Category: Regulation

Are Naked Shorts Depressing Your Investment Portfolio?

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
Image Replicated from Twitter (1/23/2023)

Small-Cap Companies are Punching Back on Naked Shorts in Growing Numbers

The hashtag #NakedShorts has been trending on Twitter for over a week. To save Channelchek readers any embarrassment that may occur from Googling this term, especially at work, below are specifics on this market jargon. Also included below are specifics on why this has been trending and how it may impact self-directed retail traders and even small publicly traded companies that have the potential to be impacted by an illegal practice that apparently is not uncommon.

What are Naked Shorts?

Naked short selling of stocks is the illegal practice of short-selling shares that have not been allocated and verified to exist. Most shorting of stock occurs only after the trader borrows the security or determines that it can be borrowed before they sell it short (without owning). So naked shorting refers to short pressure on a stock that may actually be larger than the tradable shares in the market. This can place downward pressure on shares as they are sold, at times in excess of their existence.

Despite being made illegal after the 2008–09 financial crisis, naked shorting continues in practice because of loopholes in rules and discrepancies between physical and electronic trading systems.

Small Caps Revenge

Empowered by the activities of Gamestop (GME) and others, a growing number of small-cap companies are devising plans to go after naked short sellers.  This could help their companies trade at a fairer value rather than be artificially depressed by illegal trading practices.

Companies involved in heightening integrity in the markets for their stock are companies like Verb Technology Co. Inc. (VERB), a provider of interactive video-based sales apps with operations in Newport, California, and Lehi, Utah. Verb said this week it was joining education company Genius Group Ltd. (GNS), e-scooter and e-bike maker Helbiz (HLBZ), and Creatd Inc. (CRTD) designed for creators in coming up with measures to ensure “greater integrity in the capital markets” as Verb Chief Executive Rory J. Cutai said in a statement.

The move gained impetus last week as Genius Group said it had appointed a former F.B.I. director to lead a task force investigating alleged illegal trading in its stock, first disclosed a few weeks ago. Genius CEO believes there has been a measurable cost to the company. “We want this to stop,” he said. “They’re taking value away from our shareholders. They’re predators. They’re doing something illegal, and we want it to stop, whether that means getting regulators to enforce existing regulations or put new ones in place,” he said.

Legality of Naked Short Selling

In regular (legal) short trading, an investor borrows shares from someone else and pays an interest rate or “rebate rate.” They then sell them in anticipation of the stock price falling. The trade is a winner if the price falls and the seller buys them back at a lower price (netting out rebate rate) to close out the open short sale.

In naked short selling, investors don’t borrow the stock. They skip right to selling unowned with a promise to deliver them at a later date. If that promise is not fulfilled, it’s a failure to deliver.

Recently, companies such as AMC have paid a special dividend to determine, and frankly hurt, those short sellers that have not abided by the rules by first borrowing the security it sold.

Image: Elon Musk has been very vocal, Tesla is a company that hedge fund managers have routinely shorted (Twitter)

What Some Companies are Doing

Last week Helbiz said it was going to punch back at naked short positions. Creatd CEO Jeremy Frommer, meanwhile, is behind Ceobloc, a website that aims to end the practice of naked short selling. “Illegal naked short selling is the biggest risk to the health of today’s public markets” is how the site introduces its mission.

Genius just set guidance for 2023, saying it expects revenue of $48 million to $52 million, up 37% from its 2022 pro forma guidance. Last Thursday, the stock rose a record 290% in volume of about 270 million shares traded. That crushed the daily average of about 634,000. The CEO says this is another indicator of wrongdoing, given that the company’s float is just 10.9 million shares. “Clearly, that’s far more shares than we created,” the founder, Roger Hamilton points out.

Take Away

It is unclear what the task force of the small-cap companies intends to do. Companies like AMC Theaters (AMC) waged war by declaring a dividend that was a different class of stock. Shareholders would have to verify their ownership of a registered share in order to receive the dividend. This went a long way to verify what is in the float that is legitimate and that which is not.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/small-cap-companies-are-going-after-naked-short-sellers-in-growing-numbers-its-the-biggest-risk-to-the-health-of-todays-public-markets-11674480805?mod=newsviewer_click

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nakedshorting.asp

When Could the Fast-Tracked Alzheimer’s Drug Reach Patients Who Could Benefit?

