中國從華爾街學(xué)會了講故事

????中國是在報復(fù)嗎,?作為美國萬億美元債務(wù)的債權(quán)人,眼下他們并沒有太多要感謝美國的,。 ????近幾周,,市場上流傳著一些美國監(jiān)管部門調(diào)查在美上市中國公司的故事??紤]到美國有關(guān)部門在監(jiān)管美國國內(nèi)市場方面不得力,,美國證券交易委員會(SEC)將注意力轉(zhuǎn)向別處是可以理解的。 ????凱雷(Carlyle)投資集團(tuán)在近日被停牌的兩家在美上市中國公司中都持有不少股權(quán),, 據(jù)《金融時報》(Financial Times)報道,,這兩家公司被停牌的原因是涉嫌欺詐。凱雷持有艾瑞泰克(China Agritech)股份,,公開資料顯示這些股份是凱雷兩家關(guān)聯(lián)實體通過2009年定向增發(fā)購入的,。當(dāng)時1,000萬美金的投資對艾瑞泰克意義非凡,,該公司公布的2009年營業(yè)收入僅7,600萬美元。但對于當(dāng)時資產(chǎn)規(guī)模逾900億美元的凱雷而言,,這很難說是一項重大投資,。對于凱雷的被卷入有種種推測,包括擔(dān)任艾瑞泰克董事的凱雷年輕副總裁所扮演的角色,。 ????另外,,還有一份報告廣泛流傳于各類非正式的金融電子出版物。由一家名為Lucas McGee Research的機構(gòu)發(fā)布的該份無出處報告附有粗體聲明“本報告的作者及對本報告有貢獻(xiàn)者均持有艾瑞泰克空頭倉位,,如果該股股價下跌,,必會獲得豐厚回報?!眻蟾媛暦Q,,看不到艾瑞泰克的化肥廠有卡車進(jìn)出,雖然公司據(jù)稱每年生產(chǎn)有50,000噸有機肥,。作者經(jīng)過粗略分析(1卡車= 20噸,;2500卡車= 50,000噸)斷定日均進(jìn)出這些工廠的卡車數(shù)量應(yīng)為10輛,而非他們報告看到的零,。 ????到目前為止,,一切都未經(jīng)證實,但美國證券交易委員會已開始對這些公司的財務(wù)報告提出質(zhì)詢,,在有明確結(jié)果前對股票實施了停牌,。艾瑞泰克已停牌兩個月。迄今為止,,并無明確的欺詐交易指控,。必須得說,我們尚未看到有什么可以指責(zé)凱雷有過失,,我們不想暗示凱雷有何行為不當(dāng),。任何人都能犯錯,但如果你是凱雷,,負(fù)面公關(guān)影響可能很大,。 ????但凱雷并不是唯一一家卷入近期風(fēng)波的公司。據(jù)彭博新聞社(Bloomberg)報道,,當(dāng)29歲的杰西?格里肯豪斯為其家族所有的資產(chǎn)管理公司購入400萬美元的艾瑞泰克股票后,,這家聲譽良好的華爾街投資管理公司也陷入了爭議漩渦。其祖父,、德高望重的投資者塞斯?格里肯豪斯表示,,自己“從未陷入”如此境地。以其97歲的高齡來看,“從未”確實是很長一段時間了,。 套牢的投資 ????停牌的結(jié)果是沒有人能變現(xiàn),。持有股票者不能清倉,,空頭不能平倉,。對清算公司而言,這可能算是意外之財,,他們可以對融資余額收取融資利息,,對被凍結(jié)的融券收取融券費。 ????由于沒有基礎(chǔ)市場報價,,與這些股票相關(guān)的期權(quán)也無法交易,。期權(quán)持有人只能等到到期,然后盡可能猜測究竟是執(zhí)行,,還是不執(zhí)行手中的期權(quán),。據(jù)《華爾街日報》(Wall Street Journal)報道,“很多此類股票的融券費率都已一飛沖天,,愿意借出股票的對沖基金等持有人從中獲利了,。” ????當(dāng)非法賣空業(yè)務(wù)變得不可收拾,,回顧1995年,,當(dāng)時監(jiān)管部門尋求自然而然的解決方案:將非法的變成合法的。上調(diào)賣空規(guī)則,,設(shè)立更多程序以確保賣空者在結(jié)算日能交付股票,。這樣做真正確保的是清算公司應(yīng)增加投資,而融券業(yè)務(wù)仍是清算公司,、機構(gòu)經(jīng)紀(jì)商,、對沖基金及其他持有大型多元化股票投資組合的公司的重要利潤來源。 ????華爾街各大公司常常大規(guī)模參與無貨賣空(naked short selling),,但由于各家公司闡述不同,,我們無法對此進(jìn)行衡量。這種無貨賣空不僅是合法的,,而且還是金融市場最大的利潤來源之一,。清算公司、機構(gòu)經(jīng)紀(jì)商,、對沖基金和其他持有大型多元化投資組合的公司都為賣空者提供融券,。很多公司的融券業(yè)務(wù)是基于所謂的“易借”名單——易借名單上的股票均允許在一個交易日內(nèi)賣空,且無需對每筆交易進(jìn)行確認(rèn),。 ????有些公司會在日間跟蹤名單上股票的頭寸,,當(dāng)可融券數(shù)量降至低位時,就會通知經(jīng)紀(jì)人。但有些公司不會這么做,,這意味著如果一只股票受消息影響下跌,,賣空者開始涌入這只股票,到單個交易日收盤時,,市場中賣出的股票數(shù)量可能會多于清算公司可交付的股票數(shù)量,。無貨賣空?是的,。非法,?就在你讀這篇文章的時候,游說者可能就在威脅美國證券交易委員會,。 ????中國人很聰明,。看來他們已從華爾街學(xué)到了重要一課:編一個好故事,,人們不經(jīng)細(xì)看就會相信,。艾瑞泰克已經(jīng)拿到了錢,這一切都是基于一個故事,。杰西?格里肯豪斯表示,,當(dāng)時他注重的是基本面,這意味著凱雷持股可能是其投資決策中的一個重要因素,。 ????任何風(fēng)險管理人都會告訴你,,在決定進(jìn)入一個市場前,必須要先行了解,。凱恩斯的格言自然適用于財務(wù)不透明的中國借殼上市公司——市場維持非理性的時間可能長于你口袋里的現(xiàn)金能維持的時間,。 ????艾瑞泰克是否是一家真實存在的公司,仍要等著瞧,。美國證券交易委員會的停牌令可能有助于事情的澄清,,因為空頭們遲早想拿到自己的錢。而且以我們的經(jīng)驗,,目前空頭可能具有掌控力,,就像市場擁有的神秘而強大的力量。參照凱恩斯的非理性原則,,或許我們可以說:以這樣低的價位,,空頭能持續(xù)做空的時間長于你能繼續(xù)持有多頭倉位的時間。 |
