gensler will have to confront an entirely new spin on that same game: Thousands of small investors who have banded together to amass giant stakes in GameStop and other companies with the aim of toppling big Wall Street players.The frenzy around GameStop, whose stock has soared 1,700 percent in the last month, presents a huge challenge for Mr. Gensler and the S.E.C., which will have to reckon with a fundamental shift in the capital markets as a new breed of investor begins trading stocks in unconventional ways and for unconventional reasons.Rather than snapping up a company’s shares because of a belief in that firm’s growth potential, the investors who piled into GameStop, AMC, BlackBerry and others did so largely to see how far they could drive up the price. Their motivation in many cases had less to do with making money than with causing steep financial losses for big hedge funds that were on the other side of that trade and had bet that the price of GameStop and other firms would fall.Their ability to cause such wild market volatility was enabled by new financial apps — like Robinhood — that encourage investors to trade frequently and allow them to buy risky financial products like options as easily as they purchase a latte. Options — which are essentially contracts that give the investor the option to buy a stock at a certain price in the future — were what helped put the “short squeeze” on the hedge funds that had shorted the company’s stock.“What’s going on with GameStop has almost nothing to do with GameStop as a company,” said Barbara Roper, director of investor protection for the Consumer Federation of America. “When you see the markets essentially turned into a video game or turned into a casino, that actually has some pretty serious repercussions for the way we use the markets to fund our economy.”The question for Mr. Gensler and the S.E.C. will be what they can — or should — do about it.In a statement on Friday, the S.E.C. said that it was “closely monitoring” the situation and that it would “act to protect retail investors when the facts demonstrate abusive or manipulative trading activity that is prohibited by the federal securities laws.”But unlike the typical type of fraud or manipulation that regulators like Mr. Gensler are used to pursuing, the current frenzy involves investors who have publicly acknowledged the risks they are taking and even boasted about losses. Forums like Reddit’s WallStreetBets have entire threads devoted to “loss porn,” where traders post screenshots showing their portfolios in the red, to applause from other investors. (“I’m proud of you” and “Respect” are among the typical responses.)That dynamic poses a challenge for an agency whose primary mission is to protect investors by ensuring they have enough information when deciding whether to trade and to enforce securities laws that were written before many of the GameStop investors were even born.“The S.E.C. has for years worried about hedge funds coordinating their positions and coordinating bear raids and otherwise engaging in activities to move around a stock,” said Tyler Gellasch, a former S.E.C. lawyer who heads the Healthy Markets Association, an investor group. “There are reporting requirements around that. But we’ve never really thought about that being done en masse and in public. The S.E.C.’s rules haven’t thought about what happens when it’s 100,000 people coordinating via Reddit versus three people coordinating via email.”Those who know Mr. Gensler say his first move will probably be determining what actually caused the momentum and who benefited. While many big hedge funds got crushed by the trades, there is speculation among market participants and securities lawyers that other big funds may have been fueling — and making money off — some of the volatility.“First of all, the S.E.C. has got to figure out what the hell was going on,” said James Cox, a securities professor at Duke University School of Law. “The first question is going to be an empirical one — how much of this momentum was created by the hedge funds having to cover their short position and how much of the rest was the impact of the options trading — either buying the options or just executing on the options.”A bigger issue for Mr. Gensler will be figuring out corrective actions. While the stock market has always been something of a game, Mr. Cox and others say the recent events have perverted their original purpose, which is to provide a place for companies to raise capital by giving investors the information they need to determine where to put their money.“When you see what’s happening with GameStop, you ask yourself, is this manipulation, is this mass psychosis or is there something wrong in our market structure that is causing this to happen,” said James Angel, a finance professor at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business. “This does illustrate some of the imperfections in our market structure and the real question is what, if anything, should be done about it.”Mr. Gensler has spent the past several years teaching at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, focusing on financial technology, cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology. His classes have addressed some of the knotty issues he will have to face if confirmed to the S.E.C., including the rise of new financial technology companies like Robinhood and the so-called roboadviser Betterment.In a 2019 discussion at M.I.T., Mr. Gensler said it would be “best to show some flexibility” when considering whether to regulate fintech companies since heavy-handed rules could snuff out innovation. Mr. Gensler declined to be interviewed for this article.If confirmed to the job, Mr. Gensler will have to tread carefully. The motivation behind the GameStop squeeze has been embraced by lawmakers and others, who see the trades as a welcome rebellion against the power of big Wall Street players and persistent inequities in the economy. Last week, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, a progressive Democrat, and Senator Ted Cruz, a conservative Texas Republican, both condemned efforts by Robinhood to restrict trading in GameStop and other companies, saying the firm was putting the interests of hedge funds above small investors.Other lawmakers are warning against overreacting with more regulation. “When examining this episode, regulators and Congress should tread with extreme caution and avoid needlessly inserting themselves into equity markets,” Senator Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, said in a statement.Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, said in an interview that simply blocking retail investors from certain stocks was the wrong decision and that Mr. Gensler should look to the bigger fish — namely lightly regulated hedge funds — when looking for areas to regulate.“We probably need to increase the capital requirements on short-selling for hedge funds, to make it more difficult,” Mr. Khanna said.That is an area that will be more familiar to Mr. Gensler, who spent his tenure as chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission trying to stop big Wall Street firms from manipulating markets. That included bringing dozens of enforcement cases against big banks, which were accused of manipulating key rates that help determine certain prices across the financial system, including benchmark interest rates and foreign exchange rates.Dan Berkovitz, a C.F.T.C. commissioner who served as general counsel under Mr. Gensler, said breaking up “the old boy network” was a major focus during their time at the agency.“He wanted to break that whole culture up and introduce a culture of competition instead of a cozy coexistence,” Mr. Berkovitz said. “That was his philosophy, and coming from Goldman he saw from the inside how that worked.”Mr. Gensler, whose confirmation hearing has not yet been scheduled, will face pressure to bring a similar focus to the S.E.C. On Sunday, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, said the GameStop episode underlined that S.E.C. regulators needed to “get off their duffs” and work to make the market more transparent. Among other things, she said new regulations should halt company stock buybacks for the purpose of pushing up share prices.“In the long run, if we have a market that is transparent, that’s level, that helps individual investors come into that market and, frankly, helps make that market more efficient,” she said on CNN’s State of the Union. “The hedge funds, many of the giant corporations, they love the fact that the markets are not efficient.”“GameStop is just the latest ringing of the bell that we have a real problem on Wall Street,” Ms. Warren said. “It’s time to fix it.”Jeanna Smialek contributed reporting.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • 113 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Gensler Faces Big Challenge in Tackling GameStop’s Wild Ride