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
Image credit: National Human Genome research (Flickr)

What the FDA’s Accelerated Approval of a New Alzheimer’s Drug Could Mean for Those with the Disease – 5 Questions Answered about Lecanemab

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the medication Lecanemab, sold under the brand name Leqembi, on Jan. 6, 2023, through an “accelerated approval pathway” that fast-tracks promising clinical treatments for diseases in which there are no other currently effective options.

James E. Galvin, a neurologist from the University of Miami School of Medicine, specializes in the study of Alzheimer’s disease and Lewy body dementia. Below he explains the drug’s clinical potential to help ease the suffering of the roughly 6.5 million Americans who live with Alzheimer’s.

How Does Lecanemab Work, Biologically Speaking?

Lecanemab is a monoclonal antibody that targets beta-amyloid, a naturally occurring protein that becomes toxic when it clumps together to form the characteristic plaques that accumulate in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s disease. The drug is given through intravenous infusions every two weeks.

Antibodies are Y-shaped proteins circulating in the blood that recognize and neutralize substances in the body that they see as foreign, such as bacteria and viruses. A monoclonal antibody is produced by cloning, or making a copy of, a single white blood cell so that all the offshoot antibodies are derived from the same cell and bind to one specific target. In this case, lecanemab binds only to beta-amyloid proteins.

Lecanemab binds to a particular form of beta-amyloid as it clumps, called a protofibril. Studies suggest this is the species of beta-amyloid that is both most likely to aggregate into plaques that disrupt cell functioning and to play a role in the development of Alzheimer’s disease.

Earlier trials of other monoclonal antibodies failed to demonstrate a benefit and had more side effects, possibly because they targeted forms of beta-amyloid either too early or too late in the aggregation process.

Image:  Misfolded beta-amyloid proteins aggegrate into clumps, called plaques, that form in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s

Could Lecanemab be a Game Changer for Alzheimer’s Treatment?

Potentially, yes, for people with early-stage Alzheimer’s disease. Medications such as lecanemab have the potential to interfere with the progression of Alzheimer’s disease by removing beta-amyloid from the brains of people who are suffering with it.

Two recent publications describe results from two different phases of clinical trials.

One study, published in early January 2023, reported the results of a phase 3 clinical trial that included 1,795 participants, half of whom received lecanemab and another half who didn’t. In that trial, treatment with lecanemab not only met all its clinical outcomes and safety requirements, but it also reduced the amounts of beta-amyloid measured in imaging tests and in the blood.

Researchers also saw reductions in the levels of tau – the protein responsible for the neurofibrillary tangles that accumulate inside the neurons in patient’s with Alzheimer’s. And they found reduced levels of other proteins that measure brain injury and degeneration. This suggests that lecanemab could potentially address the disease by targeting it through both direct and indirect pathways.

A separate study published in December 2022 reported the results of a phase 2 study with 856 participants. Lecanemab treatment also led to significant reductions in amyloid plaques on brain imaging tests, reductions in blood measurements of amyloid and tau protein and slowing of disease progression. These findings provide independent confirmation of the phase 3 findings and support the potential of lecanemab in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease.

What Were the Results?

After 18 months of treatment in the phase 3 study, lecanemab slowed disease progression by 27% compared with the control group. Compared with those who didn’t receive the treatment, participants treated with lecanemab also showed 26% less decline on cognitive testing and a 36% slower loss of function in everyday activities. The study also found a marked reduction in the amount of beta-amyloid deposits in the brains of those who received the treatment.

These outcomes are the some of the largest effects yet seen in any Alzheimer’s disease clinical trial. While not cures, they provide hope that by significantly slowing physical, cognitive and functional decline while also removing amyloid, the course of disease might be altered in a way to give patients improved quality of life.

It is important to remember that the trial was only carried out over 18 months, so we do not fully know the long-term benefits of lecanemab. Ongoing long-term studies will hopefully bring additional insights. However, some recent simulation models have suggested that lecanemab treatment may provide long-term benefits and improve overall quality of life.

