What are the risks of shorting Bear at $5?

Quote from Cutten:

Based on today's trading, the risk was that you lost $3.50 per share within 4 hours, with a 100% probability.

with 100% up room to go...where is that cat when you need him?
 
Quote from flytiger:

11:40 BSC Bear Stearns: Additional Market Chatter (7.51 +2.70) -Update-

Additional chatter in BSC that bondholders are buying stock up to these levels so they can own enough equity to vote the deal through. $150b in face bonds vs $600mm in market cap in order to save billions in bond value. Recall 9% holder Joe Lewis threatening to vote down the deal.

Briefing Trader. Here. I'll give them a free plug

That seems unlikely. If the equity is worthless without the JPM deal, then shareholders have a choice of getting $2 or getting $0 if they oppose the deal.The only rational reason to oppose the deal is if the stock is worth more than $2.

Also, if the bondholders are the only buyers and are going to vote the deal through, then every other investor would be selling like mad at $8-$8.50, and hedge funds would be shorting the crap out of it. Bond holders would only need to pay a little over $2 for it to be rational to sell all the equity to them in the event of JPM being the only thing on the table.

BSC trading at $8 and higher is a clear sign that someone believes the equity is worth >$2 and is prepared to back their view with over $1 billion.

A short squeeze or dead cat bounce could account for say a 50 or even 100% pop, but not a rally to FOUR TIMES the takeover price.
 
Shorts circulated rumors Friday helping the BSC crater.

Today, on Cnbc, I heard Leisman say the feds said, do that shit again, you answer to us.

Thought that was remarkable. the clip was at 8:58, but I can't find it.
 
Quote from Cutten:

That seems unlikely. If the equity is worthless without the JPM deal, then shareholders have a choice of getting $2 or getting $0 if they oppose the deal.The only rational reason to oppose the deal is if the stock is worth more than $2.

Also, if the bondholders are the only buyers and are going to vote the deal through, then every other investor would be selling like mad at $8-$8.50, and hedge funds would be shorting the crap out of it. Bond holders would only need to pay a little over $2 for it to be rational to sell all the equity to them in the event of JPM being the only thing on the table.

BSC trading at $8 and higher is a clear sign that someone believes the equity is worth >$2 and is prepared to back their view with over $1 billion.

A short squeeze or dead cat bounce could account for say a 50 or even 100% pop, but not a rally to FOUR TIMES the takeover price.



the equity is worth more than $2.00

$2 is not a done deal...
 
Bond Holders might be protecting their end of the deal. Paying-off any longs/shorts.

To them it is a lot more that $2 or $0

If the shareholders succeeded somehow the bond holders would/could be out 10's of billions.

And you are right about being able to short and hope that everything stays the same. Feel free :).

if I had 10's of billions of bonds i would be willing to pay off the brave shorts and the disgruntled longs.
 
Quote from RAY:

Bond Holders might be protecting their end of the deal. Paying-off any longs/shorts.

To them it is a lot more that $2 or $0

If the shareholders succeeded somehow the bond holders would/could be out 10's of billions.

And you are right about being able to short and hope that everything stays the same. Feel free :).

if I had 10's of billions of bonds i would be willing to pay off the brave shorts and the disgruntled longs.

How many more posters are going to regurgitate this? Stop cribbing off websites and passing it off as your own insight - try thinking for yourself and you might actually make money instead of watching and then using after-the-fact explanations from journalists.

It makes no sense to pay $7-8 if the stock can only be worth $2 or $0. Paying $7-8 only makes sense for bondholders if someone else is also prepared to pay those prices. Who is that someone else? Either is is a bidder or short-covering. If the latter, the bond holders can just wait a few days and pay $2.
 
Quote from S2007S:

the equity is worth more than $2.00

$2 is not a done deal...

Yes I know, but the other poster (and 3 or 4 others who clearly read the website in question then regurgitated it on ET without accrediting the story, trying to pass it off as their own insight) said it was up because bond holders were buying to take control of the equity. Leaving aside the point that this means the equity *is worth* the price they are willing to pay, it clearly means that his proposition that the equity is worth only $2 or $0 is nonsense.
 
Quote from flytiger:

Shorts circulated rumors Friday helping the BSC crater.

Today, on Cnbc, I heard Leisman say the feds said, do that shit again, you answer to us.

Thought that was remarkable. the clip was at 8:58, but I can't find it.


More info on this please. What did Leisman do? What did the Feds say? What was the central issue.
 
Quote from flytiger:

Shorts circulated rumors Friday helping the BSC crater.

Today, on Cnbc, I heard Leisman say the feds said, do that shit again, you answer to us.

Thought that was remarkable. the clip was at 8:58, but I can't find it.


i heard it...
 
Quote from Cutten:

How many more posters are going to regurgitate this? Stop cribbing off websites and passing it off as your own insight - try thinking for yourself and you might actually make money instead of watching and then using after-the-fact explanations from journalists.

It makes no sense to pay $7-8 if the stock can only be worth $2 or $0. Paying $7-8 only makes sense for bondholders if someone else is also prepared to pay those prices. Who is that someone else? Either is is a bidder or short-covering. If the latter, the bond holders can just wait a few days and pay $2.

or, manipulation so some big holder can pawn off his shit. But, nobody at Bear would do that, would they? They probably were all at St. Patrick's for the Sunrise service.
 
Back
Top