    by

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }GameStop vs. Wall StreetCharting the Wild Stock SwingsThe Man Behind the Frenzy4 Things to KnowYour TaxesAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyGensler Faces Big Challenge in Tackling GameStop’s Wild RideThere is broad agreement that the capital markets have been distorted but less consensus on what, if anything, the S.E.C. should do about it.Unlike the fraud or manipulation that regulators like Gary Gensler are used to pursuing, the GameStop frenzy involves investors who have publicly acknowledged the risks they are taking.Credit…Kayana Szymczak for The New York TimesFeb. 1, 2021, 3:00 a.m. ETWASHINGTON — During his last regulatory stint in Washington, Gary Gensler focused on reining in big Wall Street players that he believed were manipulating markets and assuming huge financial positions to the detriment of other investors.If confirmed to lead the Securities and Exchange Commission, Mr. Gensler will have to confront an entirely new spin on that same game: Thousands of small investors who have banded together to amass giant stakes in GameStop and other companies with the aim of toppling big Wall Street players.The frenzy around GameStop, whose stock has soared 1,700 percent in the last month, presents a huge challenge for Mr. Gensler and the S.E.C., which will have to reckon with a fundamental shift in the capital markets as a new breed of investor begins trading stocks in unconventional ways and for unconventional reasons.Rather than snapping up a company’s shares because of a belief in that firm’s growth potential, the investors who piled into GameStop, AMC, BlackBerry and others did so largely to see how far they could drive up the price. Their motivation in many cases had less to do with making money than with causing steep financial losses for big hedge funds that were on the other side of that trade and had bet that the price of GameStop and other firms would fall.Their ability to cause such wild market volatility was enabled by new financial apps — like Robinhood — that encourage investors to trade frequently and allow them to buy risky financial products like options as easily as they purchase a latte. Options — which are essentially contracts that give the investor the option to buy a stock at a certain price in the future — were what helped put the “short squeeze” on the hedge funds that had shorted the company’s stock.“What’s going on with GameStop has almost nothing to do with GameStop as a company,” said Barbara Roper, director of investor protection for the Consumer Federation of America. “When you see the markets essentially turned into a video game or turned into a casino, that actually has some pretty serious repercussions for the way we use the markets to fund our economy.”The question for Mr. Gensler and the S.E.C. will be what they can — or should — do about it.In a statement on Friday, the S.E.C. said that it was “closely monitoring” the situation and that it would “act to protect retail investors when the facts demonstrate abusive or manipulative trading activity that is prohibited by the federal securities laws.”But unlike the typical type of fraud or manipulation that regulators like Mr. Gensler are used to pursuing, the current frenzy involves investors who have publicly acknowledged the risks they are taking and even boasted about losses. Forums like Reddit’s WallStreetBets have entire threads devoted to “loss porn,” where traders post screenshots showing their portfolios in the red, to applause from other investors. (“I’m proud of you” and “Respect” are among the typical responses.)That dynamic poses a challenge for an agency whose primary mission is to protect investors by ensuring they have enough information when deciding whether to trade and to enforce securities laws that were written before many of the GameStop investors were even born.“The S.E.C. has for years worried about hedge funds coordinating their positions and coordinating bear raids and otherwise engaging in activities to move around a stock,” said Tyler Gellasch, a former S.E.C. lawyer who heads the Healthy Markets Association, an investor group. “There are reporting requirements around that. But we’ve never really thought about that being done en masse and in public. The S.E.C.’s rules haven’t thought about what happens when it’s 100,000 people coordinating via Reddit versus three people coordinating via email.”Those who know Mr. Gensler say his first move will probably be determining what actually caused the momentum and who benefited. While many big hedge funds got crushed by the trades, there is speculation among market participants and securities lawyers that other big funds may have been fueling — and making money off — some of the volatility.“First of all, the S.E.C. has got to figure out what the hell was going on,” said James Cox, a securities professor at Duke University School of Law. “The first question is going to be an empirical one — how much of this momentum was created by the hedge funds having to cover their short position and how much of the rest was the impact of the options trading — either buying the options or just executing on the options.”A bigger issue for Mr. Gensler will be figuring out corrective actions. While the stock market has always been something of a game, Mr. Cox and others say the recent events have perverted their original purpose, which is to provide a place for companies to raise capital by giving investors the information they need to determine where to put their money.“When you see what’s happening with GameStop, you ask yourself, is this manipulation, is this mass psychosis or is there something wrong in our market structure that is causing this to happen,” said James Angel, a finance professor at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business. “This does illustrate some of the imperfections in our market structure and the real question is what, if anything, should be done about it.”Mr. Gensler has spent the past several years teaching at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, focusing on financial technology, cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology. His classes have addressed some of the knotty issues he will have to face if confirmed to the S.E.C., including the rise of new financial technology companies like Robinhood and the so-called roboadviser Betterment.In a 2019 discussion at M.I.T., Mr. Gensler said it would be “best to show some flexibility” when considering whether to regulate fintech companies since heavy-handed rules could snuff out innovation. Mr. Gensler declined to be interviewed for this article.If confirmed to the job, Mr. Gensler will have to tread carefully. The motivation behind the GameStop squeeze has been embraced by lawmakers and others, who see the trades as a welcome rebellion against the power of big Wall Street players and persistent inequities in the economy. Last week, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, a progressive Democrat, and Senator Ted Cruz, a conservative Texas Republican, both condemned efforts by Robinhood to restrict trading in GameStop and other companies, saying the firm was putting the interests of hedge funds above small investors.Other lawmakers are warning against overreacting with more regulation. “When examining this episode, regulators and Congress should tread with extreme caution and avoid needlessly inserting themselves into equity markets,” Senator Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, said in a statement.Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, said in an interview that simply blocking retail investors from certain stocks was the wrong decision and that Mr. Gensler should look to the bigger fish — namely lightly regulated hedge funds — when looking for areas to regulate.“We probably need to increase the capital requirements on short-selling for hedge funds, to make it more difficult,” Mr. Khanna said.That is an area that will be more familiar to Mr. Gensler, who spent his tenure as chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission trying to stop big Wall Street firms from manipulating markets. That included bringing dozens of enforcement cases against big banks, which were accused of manipulating key rates that help determine certain prices across the financial system, including benchmark interest rates and foreign exchange rates.Dan Berkovitz, a C.F.T.C. commissioner who served as general counsel under Mr. Gensler, said breaking up “the old boy network” was a major focus during their time at the agency.“He wanted to break that whole culture up and introduce a culture of competition instead of a cozy coexistence,” Mr. Berkovitz said. “That was his philosophy, and coming from Goldman he saw from the inside how that worked.”Mr. Gensler, whose confirmation hearing has not yet been scheduled, will face pressure to bring a similar focus to the S.E.C. On Sunday, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, said the GameStop episode underlined that S.E.C. regulators needed to “get off their duffs” and work to make the market more transparent. Among other things, she said new regulations should halt company stock buybacks for the purpose of pushing up share prices.“In the long run, if we have a market that is transparent, that’s level, that helps individual investors come into that market and, frankly, helps make that market more efficient,” she said on CNN’s State of the Union. “The hedge funds, many of the giant corporations, they love the fact that the markets are not efficient.”“GameStop is just the latest ringing of the bell that we have a real problem on Wall Street,” Ms. Warren said. “It’s time to fix it.”Jeanna Smialek contributed reporting.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • 138 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Robinhood, in Need of Cash, Raises $1 Billion From Its Investors