While lecanemab has shown clear benefits, it also comes with some notable potential adverse effects that need to be considered. In this case, the concerns are very specific to treatment with amyloid monoclonal antibodies.

In the phase 3 clinical trial, of the 1,795 participants, 12.6% taking lecanemab experienced swelling of the brain on MRI scans compared to 1.7% of those who received the placebo. Overall, only 2.8% of participants experienced any symptoms – mostly headaches.

In addition, 17.3% of those who received lecanemab had small hemorrhages, or bleeds, of the brain on MRI scans compared to 9% in the placebo group. While few participants experienced complications, at least three deaths due to brain hemorrhage have been reported in individuals enrolled in an ongoing long-term study. But notably, each of these people appear to have had additional risk factors.

How is Lecanemab Different from Other Treatments?

The currently available Alzheimer’s treatments – which include donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine and memantine – primarily treat symptoms. They do not address the underlying disease processes, and they have modest clinical benefits.

One medication that does treat the disease, aducanumab, sold under the brand name Aduhelm, was approved by the FDA in 2021 under the same accelerated process as lecanemab. But it has not become widely used due to controversy about its efficacy and pricing.

So lecanemab could offer the first disease-modifying medication with undisputed results for people living with the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease. It is important to note that lecanemab was not studied in and was not approved for individuals with moderate or severe stages of Alzheimer’s disease.

When Could Lecanemab Reach Patients Who Could Benefit?

Although lecanemab has received approval from the FDA, it will likely be several months before it is available for clinical use.

Eisai and Biogen, the pharmaceutical companies that developed lecanemab, recently published guidelines on their pricing policy and roll-out plans for the drug. However, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services has said that for now, therapies targeting beta-amyloid will not be covered by insurance except for those individuals who are enrolled in clinical trials funded by the National Institutes of Health. And commercial insurance companies generally follow Medicare guidance.

Lecanemab will have an estimated out-of-pocket cost of $26,500 per year. The drugmaker has already filed a supplemental application for traditional FDA approval. If that approval is granted, it is more likely that Medicare and commercial insurance payers will cover most of the cost of lecanemab, which would make the drug much more widely accessible to those living with Alzheimer’s disease.

This article was republished with permission from The Conversation, a news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It represents the research-based findings and thoughts of, James E. Galvin, Professor of Neurology, University of Miami.

The Current Debt Ceiling Austerity Plan

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
World Bank Photo Collection (Flickr)

Extraordinary Measures as Outlined by US Treasurer Janet Yellen

There’s no doubt, the US Secretary of the Treasury, Janet Yellen, has been working overtime to provide an austerity plan as the US debt ceiling has just been reached. In the absence of the legal ability to sell debt in excess of the current outstanding, going to the bond markets and issuing Treasury Bills/Notes/Bonds is off-limits to the US government. So what’s a Treasury Secretary to do? The government has bills and other liabilities that are coming due, and today’s higher interest rates create a larger discount and nets less for the Treasury when rolling over some securities. This can be very problematic if the US stops paying bills on time or if there is a risk of default on debt; the US dollar can tumble, interest rates can skyrocket, and faith in our economic engine can unravel. You can imagine what this has the potential to do to equity markets.

In a letter, Yellen wrote to Congress dated January 19, she outlines the Treasury Department’s contingency plan, while Congress is expected to develop its own more permanent financial solution.

In the letter, she says the Treasury will cease adding to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (CSRDF) for those values not currently required to pay beneficiaries. Under ongoing business practices the CSRDF invests in special-issue Treasury securities specifically for its use. These securities count against the debt limit.

Similarly, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 provides that investments in the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund (PSRHBF) are made in the same manner as investments for the CSRDF. The treasury will suspend additional investments of amounts credited to the PSRHBF.

It is expected that the CSRDF and the  PSRHBF will be made whole as part of the eventual solution.

She ends the letter by urging Congress to act swiftly as her measures will not provide a solution beyond late Spring.

Letter Dated January 19, 2023

Take Away

When the US bumps up against its debt limit it creates many problems. From a macro approach, if they raise the debt limit automatically may only serve to kick the spending can down the road. To have no upper limit long term can come back to hurt the US dollar and those that use it for purchases. Creating a strict upper limit serves to provide fiscal restraint but may stand in the way of economic stimulation. A government with its spending hands tied may find it problematic in times of war or other crises.

