People loved Nikola but not its warrants
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
Buy one warrant for $24.62.
Pay $11.50 to exercise the warrant and get a share of stock.
Sell the stock for $48.84.
You pay $24.62 + $11.50 = $36.12. You get $48.84. Your profit is $12.72. Pretty good, no?
Levine suggests this weird situation was a consequence of his(?) "boredom markets hypothesis":
For a while Nikola was one of the most popular stocks on Robinhood, the day-trading phone app; the warrants were not.
He lays out the best-case scenario for the savvy trader of Nikola. On the flip side, is the worst case scenario for the Robin Hood trader buying the stock last week at $48 and then seeing it drop to $38 on Monday?
For the record, it looks like NKLA is around $36 at the moment.
In reality, of course there are better and worse deals out there, but the rule keeps me from thinking I'm smarter than the market and being blind to risks or problems that others have seen.
And speculation and investing are the same thing, except the former is often used in a pejorative way.
Or even if you plan on living in it, if you want to make money when it comes time to sell, and not just break even, after accounting for total cost of ownership.
Most people who think they sell their house for a modest profit are wrong.
This is generally true regardless of the location, with the caveat that hot markets are more likely to have more professionals participating that know how to include those costs.
Often people see those higher prices as greedy profit (or as artificially high in order to gentrify, etc.), and developers do need to make a profit, but often times a large part of the elevated price is just including hidden costs that homeowners don't account for.
But looking at it from the other side, developers/investors are only going to enter markets where they believe there's a margin for profit. Which generally means those neighborhoods are a bit underpriced to begin with.
So basically you have to be one of those companies that put out "cash for your house" ads?
A friend of mine invests directly in tax liens, and develops very good relationships with the people who were underwater. He usually works out an agreement with the homeowner to buy the house (lump sums are very valuable to these people) and rents it out to them for life, at a rate they can afford.
Sometimes, the people take the lump sum and run (and he gets the property). In other circumstances, he has a super loyal renter-for-life.
I might have gotten some subtle parts wrong, it's been a year since he last explained it to me. Obviously it's not for everybody, you really have to be a people person with a lot of empathy. :)
They have not shown credible prototypes of their vehicles. They don't have a factory or locked in partners with a factory.
They are essentially a couple 100 people in an office and many of them seem to be in marketing.
They couldn't get funding threw venture capital so did the reverse merger thing to be able to be stock traded. That was great for them because their 'we are Tesla but also totally different and much better' routine works with people who don't know the industry.
(Also they are partially owned by CNH IIRC, so that seems easy to do).
But you can't exactly go down to the local credit union and apply for a twenty billion dollar loan. So the only way to build something is to hype the nothing that you currently have in order to get investors to give you a ton of money so you can actually build something.
It's like the people confused about Tesla's current share price in the middle of a pandemic. But it's the response to the pandemic which has given them the greatest boon they could have asked for -- very low interest rates. That causes investors to borrow money to invest, which is what's holding up stock prices in general. But on top of that they're selling a product with a higher up-front cost and lower operating costs, so lower interest rates make for lower car payments make for more customers. The company itself still has a lot of outstanding debt which can now be refinanced, and lower interest rates make it cheaper for them to borrow even more to continue expanding.
Nikola benefits from a lot of that too, though you can't really gain customers through low interest car loans before you have a product. The issue for Nikola is that "fake it 'till you make it" only works if you eventually make it. If they don't generate enough hype to raise as much capital as they need to actually bring a viable product to market before the bottom falls out, poof.
But who knows? Maybe a big European or Japanese carmaker (many of them have mentioned their desire to pursue H2/fuel cells cars) decides to acquire them to speed up the transition, in which case, even if it's all vaporware, the stock might be worth something.
What would cause such a rate to go up without the stock evidently coming down to reduce the arbitrage discussed?
1 thanks for correction. Meant to say "Nikola" stock.
Nikola is hard to short right now primarily for two reasons:
1. It's a brand new company (IPO'd last month) with a large number of non-institutional share holders, who are not likely to lend out their shares.
2. It seems ridiculously overvalued (even after falling a fair bit it still has a $13B market cap despite having developed no products!), leading to _huge_ demand from shorts.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special-purpose_acquisition_co...
If you want to sell the stock short, you have to borrow it. If there's nobody who can loan it to you, you can't borrow it so you can't sell it short. Technically, you (or your broker) have to know where you'll borrow the stock before you're allowed to sell it short. In trader parlance this is called a "locate".
When supply of loanable stock is low and short interest is high, the rate gets expensive. For example, this happens on stock holdings with lock-up provisions that prohibit long holders to loan or sell stock until a particular date. Among other reasons, this may happen after an employee stock option exercise, or after an IPO.
There's a process called "rehypothecation" where a broker can loan shares from long Client A to short-selling Client B, charging a rate to Client B and paying a cut of it to Client A. They can also loan shares to other firms.
The borrow rate is independent of the stock price. If the stock rallies, short sellers may add to their position, or they may blow out. If the stock sells off, short sellers may take profits, or they may pile in and ride all the way down.
In addition to stock loan, there is a swaps market and a rev/con market. So there are various ways for the market to absorb demand for borrow. Like, if Bank ABC is long a ton of shares and the rest of the street is short, Bank ABC can sell put on a rev/con, which will imply the short rate despite the bank actually having no need to locate and borrow shares. This kind of action naturally sets the price for borrow. No regulators involved.
> if you noticed the relative-value trade, you might be exactly the sort of person who wouldn’t have wanted to make an unhedged directional bet on Nikola’s stock
He simple believe he transformed the transport industry and tesla is just following their footsteps. He talk how Nikola has the best truck ever created and its just a render.
Seriously, listen to that guy is disturbing.