    by

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }GameStop vs. Wall StreetBeating Wall Street4 Things to KnowUnderstanding Stock OptionsA Long Time ComingAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyRobinhood, in Need of Cash, Raises $1 Billion From Its InvestorsThe no-fee trading app, which is popular with young investors, has been strained by the high volume of trading this week in stocks such as GameStop.Increased trading has forced Robinhood to seek additional funding.Credit…Amy Lombard for The New York TimesøKate Kelly, Erin Griffith, Andrew Ross Sorkin and Jan. 29, 2021Updated 6:07 a.m. ETFacing an onslaught of demands on its cash amid a stock market frenzy, Robinhood, the online trading app, said on Thursday that it was raising an infusion of more than $1 billion from its existing investors.Robinhood, one of the largest online brokerages, has grappled with an extraordinarily high volume of trading this week as individual investors have piled into stocks like GameStop. That activity has put a strain on Robinhood, which has to pay customers who are owed money from trades while posting additional cash to its clearing facility to insulate its trading partners from potential losses.On Thursday, Robinhood was forced to stop customers from buying a number of stocks like GameStop that were heavily traded this week. To continue operating, it drew on a line of credit from six banks amounting to between $500 million and $600 million to meet higher margin, or lending, requirements from its central clearing facility for stock trades, known as the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation.Robinhood still needed more cash quickly to ensure that it didn’t have to place further limits on customer trading, said two people briefed on the situation who insisted on remaining anonymous because the negotiations were confidential.Robinhood, which is privately held, contacted several of its investors, including the venture capital firms Sequoia Capital and Ribbit Capital, who came together on Thursday night to offer the emergency funding, five people involved in the negotiations said.“This is a strong sign of confidence from investors that will help us continue to further serve our customers,” Josh Drobnyk, a Robinhood spokesman, said in an email. Sequoia and Ribbit declined to comment.Investors who provide new financing to Robinhood will receive additional equity in the company. The investors will get that equity at a discounted valuation tied to the price of Robinhood shares when the company goes public, said two of the people. Robinhood plans to hold an initial public offering later this year, two people briefed on the plans said.Robinhood’s emergency fund-raising is the latest sign of how trading in the stock market has been upended this week.An online army of investors, who have been on a mission to challenge the dominance of Wall Street, rapidly bid up the price of stocks like GameStop, entrapping the big-money hedge funds that had bet against the stocks. Some of these individual investors have reaped huge profits, while at least one major hedge fund had to be bailed out after facing huge losses.Robinhood, which is based in Silicon Valley, has been key to empowering the online investors. Adoption of the app has soared in the pandemic as the stock market surged and people took up day trading in the void of other pastimes. The company has drawn in millions of young investors who have never traded before by offering no-fee trading and an app that critics have said makes buying stocks feel like an online game.Without fees, Robinhood makes money by passing its customer trades along to bigger brokerage firms, like Citadel, who pay Robinhood for the chance to fulfill its customer stock orders.In May, Robinhood said it had 13 million users. This week, it became the most-downloaded free app in Apple’s App Store, according to Apptopia, a data provider.Critics have accused the company of encouraging people to gamble on stock market movements and risk big losses. Brokerages including T. Rowe Price, Schwab and Fidelity have imitated Robinhood by lowering their trading fees to zero. Many of them were also hit by the crush of trading this week.Robinhood has had no trouble raising money over the last year, drawing $1.3 billion in venture capital backing and boosting its valuation to nearly $12 billion. Its other investors include the venture capital firm DST Capital, New Enterprise Associates, Index Ventures and Andreessen Horowitz.Yet the company has faced many issues, including fines from regulators for misleading customers. Last March, it raised more money after its app went down and left customers stranded and nursing big losses, leading to a still ongoing lawsuit.In recent weeks, many online investors have used Robinhood to make bets that pushed up the price of GameStop, AMC Entertainment and other stocks that had been widely shorted — or bet against — by hedge funds. That changed on Thursday after the company curbed customer trading in the most popular stocks. “As a brokerage firm, we have many financial requirements,” Robinhood said in a blog post Thursday. “Some of these requirements fluctuate based on volatility in the markets and can be substantial in the current environment.”In protest, hundreds of thousands of users joined a campaign to give Robinhood’s app the lowest one-star review and drive the company’s rating down. Some investors also sued Robinhood for the losses they sustained after the company cut off trading in certain stocks and several lawmakers urged regulators to exercise more scrutiny of the company.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • 175 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    The ‘Roaring Kitty’ Rally: How a Reddit User and His Friends Roiled the Markets