As the Secretary of the Treasury postpones payments or debt issuance, this has in the past not saved money, it has only delayed acquiring it through borrowing.

Depending on how intense the game of chicken becomes in the halls of Congress, the debt, equity, and Forex markets could become tumultuous.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Powell Just Insisted, “We are not, and will not be, a climate policymaker”

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
Source: Riksbank Sweden (Bloomberg)

Fed Chair Jerome Powell made three strong points during the panel on “Central Bank Independence and the Mandate—Evolving Views,” which just took place in Stockholm. These points include the role of elected representatives and unelected agency officials, the transparency of a central bank’s intents and actions while remaining independent of political agendas, and not becoming sidetracked from the established mandates.

Continued Independence and Transparency

Powell reminded the international audience, which included central bankers, that the purpose of monetary policy independence is the benefits allowed the policymakers. This independence can insulate policy decisions from short-term political considerations. “Price stability is the bedrock of a healthy economy and provides the public with immeasurable benefits over time. But restoring price stability when inflation is high can require measures that are not popular in the short term as we raise interest rates to slow the economy,” said Powell. The head of the US central bank then explained the absence of politics over central bank decisions provides for less conflicted decision-making in light of short-lived political considerations.

While speaking from a US point of view, Powell said that in a “well-functioning democracy, important public policy decisions should be made, in almost all cases, by the elected branches of government.”  He explained that agencies trusted to act independently, such as the Federal Reserve, should have a narrow and explicitly defined mission that protects the agency from fleeting political considerations.

Within this kind of independence in a representative democracy, including transparency that allows for oversight, the Fed and other agencies find legitimacy. Powell said about of the current makeup of the Fed, “We are tightly focused on achieving our statutory mandate and on providing useful and appropriate transparency.”

Focus on Mandates

Climate change is not part of the US central bank’s statutory goals and authority. On the subject of climate, Powell added, “we resist the temptation to broaden our scope to address other important social issues of the day. Taking on new goals, however worthy, without a clear statutory mandate would undermine the case for our independence.”

In the area of bank regulation, Powell told the audience that independence helps ensure that the public can be confident that the overseer’s supervisory decisions are not influenced by political considerations. In response to his own hypothetical question about whether it is wise to incorporate into bank supervision the perceived risks associated with climate change, consistent with existing mandates, Powell sounded strongly opposed. “Addressing climate change seems likely to require policies that would have significant distributional and other effects on companies, industries, regions, and nations. Decisions about policies to directly address climate change should be made by the elected branches of government and thus reflect the public’s will as expressed through elections.”

He did, however, share his view that any climate-related financial risks that pose material risks to the banking system are the Fed’s responsibility and under their supervision. “But without explicit congressional legislation, it would be inappropriate for us to use our monetary policy or supervisory tools to promote a greener economy or to achieve other climate-based goals. We are not, and will not be, a “climate policymaker.”

Take Away

On January 10th, the head of the US central bank participated in an international symposium to mark the end of Stefan Ingves’ time as governor of Sweden’s central bank. Senior central bank officials and prominent academics participate in four panels that address central bank independence from various angles – climate, payments, mandates, and global policy coordination. Fed Chair Powell stood determined and resolute that the Fed’s mandate is narrow, well-defined, and should not be clouded with short-term political goals.

There has been pressure on the Fed to adopt additional mandates that include social reforms and climate concerns. His talk before a world audience may be the first time Jerome Powell has publicly addressed this pressure. The US House of Representatives has just shifted its balance to a more conservative power base; this may have had an empowering impact on Powell’s open remarks.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/powell20230110a.htm

https://www.riksbank.se/globalassets/media/konferenser/2022/riksbank-organises-international-symposium-on-central-bank-independence.pdf

https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/powell-fed-needs-independence-fight-inflation-should-avoid-climate-policy-2023-01-10/

The Pros, Cons, and Many Definitions of ‘Gig’ Work

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
Image Credit: Stock Catalog

What’s a ‘Gig’ Job? How it’s Legally Defined Affects Workers’ Rights and Protections

The “gig” economy has captured the attention of technology futurists, journalists, academics and policymakers.

