Someone wasn't surprised: https://x.com/unusual_whales/status/1704870849831125446?s=20
It's possible someone was selling contracts as a hedge since the tech market has been really bad this week. A market maker was obligated to buy the contracts.
The person selling the contracts gets $22k in premium, and misses out on the pop. The market maker will absolutely exercise the contracts and profit.
(This is coming from someone who sold APPL calls expiring tomorrow for .08 at a high strike today)
Personal opinion: It's insider trading. You'd need a ton of shares to be able to sell $22k worth of contracts at a high strike unless you're doing naked options selling.
In terms of how the market maker is involved:
https://www.projectfinance.com/options-market-maker/
hedging:
Selling options, on the other hand...
Either way, it's a bad deal for both Splunk employees and their customers. SIEM is a space that is hard to be a leader in when you're not vendor agnostic. This is basically what XDR has become: vendors who have EDR/NDR/whatever are claiming to have some unique (it's not) data lake that can ingest any source, when in reality all of these solutions suck at everything outside of their own product set. I've worked with countless clients over the last year who, as an example, made the mistake of thinking Microsoft Sentinel was a cost effective tool, only to realize that once you're outside of the Microsoft ecosystem analytics/detections quality becomes very close to zero in terms of quality and the price is not cost effective. But SIEM has always had a flair of vendor lock in to it anyway. It's a hard platform to move from once time has been invested in wrangling all the data sources for ingest, transforming them to some bespoke schema and then all of the detection engineering on top of that. It's almost as bad as large scale firewall migrations.
What a lot of folks don't know is that when Splunk decided to move to a Cloud/SaaS model they literally just lifted and shifted the unoptimized bits of on-prem Splunk to a managed VPC under the direction of then-CTO Tim Tully. Splunk was losing money on every deal due to the infra outcosting the insanely high quotes Splunk was churning out. This is a great case study on Innovators Dilemma as Splunk drug their feet for years internally saying that cloud would never impact them. And then they realized they were far behind the 8-ball and decided to hemorrhage cash so as to not churn customers. They eventually optimized it, but the underpinnings still aren't what a fresh take on the bits would have looked like had Splunk done the "right" thing.
Cisco will continue to play ELA games with customers just like VMware. For those who don't know both companies like to get customers into ELAs. Why? Because those contracts basically state that said customer will buy X number of new products annually or risk losing some, or all, of their currently negotiated discount. For smaller orgs this works less well, but you'd be amazed at how those smaller are easily manipulated by snake oil sales folks. For large orgs this puts them in a bind. I've even seen shady contracts written (from Splunk) that had language wherein if the customer does not renegotiate or cancel a, let's say, 3 year contract in writing 90 days before it's going to expire that the contract will autorenew at a ridiculous percentage increase in cost.
Move away from these enterprise product sets where and when you can. These companies are focused on the bottom line - and that is profit, not the customer. The industry has it all backwards, and it's working for them... Still.
2. Don’t do it by buying short-dated out-of-the-money call options on merger targets [0]
[0]: lawsofinsidertrading.com
It is certainly no secret that Cisco wanted to buy Splunk for $20BN in Februart 2022
IMO though it could easily be just some WSB bro that gambled and got lucky. Robinhood and other platforms make it easy to trade short dated options these days and people love to gamble on them.
100%
The only way the buyer could make a profit would be for Splunk to go higher than $127 and if it went significantly higher, they'd stand to make an eye-watering return-on-investment multiple in one day. Which is what happens.
It would be suspicious if this turns out to be a speculative trader making a one-off transaction.
Calls are the right to buy at $127 - the shares received can then be sold at market price.
Puts are the right to sell at $127 - the short position can then be closed by buying at market price.
This was insider trading.
Or let’s say I was short the stock and wanted to hedge during a volatile FOMC period.
In the above, I’ve just realized a small profit by trading the underlying and a small bit of theta burn. As long as the former is greater than the latter (as long as realized vol > implied vol) I make money.
Rinse and repeat this process over and over again.
Scalping your gamma?
Feels like the stock market is just a bunch of jargon, subterfuge and financial sleight of hand. Like we learned nothing from 2008, and just created financial 'products' mechanisms and gambits out of thin air.
Stock shorting has got to be one of the most pants-on-head stupid things I've ever heard.
Well, next to gamma scalping.
This is literally every industry. Do you think the average trader can understand the majority of discussions on HN w/o any domain experience? The jargon exists for a reason.
> Like we learned nothing from 2008, and just created financial 'products' mechanisms and gambits out of thin air.
The financial engineering issues in 2008 were fueled by other issues: simply we had the government suppressing true borrowing costs and fueling a housing bubble under socially progressive cover. These moves almost universally end in disaster historically. The "out of thin air" products I presume you're referring to all had/have legitimate use-cases: the problem is that nobody bothered to do proper risk management because the US Government was fanning the flames in one direction.
> Stock shorting has got to be one of the most pants-on-head stupid things I've ever heard.
That's probably because you don't understand the positive aspects. Shorting is absolutely critical to well functioning and efficient markets. It's not simply evil hedge funds betting against businesses or whatever trope you might have heard.
In fact, if housing was an easily shortable asset class, the above crisis you mention would have been far less severe (or possibly not happened at all) as short selling pressure would have kept prices at more reasonable levels.
Here, what they're doing is establishing a position which will make money if the stock moves either direction out of a narrow band. If you believe there's going to be a big industry upset, but don't know whether it will hurt or harm a specific player, you might enter this position. In turn, the overall market volatility is reduced and liquidity is added by your information being added to the market.
> Stock shorting has got to be one of the most pants-on-head stupid things I've ever heard.
All kinds of simple, legitimate reasons to short stocks. E.g. you are excessively exposed to that company's welfare for some reason (stock options, they're an important vendor, they're a big component in a mutual fund you own but you'd rather not own their stock, etc)-- you can take an opposite position by shorting. Or, here, you can use it to offset an option that moves in the opposite direction.
> Like we learned nothing from 2008, and just created financial 'products' mechanisms and gambits out of thin air.
This isn't too much like the house of cards from 2008. These types of strategies are not new; offsetting short positions by writing or buying options was in frequent use in the 1970s, if not before. Option use to profit from volatility (or hedge volatility) dates back more than 2000 years.
I'm not a big fan of esoteric, complicated financial schemes, or in creating options and financialized products for everything (e.g. cap and trade)... or situations where market players profit from privileged access to marketplaces (e.g. HFT). But the things you name are not any of these.
What are your thoughts on insurance? Because shorting can be an insurance/hedge against price changes.