    by

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }GameStop vs. Wall StreetBeating Wall Street4 Things to KnowUnderstanding Stock OptionsA Long Time ComingAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyThe ‘Roaring Kitty’ Rally: How a Reddit User and His Friends Roiled the MarketsA Massachusetts man who goes by ‘Roaring Kitty’ on social media helped fuel the frenzy around GameStop. His $53,000 investment in the company briefly reached $48 million in value.Credit…Max-o-maticNathaniel Popper and Jan. 29, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETIn mid-2019, a Reddit user — known as “Roaring Kitty” on some social media accounts — posted a picture on an online forum depicting a single $53,000 investment in the video-game retailer GameStop.The post attracted little attention, except from a few people who mocked the bet on the struggling company. “This dude should sell now,” a Reddit user named cmcewen wrote at the time.But Roaring Kitty was not deterred. Over the next year, he began tweeting frequently about GameStop and making YouTube and TikTok videos about his investment. He also started livestreaming his financial ideas. Other Reddit users with monikers like Ackilles and Bowlerguy92 began following his every move and piling into GameStop.“IF HE IS IN WE ARE IN💎💎💎,” one user wrote on a Reddit board called WallStreetBets on Tuesday.Roaring Kitty — who is Keith Gill, 34, a former financial educator for an insurance firm in Massachusetts — has now become a central figure in this week’s stock market frenzy. Inspired by him and a small crew of individual investors who gathered around him, hordes of young online traders took GameStop’s stock on a wild ride, pitting themselves against sophisticated hedge funds and upending Wall Street’s norms in the process.Their actions — pushing up GameStop’s price by buying so-called options contracts that offer a cheap way to bet on a stock’s direction — have shocked established investors because Mr. Gill and his online comrades are the antithesis of the Wall Street titans who have long ruled the stock market.A screenshot of Keith Gill from his Roaring Kitty’s YouTube channel.Credit…via YoutubeWorking far from well-heeled financial offices, Mr. Gill and his fans socialized on Reddit and YouTube and used no-fee online trading platforms like Robinhood and WeBull. Many were so devoted to their GameStop investment that they spent hours each week chatting in the comments section of Mr. Gill’s videos, delving into the company’s financial filings and arcane details about free-cash flow and video game consoles.Their show of force this week underlines how the financial markets have changed by merging with the world of social media and a younger generation of traders who have been empowered by online platforms. It has also made some in this new generation wildly wealthy.On Tuesday, Mr. Gill posted a picture on Reddit that showed his $53,000 bet on GameStop had soared in value to $48 million. (His holdings could not be independently verified.) The post was “upvoted” — the equivalent of being liked — more than 140,000 times by other users. GameStop, which traded at $4 a year ago, closed on Thursday at $193 after reaching more than $480 earlier in the day.“Your example has literally changed the lives of thousands of ordinary normal people,” a Reddit user named reality_czech wrote this week to Mr. Gill. “Seriously thank you.”Larry Tabb, the head of market structure research at Bloomberg Intelligence, said the rise of traders like Mr. Gill “would have been impossible even a few years ago” because every trade came with a fee and there was less focus on the markets on social media. But with people now stuck at home in the pandemic with easy access to free trading at online brokerages, “these guys saw an opportunity and they took it,” he said.Mr. Gill did not respond to requests for comment. His online accounts and email addresses were tied to his old office in New Hampshire and his Massachusetts home. Mr. Gill’s mother, Elaine, confirmed in a brief phone call that her son was Roaring Kitty.“I’m proud,” she said, before hanging up.Mr. Gill’s life as Roaring Kitty began in 2014 when he started a limited liability company with that name. Before that, he was an All American runner in college who could cover a mile in 4 minutes 3 seconds, according to local newspapers. After graduating, he worked as a chartered financial accountant and a financial wellness educator, a recently deleted LinkedIn profile showed.In August 2019, he began posting on Reddit. Like many other Reddit users, he showed familiarity with memes and internet expressions like YOLO (you only live once) and exhibited a love for profanity. The middle letter of the acronym of his Reddit username, DFV, refers to an expletive. On YouTube, TikTok and Twitter, he went by Roaring Kitty.Mr. Gill’s first posts on WallStreetBets showed the screenshot of his E-Trade portfolio with the options trades he had made on GameStop, all of them betting the stock would go up. In the comments, he explained that Wall Street did not appreciate how much GameStop would benefit as new video game consoles were released.Shortly after Mr. Gill placed his trades, Michael Burry, an investor made famous by the Michael Lewis book “The Big Short,” also expressed interest in GameStop. On Reddit, Mr. Gill pointed to Mr. Burry’s post as validation. When others questioned the investment, Mr. Gill held firm.“Dude everyone thinks I’m crazy, and I think everyone else is crazy,” he responded to a commenter when GameStop announced sales had dropped 30 percent in late 2019.Last summer, Mr. Gill started a Roaring Kitty channel on YouTube where he talked for hours about GameStop. He had 418 YouTube subscribers through last November, according to the web tracking firm SocialBlade.In one of his first YouTube videos, he wondered aloud, “Maybe there’s going to be no one tuning in, so this is silly.”He explained that to avoid disturbing his 2-year-old daughter, he was filming in a basement room called the “Kitty Corner,” with a stuffed animal cat on the doorknob.Fast-talking and cracking jokes in between analyzing stocks, Mr. Gill sipped beer, brandished cigars and told viewers he sometimes used a Magic 8-Ball to guide his investments. He often wore a baseball cap over his long hair and a T-shirt with a cat in sunglasses.The comments section of his videos soon became a gathering place for a small group of other GameStop fans. One YouTube follower, Joe Fonicello, known as Toast on Twitter, said he tuned in from an old van that he was traveling across the country in with his girlfriend.Mr. Gill often posted pictures of his GameStop investment.Credit…via Youtube“She thought I was crazy until she heard the thesis” for what GameStop could be worth, said Mr. Fonicello, 21, who said he and his girlfriend’s investment in the stock has grown to over $250,000 this week from less than $10,000 originally.Mr. Fonicello said chatting with Mr. Gill and others online was not just about money. “What went from a great few hours of stock analysis turned into a few hours of just spreading positivity,” he said.Last August, Ryan Cohen, the founder of the pet food site Chewy.com, announced that he had taken a big stake in GameStop. A few weeks later, Mr. Gill’s investment hit $1 million, according to pictures he posted of his portfolio.Through financial filings, Mr. Gill’s crew also discovered that hedge funds such as Point72 and Citron Capital were betting that GameStop’s price would fall, in a maneuver known as short-selling. That angered them.“That’s your ignition switch. A common enemy, so to speak,” said Rod Alzmann, 31, a corporate strategist in Florida who has bet on GameStop for even longer than Mr. Gill and posted online as Uberkikz11. “The speculation is a rush, plus fighting the man.”In December, Mr. Gill’s wife made a cameo on YouTube when her hand appeared on a livestream to clink glasses with him to celebrate GameStop’s stock reaching $20. Mr. Gill wore a pink party hat and sunglasses and sipped what appeared to be champagne.“I certainly do not drive a Lambo,” he said in the video, referring to a Lamborghini. “We rent this house that you see, so it’s been a wild ride for us as a family.”Earlier this month, Mr. Cohen joined GameStop’s board. That caused the company’s stock to rise, enriching Mr. Gill and others. When Mr. Gill showed another picture of his investment on Jan. 13, some of the 44,200 people who looked at the post said his decision not to cash out even a penny of GameStop kept them going.“Daddy’s still in!” said a Reddit user named freehouse_throwaway. “Feels so good.”Late last week, 190,000 viewers tuned in to the Roaring Kitty YouTube channel, which now has more than 74,000 subscribers, as Mr. Gill, in a red bandanna and sunglasses, said he would be stepping away “for a bit.” That day, he livestreamed for seven hours while watching a chart of GameStop’s surging stock, laughing and calling out to longtime comrades in the comments.On Thursday, several online brokerages shut down trading in GameStop, causing the company’s price to plunge by almost two-thirds before steadying. Even ardent supporters wondered if Mr. Gill had finally caved and sold.Mr. Gill then posted another picture on Reddit showing he had stayed firm — and had lost $15 million. His fans cheered.“IF HE’S STILL IN, I’M STILL IN,” over 100 different followers responded in quick succession.Kitty Bennett contributed research.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • 138 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Who Owns Stocks? Explaining the Rise in Inequality During the Pandemic