“Future of work” discussions tend toward two extremes: breathless excitement at the brave new world that provides greater flexibility, mobility and entrepreneurial energy, or dire accounts of its immiserating impacts on the workers who labor beneath the gig economy’s yoke.

This article was republished with permission from The Conversation, a news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It represents the research-based findings and thoughts of David Weil, Visiting Senior Faculty Fellow, Ash Center for Democracy Harvard Kennedy School / Professor, Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University.

These widely diverging views may be partly due to the many definitions of what constitutes “gig work” and the resulting difficulties in measuring its prevalence. As an academic who has studied workplace laws for decades and ran the federal agency that enforces workplace protections during the Obama administration, I know the way we define, measure and treat gig workers under the law has significant consequences for workers. That’s particularly true for those lacking leverage in the labor market.

While there are benefits for workers for this emerging model of employment, there are pitfalls as well. Confusion over the meaning and size of the gig workforce – at times the intentional work of companies with a vested economic interest – can obscure the problems gig status can have on workers’ earnings, workplace conditions and opportunities.

Defining Gig Work

Many trace the phrase “gig economy” to a 2009 essay in which editor and author Tina Brown proclaimed: “No one I know has a job anymore. They’ve got Gigs.”

Although Brown focused on professional and semiprofessional workers chasing short-term work, the term soon applied to a variety of jobs in low-paid occupations and industries. Several years later, the rapid ascent of Uber, Lyft and DoorDash led the term gig to be associated with platform and digital business models. More recently, the pandemic linked gig work to a broader set of jobs associated with high turnover, limited career prospects, volatile wages and exposure to COVID-19 uncertainties.

The imprecision of gig, therefore, connotes different things: Some uses focus on the temporary or “contingent” nature of the work, such as jobs that may be terminated at any time, usually at the discretion of the employer. Other definitions focus on the unpredictability of work in terms of earnings, scheduling, hours provided in a workweek or location. Still other depictions focus on the business structure through which work is engaged – a staffing agency, digital platform, contractor or other intermediary. Further complicating the definition of gig is whether the focus is on a worker’s primary source of income or on side work meant to supplement income.

Measuring Gig Work

These differing definitions of gig work have led to widely varying estimates of its prevalence.

A conservative estimate from the Bureau of Labor Statistics household-based survey of “alternative work arrangements” suggests that gig workers “in non-standard categories” account for about 10% of employment. Alternatively, other researchers estimate the prevalence as three times as common, or 32.5%, using a Federal Reserve survey that broadly defines gig work to include any work that is temporary and variable in nature as either a primary or secondary source of earnings. And when freelancing platform Upworks and consulting firm McKinsey & Co. use a broader concept of “independent work,” they report rates as high as 36% of employed respondents.

No consensus definition or measurement approach has emerged, despite many attempts, including a 2020 panel report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Various estimates do suggest several common themes, however: Gig work is sizable, present in both traditional and digital workplaces, and draws upon workers across the age, education, demographic and skill spectrum.

Why it Matters

As the above indicates, gig workers can range from high-paid professionals working on a project-to-project basis to low-wage workers whose earnings are highly variable, who work in nonprofessional or semiprofessional occupations and who accept – by choice or necessity – volatile hours and a short-term time commitment from the organization paying for that work.

Regardless of their professional status, many workers operating in gig arrangements are classified as independent contractors rather than employees. As independent contractors, workers lose rights to a minimum wage, overtime and a safe and healthy work environment as well as protections against discrimination and harassment. Independent contractors also lose access to unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation and paid sick leave now required in many states.

Federal and state laws differ in the factors they draw on to make that call. A key concept underlying that determination is how “economically dependent” the worker is on the employer or contracting party. Greater economic independence – for example, the ability to determine price of service, how and where tasks are done and opportunities for expanding or contracting that work based on the individual’s own skills, abilities and enterprise – suggest a role as an independent contractor.

In contrast, if the hiring party basically calls the shots – for example, controlling what the individual does, how they do their work and when they do it, what they are permitted to do and not do, and what performance is deemed acceptable – this suggests employee status. That’s because workplace laws are generally geared toward employees and seek to protect workers who have unequal bargaining leverage in the labor market, a concept based on long-standing Supreme Court precedent.