????Is China exacting revenge? As holders of around a trillion dollars of our debt, right now they don't have too much to thank America for. ????The last couple of weeks have seen some inconvenient stories about Chinese stocks under scrutiny by U.S. regulators. Considering how poor a job the U.S. regulators do of policing our own markets, it makes sense that the SEC would turn its attention elsewhere. ????The Carlyle group has substantial stakes in two U.S.-traded Chinese companies, both of whose stocks were halted because of allegations of fraud, according to the Financial Times. Carlyle owns a stake in China Agritech (CAGC), a stock it acquired through a 2009 private placement made through two Carlyle-affiliated entities, according to public records. The $10 million acquisition represented a meaningful infusion for CAGC, which reported $76 million in top-line revenues in 2009. For Carlyle, with over $90 billion in assets, it is hardly a major investment. Speculation about Carlyle's involvement included questions about the role of a young Carlyle VP out of their Shanghai office who has a seat on CAGC's board. ????There was also a report that made the rounds of the world of financial electronic Samizdat. Issued by an operation called Lucas McGee Research, the unattributed piece carried a boldface (in both senses of the word) statement that "writers and contributors to this report have short positions in CAGC and therefore stand to realize significant gains in the event that the price of the stock declines." The report alleges that no trucks were seen going in or out of CAGC's fertilizer factories, even though the company supposedly produces 50,000 tonnes of organic fertilizer annually. The quick and dirty analysis (one truckload = 20 tonnes; 2500 truckloads = 50,000 tonnes) led the report's authors to surmise they should see an average of 10 trucks passing in and out of the factories every day, instead of the zero they report having seen. ????So far nothing has been proven, but the SEC is asking questions about these companies' financial reporting and imposing trading halts until they get clear answers. CAGC has been held for trading for two months. So far, there are no clear allegations of fraudulent dealings. We hasten to point out that nothing we have seen accuses Carlyle of wrongdoing, nor do we intend to imply any improper action by them. Anyone is capable of making a mistake, but when you're the Carlyle Group, the negative PR consequences can be considerable. ????But Carlyle's not alone. A well-regarded Wall Street money management firm was sucked into the fray when 29 year-old Jesse Glickenhaus bought $4 million worth of CAGC for his family-owned asset management firm, according to Bloomberg. His grandfather, well-regarded investor Seth Glickenhaus, said he had "never run into" such a situation. At age 97, "never" is a long time. Trapped investments ????The consequences of a trading halt are that no one can get their money out of a position. Owners cannot liquidate their shares, and shorts can't cover. This is something of a bonanza for the clearing firms, which get to collect interest on the credit balances, and charge interest on the debits associated with the frozen investor positions. ????Options traded on these shares also cannot trade – there is no underlying market to quote them against. Option holders must wait for expiration, then make a best guess whether to exercise their options, or allow