    by

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Coronavirus OutbreakliveLatest UpdatesMaps and CasesVaccine InformationTimelineWuhan, One Year LaterAdvertisementContinue reading the main storyUpshotSupported byContinue reading the main storyWho Owns Stocks? Explaining the Rise in Inequality During the PandemicBad economies usually hurt both workers and investors. Only the first part has been true this time.Jan. 26, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETLast year featured a devastating public health crisis, an imploding job market, a heavy dose of political tumult and — surprisingly — a roaring stock market.Add it all up, and a major consequence was an expansion of inequality in a nation where economic disparity was already on the rise.It boils down to which groups were hurt most by the sinking parts of the economy and which ones benefited most from the rising share prices.In the brick-and-mortar part of the economy, lower-wage workers were disproportionately affected by the job losses. At the same time, Americans benefited from gains in share prices: both people who own individual stocks in brokerage accounts and those who own stocks in personal retirement accounts, like mutual fund IRAs, or in those offered by employers, such as 401(k)s.Yet that’s where even more disparity kicked in, an analysis of data from the Federal Reserve’s 2019 Survey of Consumer Finances shows. Although the distribution of income is unequal in the United States, ownership of financial assets in general and stocks in particular is even more so.
    [embedded content]The survey, conducted every three years, collects exhaustively detailed financial information from a sample of American “economic units” — we’ll call them families — including income, the types of assets they own and what those assets are worth.An analysis of this data shows that in 2019, the top 1 percent of Americans in wealth controlled about 38 percent of the value of financial accounts holding stocks. Widen the focus to include the top 10 percent, and you’ve found 84 percent of all of Wall Street portfolios’ value.Using the broadest definition of Wall Street involvement, which includes everything from workplace 401(k)s to mutual funds, just over half of American families have at least one financial account tied to the market, while just one in six report direct ownership of stock shares. Wealthier people are far more likely to have these accounts than middle-class families, who in turn are far more likely to be in the market than working-class or poor families.And the wealthy, not surprisingly, are more likely to have larger portfolios.A paper-napkin calculation that assumes all market participants averaged last year’s 16 percent gain in the S&P 500 would mean that American families fattened their portfolios by $4 trillion over all last year. But $3.4 trillion of that would have gone to just 10 percent of families, leaving the other 90 percent to split $600 billion.Beyond the gap in holdings between the very rich and the merely affluent, there is also a gap between the affluent and the middle class. Only half of households in the 40th-to-49th percentiles of net worth have any brokerage or retirement accounts that include stocks. But among households in the 80th-to-89th percentiles, 84 percent are invested in at least one holding.Wealth and the Role of Stock PricesWhen the market surged last year, wealthier families benefited more. Not only do they have larger portfolios than middle-class and poorer investors, but they also are far more likely to be invested in the market in the first place.Percent of families with investments by net worth percentile:
    [embedded content] Poorest group includes unsuccessful or highly leveraged investors with low net worth.Source: The New York TimesMoreover, the median portfolio size for households in that middle group was $13,000 in 2019, and so would have gained about $2,000 in last year’s market. The typical family in the wealthier group had $170,000 in the market and would have gained about $27,000 with a similar portfolio.These wealth differences are far starker than the inequality we usually talk about on the income ladder.The Coronavirus Outbreak More

  • 150 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Is Rivian the Next Tesla? Investors Bet Big on Electric Truck Maker