Making Work More Precarious

Over the past few decades, a growing number of low-wage workers find themselves in gig work situations – everything from platform drivers and delivery personnel to construction laborers, distribution workers, short-haul truck drivers and home health aides. Taken together, the grouping could easily exceed 20 million workers.

Many companies have incentives to classify these workers as independent contractors in order to reduce costs and risks, not because of a truly transformed nature of work where those so classified are real entrepreneurs or self-standing businesses.

Since gig work tends to be volatile and contingent, losing employment protections amplifies the precariousness of work. A business using misclassified workers can gain cost advantages over competitors who treat their workers as employees as required by the law. This competitive dynamic can spread misclassification to new companies, industries and occupations – a problem we addressed directly, for example, in construction cases when I led the Wage and Hour Division and more recently in several health care cases.

The future of work is not governed by immutable technological forces but involves volitional private and public choices. Navigating to that future requires weighing the benefits gig work can provide some workers with greater economic independence against the continuing need to protect and bestow rights for the many workers who will continue to play on a very uneven playing field in the labor market.

Robinhood Stockholder’s Concern if SBF’s Holdings are Being Seized

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
Image Credit: Matt (Flickr)

Could There be an Impact on Robinhood Shareholders with the SBF Share Seizure

Creditors and customers of FTX may be able to reclaim some assets that were wiped out as the feds have been seizing the 7.50% stake in Robinhood (HOOD) stock held by Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF). SBF faces charges of fraud and a myriad of financial crimes after the collapse of FTX in November. The impact of the collapse is having an effect on other areas of finance, including assets that had been controlled by SBF. The Robinhood shares are valued near $450 million, and while this may bring some hope or relief to those that will receive a distribution, there is a risk to HOOD investors.

Background

The FTX bankruptcy has left a line of claimants to recapture what they can from the cryptocurrency giant. Bankruptcies are seldom easy; those that could involve layers of fraud become tied up in even larger disputes and legal battles. For example, the large Robinhood holding is tied up in a dispute between FTX and bankrupt crypto lender BlockFi. The company alleges that SBF put up the shares as collateral for a loan to Alameda Research, a company he also owned.

The HOOD stake was purchased in 2022 through a holding company SBF controlled, Robinhood of course is the innovative broker specializing in self-directed individual investors. Through the DOJ, authorities are going after the shares of HOOD and accounts that are held at the bank Silvergate Capital (SI) which is a banker for the crypto industry.

Separately, court filings on January 4th brought awareness to a NY federal judge ordered last month requiring the seizure of some $93 million that an FTX arm held in accounts at Silvergate. As it relates to this seizure. The Justice Department says it believes the assets seized are not the property of the bankruptcy estate, while a lawyer for FTX maintains that the seizures were from accounts not directly controlled by the company. They were ordered in connection with the criminal case involving SBF.  

 FTX investors’ asset claims in the exchange, which was once valued at $32 billion, come after creditors and other rightful claimants.

How This Could Impact Robinhood Shareholders

Asset seizures and later distribution to those hurt by fraud involve liquidation of the assets seized. In the case of stocks, they will be sold and turned into cash. Imagine a sudden effort to sell 7.50% of any company. That is a large percentage to move. The stake, worth between $400 and $500 million, may serve as a dark cloud depressing share prices and slowing any planned growth of the company. It may eventually culminate in liquidation at a pace not conducive to retaining a level stock price.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.theblock.co/post/199271/doj-seizing-millions-in-robinhood-shares-linked-to-ftx-lawyer-says

https://www.wsj.com/articles/judge-ordered-seizure-of-money-from-ftx-digital-markets-accounts-at-silvergate-11672866368

https://www.barrons.com/articles/ftx-robinhood-doj-assets-51672932192?mod=hp_LATEST

Will Three Bank Regulators Kill Cryptocurrency in 2023?