them to expire. According to the Wall Street Journal, "borrowing rates for many of the stocks have skyrocketed, a boon for hedge funds and other owners that are willing to lend shares out." ????When the illegal shorting business came to a particularly ugly head, back in 1995 , regulators sought the logical solution: take what is illegal, and make it legal. Short selling rules were stepped up, and more procedures were put in place to ensure that a short seller would be able to deliver stock on settlement date. What it really ensured was that clearing firms should increase their investment, as the stock loan business continues to be a major profit center for clearing firms and prime brokers, as well as hedge funds and other large firms that hold large and diversified stock portfolios. ????Major Wall Street firms routinely engage in naked short selling on a massive scale, though we cannot measure it, because of the way they account for it. This naked shorting is not only legal, it constitutes one of the biggest profit centers in the financial markets. Clearing firms, prime brokers, hedge funds, and other substantial holders of large diversified portfolios loan securities for short sellers. Many firms make a business of loaning against what is known as an "easy to borrow" list – a blanket approval for short sales for a single trading day. Stocks on the easy to borrow list do not have to be located individually on a trade-by-trade basis. ????Some firms track the positions on their lists during the course of the day and send notification to brokers when the quantities available for borrowing get low. But some firms don't, meaning that if a stocks gets talked down, and short sellers start flooding into the name, by the end of a single day it is possible that more stock has been sold in the market than exists in the hands of the clearing firms for delivery. Naked shorting? By definition, yes. Illegal? Lobbyists are undoubtedly browbeating the SEC even as you read this. ????The Chinese are smart. They appear to have taken the most important page out of Wall Street's book: create a good story, and people will buy it without looking too closely. CAGC has gotten its money, all based on a story. Jesse Glickenhaus says he focused on the fundamentals, and it is implied that one important factor in his decision was the Carlyle stake. ????Any risk manager will tell you to get to know the market into which you are about to plunge. Keynes' dictum certainly holds true for Chinese reverse-merger companies with opaque financials: the market can remain irrational longer than your cash can hold out. ????It remains to be seen whether CAGC is a real company. The SEC trading ban may clarify things, because sooner or later the shorts will want their money. And in our experience, the shorts are the ones in control, very much like the mysterious and oceanic sway of the market itself. We might suggest a corollary to Keynes' Irrationality Principle: the Shorts can remain short longer than you can continue holding a long position at such a depressed price. |