    by

    The Rivian factory in Normal, Ill. The company is hoping to cash in on the same opportunity that Tesla identified and has advanced: the electrification of transportation.Credit…Lyndon French for The New York TimesSkip to contentSkip to site indexThe Next Tesla? Investors Bet Big on Electric Truck Maker RivianRivian, which has raised another $2.65 billion, plans to sell a pickup truck and S.U.V. it has worked on for more than a decade.The Rivian factory in Normal, Ill. The company is hoping to cash in on the same opportunity that Tesla identified and has advanced: the electrification of transportation.Credit…Lyndon French for The New York TimesSupported byContinue reading the main storyJan. 19, 2021Updated 6:24 p.m. ETPLYMOUTH, Mich. — It’s hard to imagine any company matching Tesla’s rocketlike rise. But if any electric car start-up could aspire to be the “next Tesla,” it would be Rivian.Founded in 2009, Rivian is preparing to produce an electric pickup truck and a sport utility vehicle. Both models are supposed to be on the road by the summer and will be made in a former Mitsubishi plant in Illinois. Rivian is also developing electric delivery trucks for Amazon.What distinguishes Rivian, however, is its extraordinary roster of investors. Amazon is not just a customer; it has put a lot of money into Rivian. Others backers include BlackRock, Fidelity, T. Rowe Price and Ford Motor, which plans to introduce a vehicle based on Rivian’s technology.The latest injection of capital was revealed Tuesday, when Rivian said it had raised $2.65 billion from a group led by funds and accounts advised by T. Rowe Price. Other investors included Fidelity and Amazon’s Climate Pledge Fund. The investment round values the company at more than $27 billion, and brings the total investment in the company to $8 billion since the beginning of 2019.“We have been eagerly anticipating the arrival of 2021 and, with it, the exhilaration of Rivian starting to deliver its revolutionary products to customers,” Joseph Fath, a T. Rowe Price portfolio manager, said in a statement.A hefty war chest is no guarantee of success, and producing a new car from scratch is a monumental task for established automakers, let alone a start-up.“The process of creating something like this is anything but simple,” RJ Scaringe, Rivian’s founder and chief executive, said in an interview. “It’s a complex orchestra, several thousand parts coming from several hundred suppliers. It’s definitely far more complex than people think and far more complex than I thought it would be.”Rivian is hoping to cash in on the same opportunity that Tesla identified and has advanced — the electrification of transportation. To most auto executives, there is now little doubt this is the way the world is going. In the last five years, Tesla has gone from making 50,000 cars annually to making 10 times that many last year. General Motors, Ford, Volkswagen and others are investing billions to develop electric cars and trucks that eventually will begin supplanting fossil fuel models.“In my lifetime, we are going to go from a world where electric vehicles are a tiny subset of the market to where electric vehicles represent 100 percent of the market,” Mr. Scaringe said. “Some existing players will be able to make that transition, but it also creates opportunities for new companies to enter that space.”Another big trend reshaping the auto industry is autonomous cars. On Tuesday, Cruise, a unit of G.M. that is working in that area, announced it had raised $2 billion from Microsoft, G.M., Honda and other investors. Rivian and Tesla are also working on automated-driving technology.Rivian is different from Tesla in several respects. Tesla so far has grown by selling sporty sedans, a type of vehicle that is falling out of favor with consumers. Tesla intends to begin making an oddly angular, futuristic pickup, the Cybertruck, this year. But it hasn’t yet put heavy focus on the trucks and S.U.V.s that make up 75 percent of the passenger vehicle market in the United States.Rivian, on the other hand, is focused on producing “adventure” vehicles that owners can take off road, an approach that means Rivian won’t often compete head to head with Tesla.“There’s a perception that this is winner take all, and that’s just wrong,” Mr. Scaringe said. “Consumers need to have different brands, different flavors. Our success is not at all mutually exclusive to others’ success.”Business & EconomyLatest UpdatesUpdated Jan. 19, 2021, 6:30 p.m. ETSmall-business relief loans start flowing again, with $5 billion worth approved in the first week.Representative introduces a resolution to recognize the journalists who covered the Capitol attack.Retailers drop MyPillow amid fallout from comments by its pro-Trump founder.Rebecca Puck Stair is the kind of car buyer Rivian hopes to attract. A movie location scout in Albuquerque, she has been interested in buying an electric vehicle for a few years, but needs high ground clearance and four-wheel drive for assignments that take her into the desert.