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
Image Credit: Fredrik Klintberg (Flickr)

Lack of Crypto Governance, Oversight, Standards, and Risk Management Frightens Feds

Three Federal Agencies have warned banks about the dangers of dealing with digital assets. On the first banking day of the new year, the Federal Reserve (Fed), the FDIC, and the Office of the Controller of the Currency (OCC), the three banking regulators in the US, issued a three-page joint warning to banks. It points to eight risks that banking organizations should not let migrate to the US banking system. And highlights processes to mitigate these risks while the three agencies develop frameworks to oversee the ever-changing asset class.

The Joint Statement on Crypto-Asset Risks to Banking Organizations is for the consumption of banks of all types and sizes through the US that have or may adopt policies. It warns the events of 2022 have “been marked by significant volatility,” and that vulnerabilities in the crypto-asset sector have surfaced.

Source: Federal Reserve

The joint statement explains that banking organizations that have in the past seeked to engage in activities that involve crypto-assets. Have been taken on a case-by-case basis. “The agencies continue to build knowledge, expertise, and understanding of the risks crypto-assets may pose to banking organizations, their customers, and the broader U.S. financial system.”  The statement says that the  significant risks “highlighted by recent failures of several large crypto-asset companies,” will cause the three agencies to take a careful and cautious approach.

The agencies highlighted eight risks that they wanted banking organizations engaged in crypto-assets to understand may not be in accordance with safe and sound banking practices:

  • Risk of fraud and scams among crypto-asset sector participants.
  • Legal uncertainties related to custody practices, redemptions, and ownership rights, some of which are currently the subject of legal processes and proceedings.
  • Inaccurate or misleading representations and disclosures by crypto-asset companies, including misrepresentations regarding federal deposit insurance, and other practices that may be unfair, deceptive, or abusive, contributing to significant harm to retail and institutional investors, customers, and counterparties.
  • Significant volatility in crypto-asset markets, the effects of which include potential impacts on deposit flows associated with crypto-asset companies.
  • Susceptibility of stablecoins to run risk, creating potential deposit outflows for banking organizations that hold stablecoin reserves.
  • Contagion risk within the crypto-assetsector resulting from interconnections among certain crypto-asset participants, including through opaque lending, investing, funding, service, and operational arrangements. These interconnections may also present concentration risks for banking organizations with exposures to the crypto-asset sector.
  • Risk management and governance practices in the crypto-asset sector exhibiting a lack of maturity and robustness.
  • Heightened risks associated with open, public, and/or decentralized networks, or similar systems, including, but not limited to, the lack of governance mechanisms establishing oversight of the system; the absence of contracts or standards to clearly establish roles, responsibilities, and liabilities; and vulnerabilities related to cyber-attacks, outages, lost or trapped assets, and illicit finance.

Take Away

In 2022 the young crypto asset class took a beating similar to high-tech stocks. There is a reason banks are limited to their stock market activity. It seems that these three federal agencies, which do not include work being done by the SEC (or CFTC), are now working hard to regulate what banks can do involving these assets; in the meantime, they want to let banking organizations know that crypto-assets need to be dealt with extreme caution, perhaps moderation, and know that as far as the regulators are concerned, if they still want to serve crypto customers, they should discuss all planned activities with the appropriate regulator prior to filing an application and should ensure that risk management, including board oversight, policies, procedures, risk assessments, controls, gates and guardrails, and monitoring, are in place to effectively identify and manage risks.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Source

Joint Statement on Crypto-Asset Risks to Banking Organizations

C-Suite Caroline, Who is She?

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
Image: Caroline Ellison (Twitter)

Caroline Ellison Now Enters a New Stage of Her Young Life

Caroline Ellison, the 28-year-old former CEO of Alameda Research, pleaded guilty to seven criminal charges, including wire fraud and conspiracy to commit securities fraud, according to her plea agreement, signed Monday. Caroline, the former chief executive of Alameda Research, a trading firm with close ties to FTX, is said to face up to 115 years in prison. Her admitted role in allowing customer funds to flow through an electronic “backdoor” to be used by Sam Bankman Fried (SBF) of FTX tells us a little bit about her recent past, but who is Ms. Ellison, and how did she get to be CEO of Alameda?

What is Alameda Research?

SBF’s portfolio of crypto companies started with his founding of Alameda research in 2017.  Alameda Research was, until very recently, a cryptocurrency trading firm known to specialize in quantitative research and providing liquidity to cryptocurrency and digital assets markets.

