Porsche short squeeze

When assessing the economic damage to due to Paul Thayer and those that he tipped off about the acquisition of Campbell Taggart, it should be noted that some argue that this kind of insider trading circulates information and forces the stock to its “true value.” If we assume this argument to be flawed, then part of Anheuser-Busch stock dip after the announcement was due to the insider trading and the fact Anheuser-Busch probably paid more to acquire its target. Thayer and his friends trade the Campbell stock for nearly a month before any public announcement of the merger. On July 27 nearly half the volume was insider volume controlled by those individuals who were in violation of rule 14(e)-3 (See exhibit 2). The increased volume might

This book brought out the failures of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in one of the biggest Ponzi schemes in America’s history, as orchestrated by Bernie Madoff. Harry Markopolos caught up with Madoff’s Ponzi scheme earlier on in his career and saw all the red flags. There was no explanation of the continuous one percent yield in over forty five stocks that Madoff dealt with. Madoff took advantage of the laxity by the SEC officials in failing to follow up complains with an investigation, and the trust

Lewis focuses the book from the perspectives of leaders from three investment firms that saw the future of the financial market and its inevitable collapse in the early 2000’s. Though given the opportunity, these men were not heroes. Instead of spreading the news and rebelling against Wall Street for infecting the market, they were more interested in making a profit. Michael Burry was focused on his company Scion Capital and buying credit default swaps to make both him and his investors’ money. Charlie Ledley and Jamie Mai focused on betting against Wall Street and ultimately in the end made fortunes.

To understand LTCM’s case better, we will discuss the case more thoroughly throughout the next few pages.

In the case of Bernie Madoff this is perfect example of how unethical behavior can turn into corruption. Madoff, a former investment and stock broker, was formally introduced to the world as the 'sole' operator in the largest Ponzi scheme on record. Madoff turned his financial management company into a colossal Ponzi scheme that swindled billions, from thousands of his investors. In this paper we determine the regulatory oversight that was in place while the Ponzi scheme was operating, and speculate on the main reasons why they did not discover the scheme, we’ll look at investing in Madoff Securities and how to expose the potential fraud.

The next big scandal came in the mid-1800s, at which point Wall Street had already become the most important financial institution in the Western world, and men such as Daniel Drew had become one of the richest men on the planet. But Daniel Drew’s success did not come legally. The technique Drew used was what is today known as a ‘pump and dump’ scheme, where a large portion of a company’s stock is bought before publicly decrying the company (“Pump and Dump,” n.d.). Negative publicity for the company would cause the stock’s price to tumble, and Drew was able to ‘sell short’ the stock for massive returns. Selling short is when an investment is made with an expectation that the price will go down, and where profit is only feasible in extreme cases where a stock fails (“Selling Short,” n.d.). The return on these investments caused Drew to be one of the richest men on Wall Street until Drew went

(3) 1984-1987: As a public company, overstating income to help insiders dump stock at inflated prices using a variety of fraudulent

After watching and listening to Stephan A. Cohen story and testimony, I realized that the jurisdiction flaws may have been a possible reason which prevented his indictment. Furthermore, a person, in his position should have not attempted using for his defense that, the notion of federal regulations and compliances were ambiguous regarding the insider trading operations in his company. Thus, as the pioneer of the former SAC, Inc, hedge fund, Stephen A. Cohen remained oblivious of all accusations brought up against him because his counsel may have suggested that playing the ignorance card would the best option to avoid the indictment. Ironically, the defendant, at no time ever lost his investment rights. So, he went ahead and created “Point72 Asset Management”, he listed as a private company, to allow him to resume his business. Finally, in January 2016, Cohen successfully reached a settlement agreement, with the Security and Exchange Commission, in the amount of 1.8 billion in fines, meanwhile, limiting him to manage outside money for only two years. In reality, the founder of SAC, Inc, figured out one more time a way to bypass the SEC ruling with the creation of Stamford Harbor Capital his previous company’s executives supervise.

The topic of activist hedge funds, and the freedom in which they are allowed to target companies has risen a lot of concern amongst politicians, CEOs and the American public. Thus, the proposed rule has attracted a lot of attention and many comments, either for or against the rule.

Although Sarbanes-Oxley as protected investors from fraudulent activity in 2008 the market suffered a recession due to another type of conduct. Quite simply put, this conduct is high-risk practices (Morrison & Foerster, 2010). Many financial institutions participated activity that was such high risk that it almost collapsed the

The Securities Exchange Commision; also known as the SEC or the watchdogs of wall street, has many purposes to having established its government department. As first time investors turn to the markets seeking to secure their futures or even just financial growth, the SEC’s Investor protection mission becomes fascinating. Ironically, the stock itself isn't the only risky factor in today's marketplace. As the SEC oversees key participants in the securities world; their mission is to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitate capital formation.

At the closure of the paper, recommendations are being presented not only to the portfolio manager but also to the AutoZone. Interestingly, how much of an impact can an interference of a corporate raider have on the growth of a company

In September, 2006, a large-sized hedge fund named Amaranth Advisors LLC lost $4.942 billion in natural gas futures trading and was forced to close their hedge fund. Although Amaranth Advisors was not exclusively an energy trading fund, the energy portion of their portfolio had slowly grown to represent 80% of the performance attribution of the fund. Their collapse was not entirely unforeseeable or unavoidable. Amaranth had amassed very large positions on both the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) and the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) in natural gas futures, swaps, and options. The trades consisted mainly of buying and selling natural gas futures contracts with a

As this financial meltdown continues, many employees start to question the ethics of their choices. Although Sam Rogers, the Head of Sales and Trading, strongly disagrees with Tuld and Cohen’s idea and warns them that dumping the “toxic assets” will spread risk in the

The 2011 film Margin Call is a fictional movie about the decisive measures taken by a major Wall Street financial firm just prior to the imminent financial stock market crash of 2007. The film depicts and dramatizes the decisions and events of the financial firm, which is a nameless bank in the story but meant to mirror the entities of some of the real major Wall Street banks like Goldman Sachs, in a shortened period of less than 24 hours. The specific decisions are to liquidate and remove all their high-risk securities, which they created for themselves for massive profitability and that are currently in the hands of the firm, since these will become highly vulnerable to market conditions and become worthless commodities in a rapid decline. The movie is essentially a clockwork depiction of key administrators of the bank to get rid of the risky holdings by passing these worthless holdings to anybody who is willing to take them off their hands. What makes this decision making critical to the story is that all the key players are aware that these actions that are about to take place do not make the problem go away, but rather they pass on the losses to another holder. Essentially they simply make the decision to wash their hands of the mess they made. There is little time to think about the ramifications of their decisions. Thus this film sets up a very well thought-out human character study of how individuals in the financial market industry handle such important, critical