“That didn’t exist in the market,” she said. “A Tesla doesn’t fit my needs.”About a year ago, she heard about Rivian for the first time and put a deposit down on an S.U.V. the next day — like Tesla, the company does not plan to sell through dealers. Ms. Stair has seen the Cybertruck, but the design is not for her. “It just screams ‘obnoxious guy truck,’” she said, laughing.Rivian’s truck and S.U.V., which start at $67,500, look more conventional, as if they could have been designed by Land Rover.Unlike Tesla, which is trying to grow quickly, Rivian is taking measured steps. Last year, before the pandemic struck, it said it planned to make around 20,000 pickup trucks and S.U.V.s in 2021 and some 40,000 in 2022. It has not yet offered an updated outlook. It is aiming to have production capacity of 250,000 vehicles a year at its plant in Normal, Ill., by the middle of the decade. The company has not disclosed how many orders it has taken, but a spokeswoman said it had customers lined up for all the vehicles it expected to make this year.And even as other auto start-ups go public by merging with shell companies that have bundles of cash and stock market listings, Rivian is not eager to do so. “We want to launch, demonstrate our capability and let our performance speak for itself before we can look into being public,” Mr. Scaringe, 38, said.That difference in the approaches favored by Rivian and Tesla probably has a lot to do with the men that lead the companies.RJ Scaringe, Rivian’s chief executive, is an engineer who tried to slash his carbon footprint at M.I.T. by getting around by foot and bike, taking cold showers and doing his laundry by hand.Credit…Lyndon French for The New York TimesTesla’s chief executive, Elon Musk, is a disruptive force unlike anything the auto industry had seen in decades, perhaps not since Henry Ford. He has powered his company to stock market heights while attracting an army of fans. But Mr. Musk has also courted controversy — he has called government efforts to limit the spread of the coronavirus “fascist.” His Twitter posts have gotten him and Tesla into legal jams, including with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Not long ago, he claimed Tesla would have a million self-driving cars on the road in 2020, but the company has yet to demonstrate a fully autonomous vehicle.Mr. Scaringe, by contrast, is a bookish engineer, with a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He once tried to slash his personal carbon footprint at M.I.T. by getting around by foot and bike, taking cold showers and doing his laundry by hand. His Twitter feed is so tame that one recent post was about the car color preferences of his children (blue).In the second half of this year, Rivian hopes to start producing its Amazon delivery van in large numbers. Amazon is already testing prototypes on the road. The retail giant has made the trucks a central part of its strategy to reduce emissions, placing an order for 10,000 to be delivered by the end of 2022.Rivian still has a lot of work to do. On a recent afternoon, engineers at its labs in Plymouth were tinkering with a half-dozen R1T pickups in various stages of development. A few were hand-built models with screws visible in door wells — telltale signs of early prototypes. One was a more refined version that seemed a step or two away from the production version.“People are working all hours,” said Ryan Kalb, a special projects engineer. “We are trying to move quickly, and we want to be doing it. We all want to see this happen.”It was a similar story about 300 miles down the road at Rivian’s plant in Normal, a 3.4 million-square-foot factory that the company bought for $16 million in 2017. Since then, the plant has undergone an overhaul that cost more than $1 billion. Freshly painted and brightly lit, it has a long, winding assembly line where the R1T and R1S S.U.V. will be made. At the moment, only a few are built each day.Michael Ramsey, a Gartner analyst, said he was eager to see if Rivian could avoid the mistakes that hamstrung Tesla a few years ago, when Mr. Musk rushed to ramp up production of the Model 3 sedan only to end up in what he called “manufacturing hell.”“Is Rivian going to be a giant future competitor to Ford and G.M.? I don’t know,” Mr. Ramsey said. “But they have all these mega-investments. They have a strategic partner in Ford. They have contracts with Amazon. Of all the E.V. start-ups, they seem to have the best chance of making it.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • 113 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Why Markets Boomed in a Year of Human Misery

    by

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Coronavirus OutbreakliveLatest UpdatesMaps and CasesThe Stimulus PlanVaccine InformationF.A.Q.TimelineAdvertisementContinue reading the main storyUpshotSupported byContinue reading the main storyWhy Markets Boomed in a Year of Human MiseryIt wasn’t just the Fed or the stimulus. The rise in savings among white-collar workers created a tide lifting nearly all financial assets.Neil Irwin and Jan. 1, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETThe central, befuddling economic reality of the United States at the close of 2020 is that everything is terrible in the world, while everything is wonderful in the financial markets.It’s a macabre spectacle. Asset prices keep reaching new, extraordinary highs, when around 3,000 people a day are dying of coronavirus and 800,000 people a week are filing new unemployment claims. Even an enthusiast of modern capitalism might wonder if something is deeply broken in how the economy works.To better understand this strange mix of buoyant markets and economic despair, it’s worth turning to the data. As it happens, the numbers offer a coherent narrative about how the United States arrived at this point — one with lessons about how policy, markets and the economy intersect — and reveal the sharp disparity between the pandemic year’s haves and have-nots.Income More

