저자: BillAckman · 외국인
요약 보기
결론: 영상은 특정 자산의 가격 방향을 예측하는 내용이 아니며, 공매도의 역할과 규제 문제를 논하는 토론이다. 공매도 옹호: Ackman은 공매도 투자자가 기업의 재무 문제를 지적하는 것은 시장의 중요한 견제 기능이라고 주장한다. 규제 비판: 그는 공매도자를 조사하는 SEC와 주 검찰의 대응이 과도하다고 비판하며, 2002년 Allied Capital 사례와 MBIA 사례를 예로 든다. 버블 원인: 주택 가격 공매도 수단(ABX 지수)이 생긴 뒤에야 버블이 꺼졌다며, 공매도 수단 부족이 버블을 키운다고 설명한다. 기업 리스크: 40배 레버리지 금융기관이 한 명의 공매도자 발언에 취약하다면 자본 구조를 재검토해야 한다고 본다. 투명성: 공매도 투자자는 자신의 포지션을 공개해야 독립성을 주장할 수 있다고 말한다. 경영진 편향: 경영진은 자사 주식을 홍보할 강한 인센티브가 있으므로, 정보 제공자의 동기를 살펴야 한다고 강조한다.
다듬은 글
If you know what you're doing, if you have a long position and you own shares, you can go to Barron's , you can climb onto a rooftop, you can promote how great your company is and nobody will look at you suspiciously for a second. But if the same person appears on CNBC, not the same person, or even David Einhorn, it may be more of a long-term thing than a short-term thing.
He appears on CNBC and talks about why he believes MDC Homebuilding Company is a great company; nobody thinks twice about it. But if he comes out and says, "Look, I have some concerns about Lehman's balance sheet, I have some concerns about how they're valuing their assets." This is something the New York Times wrote a scathing article about David Einhorn doing.
And I think the media, everywhere, the media, who are the force that, you know, digs up the dirty laundry about what's going on in Washington, should be very interested. And Short should be the best source for the media, and frankly, he should be. If I were him, I would have given a slightly different answer than Bob Steel would if he were Secretary of the Treasury.
I would say that, instead of meeting with Jim Chanos twice a year, I would meet with Jim Chanos once a month, or at least have an open door to the short selling community . If you have concerns about businesses, the economy, balance sheets, etc., we want to hear them. And even if it's just, you know what?
Here is an email address where you can send your comments; we will take them seriously, you know what? Those who are serious should do it. But isn't there a substantial danger and a substantial distinction between defending the upside and defending the short side? Let's take the case of Lehman Brothers.
TRUE? You can raise objections, well, I could raise objections, but that might be the right one. You can discuss the way they presented information about their assets, the way they are labeling them, etc. But you also run the risk of leading that company into a serious financial crisis, which has all sorts of effects and you don't know how it's going to end.
I mean, Bear Stearns is a perfect example. So isn't there a substantive distinction that this is simply more dangerous for the overall economy? I will only distinguish between different types of short selling and disclosure . I believe that if someone spreads rumors that are false, that person should be prosecuted.
To make a profit on an investment , that person should be prosecuted. Well, if a person goes to CNBC and says, "Based on my analysis of the 10-K on page 12, you know, they said we have $6.5 billion in CDOs and before they said they were mortgage-backed securities, what's the substantial difference?" I think that 's perfectly acceptable.
Yes, in my opinion, no legitimate company is going to go bankrupt because someone spreads a false rumor about it, I think, you know, if Lehman is so vulnerable to criticism from a short seller, I think it needs to consider whether it is properly capitalized. Is there room in the world for a 40-to-1 leveraged institution that is so sensitive to confidence that a 38-year-old short seller can go on CNBC and raise some concerns and go bankrupt?
However , it's a dangerous game. Especially when it comes to finance-focused actions, where trust is the currency . This is what I would say. What I would say is, why do we have bubbles? Why do we have financial institutions with leveraged balance sheets of 40 to one? We have them because of the people who do it, because it was not possible to short sell the rising prices of single-family homes.
OK? Correct. That's why there was a bubble in single-family home prices. Yes. And interestingly, only when there was a mechanism to short sell housing, basically these ABXs, the ABX index, did the bubble finally burst. And then, if the whole country is just long on the margin, we're going to have bubble after bubble, okay?
And systemic risk is created when we have institutions with... I don't want to get into Lehman, I'm neither short nor long on Lehman. But we want businesses that can withstand criticism from any investor. Correct. You know, whether it's a bank or anything else . So, according to the Ackman plan, what other means are there to inject the spirit or wave of the short seller into the markets?
Are there ways to institutionalize it to create a corrective force? Well, look what happened to me. You know, I wrote a 66-page technical report. It was reviewed by some of the best law firms in the city. I published it in the most public way possible. I revealed my position. It is very important to reveal your position.
You cannot claim to be independent. Correct. Publish a document stating that you are not. And then I had to endure a 6-month investigation by Eliot Spitzer and a multi-month investigation by the SEC. David Einhorn publicly criticized Allied Capital in 2002 and, in turn, was investigated by the SEC. Okay, I have thick skin, but if this is the regulatory response to someone criticizing a public company, particularly an influential one...
I mean, MBIA, the largest guarantor of New York State and City bonds, was a very easy call for them to the treasurer and the treasurer's call to Spitzer's office. What you want is what you should think about as an investor: what are the incentives of the person giving me the information. And the incentives of a management team of a public company are in some ways stronger to promote its shares than the incentives of a short seller.
You know, the short seller is short and management is long. The short seller can choose which companies to short sell. Management cannot choose which company it sells long in. And I think that, in any case, you should look for bias on the part of management and
Comments 0