  • 175 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    What Is 13-3? Why a Debate Over the Fed Is Holding Up Stimulus Talks

    by

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyWhat Is 13-3? Why a Debate Over the Fed Is Holding Up Stimulus TalksThe Fed’s emergency lending authorities are a key part of its job. Republicans want to curb them. Democrats are pushing back.Senate Republicans are trying to make sure that emergency programs backed by the Federal Reserve cannot be restarted after they expire on December 31.Credit…Anna Moneymaker for The New York TimesDec. 18, 2020Updated 7:40 p.m. ETAs markets melted down in March, the Federal Reserve unveiled novel programs meant to keep credit flowing to states, medium-sized businesses and big companies — and Congress handed Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin $454 billion to back up the effort.Nine months later, Senate Republicans are trying to make sure that those same programs cannot be restarted after Mr. Mnuchin lets them end on Dec. 31. Beyond preventing their reincarnation under the Biden administration, Republicans are seeking to insert language into a pandemic stimulus package that would limit the Fed’s powers going forward, potentially keeping it from lending to businesses and municipalities in future crises.The last-minute move has drawn Democratic ire, and it has imperiled the fate of relief legislation that economists say is sorely needed as households and businesses stare down a dark pandemic winter. Here is a rundown of how the Fed’s lending powers work and how Republicans are seeking to change them.The Fed can keep credit flowing when conditions are really bad.The Fed’s main and best-known job is setting interest rates to guide the economy. But the central bank was set up in 1913 in large part to stave off bank problems and financial panics — when people become nervous about the future and rush to withdraw their money from bank accounts and sell off stocks, bonds and other investments. Congress dramatically expanded the Fed’s powers to fight panics during the Great Depression, adding Section 13-3 to the Federal Reserve Act.The section allows the Fed to act as a lender of last resort during “unusual and exigent” circumstances — in short, when markets are not working normally because investors are exceptionally worried. The central bank used those powers extensively during the 2008 crisis, including to support politically unpopular bailouts of financial firms. Congress subsequently amended the Fed’s powers so that it would need Treasury’s blessing to roll out new emergency loan programs or to materially change existing ones.The programs provide confidence as much as credit.During the 2008 crisis, the Fed served primarily as a true lender of last resort — it mostly backed up the various financial markets by offering to step in if conditions got really bad. The 2020 emergency loan programs have been way more expansive. Last time, the Fed concentrated on parts of Wall Street most Americans know little about like the commercial paper market and primary dealers. This time, it reintroduced those measures, but it also unveiled new programs that have kept credit available in virtually every part of the economy. It has offered to buy municipal bonds, supported bank lending to small and medium-sized businesses, and bought up corporate debt.The sweeping package was a response to a real problem: Many markets were crashing in March. And the new programs generally worked. While the terms weren’t super generous and relatively few companies and state and local borrowers have taken advantage of these new programs, their existence gave investors confidence that the central bank would prevent a financial collapse.But things started getting messy in mid-November.Most lawmakers agreed that the Fed and Treasury had done a good job reopening credit markets and protecting the economy. But Senator Patrick J. Toomey, a Pennsylvania Republican, started to ask questions this summer about when the programs would end. He said he was worried that the Fed might overstep its boundaries and replace private lenders.After the election, other Republicans joined Mr. Toomey’s push to end the programs. Mr. Mnuchin announced on Nov. 19 that he believed Congress had intended for the five programs backed by the $454 billion Congress authorized to stop lending and buying bonds on Dec. 31. He closed them — while leaving a handful of mostly older programs open — and asked the Fed to return the money he had lent to the central bank.Business & EconomyLatest UpdatesUpdated Dec. 18, 2020, 12:25 p.m. ETLee Raymond, a former Exxon chief, will step down from JPMorgan Chase’s board.U.S. adds chip maker S.M.I.C. and drone maker DJI to its entity list.Volkswagen says semiconductor shortages will cause production delays.The Fed issued a statement saying it was dissatisfied with his choice, but agreed to give the money back.Democrats criticized the move as designed to limit the incoming Biden administration’s options. They began to discuss whether they could reclaim the funds and restart the programs once Mr. Biden took office and his Treasury secretary was confirmed, since Mr. Mnuchin’s decision to close them and claw back the funds rested on dubious legal ground.The new Republican move would cut off that option. Legislative language circulating early Friday suggested that it would prevent “any program or facility that is similar to any program or facility established” using the 2020 appropriation. While that would still allow the Fed to provide liquidity to Wall Street during a crisis, it could seriously limit the central bank’s freedom to lend to businesses, states and localities well into the future.In a statement, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, called it an attempt to “to sabotage President Biden and our nation’s economy.”Mr. Toomey has defended his proposal as an effort to protect the Fed from politicization. For example, he said Democrats might try to make the Fed’s programs much more generous to states and local governments.The Treasury secretary would need to have the Fed’s approval to improve the terms to help favored borrowers. But the central bank might not readily agree, as it has generally approached its powers cautiously to avoid attracting political scrutiny and to maintain its status as a nonpartisan institution.Fed officials have avoided weighing in on the congressional showdown underway.“I won’t have anything to say on that beyond what we have already said — that Secretary Mnuchin, as Treasury secretary, would like for the programs to end as of Dec. 31” and that the Fed will give back the money as asked, Richard H. Clarida, the vice chairman of the Fed, said Friday on CNBC.More generally, he added that “we do believe that the 13-3 facilities” have been “very valuable.”Emily Cochrane More