Ellison joined the Alameda team as a trader in 2018 and became its co-CEO in 2021.

Bankman-Fried had started Alameda Research as a high-risk, high-reward crypto trading firm using high-risk tactics. He has admitted he included “research” in the name to give it a better vibe. In an NPR podcast in 2017, he was shown to be aggressively taking advantage of the “wild west” crypto playing field. SBF grew his crypto-related business into more complex cryptocurrency trading, accessible to the masses, with his founding of FTX, a crypto exchange, in 2019. He did this by leveraging his image as highly experienced in crypto, which helped him to raise money from firms like BlackRock.

Who Is Caroline Ellison?

In a now-removed YouTube video and podcast, Caroline discussed her background and upbringing in an FTX public relations-type interview dated July 2020.

The 28-year-old Ellison grew up outside of Boston in a town called Newton. Her parents are professors, Glenn Ellison, her father, is a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and Sara Fischer Ellison lectures at the prestigious school.

Ellison said in the podcast that she inherited a natural aptitude for math and entered math competitions at a young age. She further would demonstrate that she was some kind of prodigy by telling people that by age five, she read a Harry Potter book by herself. “I refused to wait for my parents to read it [to me],” she said.  

She went on to major in math at Stanford. After applying for trading internships, a field that is very competitive for new graduates, she landed at Jane Street Capital, a well-respected firm on Wall Street. After her internship, she worked there for a year and a half.  

Is Caroline Elliman or was Caroline Elliman Sam Bankman Fried’s girlfriend? There are sources that say that Ellison met Bankman-Fried at Jane Street. He worked there from June 2014 to September 2017, according to his LinkedIn, which is still live and has 28,250 followers.  

Ellison said she learned about Alameda over coffee with then-CEO Bankman-Fried while visiting the Bay Area and decided “it seemed like too cool of an opportunity to pass up.” She joined the company in 2018.

Bankman-Fried would then resign as CEO of Alameda but retained his role as CEO of FTX. In October 2021, Ellison became co-CEO with Sam Trabucco, a former trader at Susquehanna International Group.

Trabucco resigned in August 2022 to “spend a lot of time traveling,” according to one of his tweets, saying he “bought a boat.”

Was There Romance Between Ellison and SBF?  

When a book about this is written, and the movie is out, it will include sex.

There have been rumors of polyamory. This is a relationship behavior that involves connections with more than one person. According to a Coindesk article from November, among the FTX executives, in the Bahamas,  “All 10 are, or used to be, paired up in romantic relationships with each other.”  There have also been suggestions that FTX employees and Bankman-Fried spent lavishly on the island, from yachts to thousands of dollars a day on catering.

Take Away

Financial fraud comes in many forms. Often it starts out innocently when a bad trade happens, someone tries to cover it up, and the markets don’t cooperate to bail out the bad trade, then more illegal actions are taken to cover that up. There have also been situations where unqualified, not experienced persons are in charge and either unaware of the magnitude of their deceptive actions or are following orders, perhaps just going along because others are doing it too. Then there are those that enjoy the attention they get by being out front and sharing wealth and buying fame. Another more common deceit is someone who is just plain old greedy. All are criminal.

I am not sure what the driver was in the Alameda/FTX, SBF Caroline Ellison (and others) case, but I am sure we will hear much more about this. As we do, remember the importance of trusting those you conduct business with and questioning them anyway.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.linkedin.com/in/sam-bankman-fried-8367a346/?originalSubdomain=bs

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1137054976

https://cointelegraph.com/news/alameda-ex-ceo-caroline-ellison-spotted-in-new-york-twitter-users-claim

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/13/sam-bankman-frieds-alameda-quietly-used-ftx-customer-funds-without-raising-alarm-bells-say-sources.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/alameda-ftx-executives-are-said-to-have-known-ftx-was-using-customer-funds-11668264238?mod=article_inline

The SEC’s Summary of Charges in New Online Stock Manipulation Fraud

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
Image Credit: Clem Onojeghuo (Pexels)

Social Media and Stock Message Boards Again Help Amplify Market Manipulators

There is an ongoing government investigation after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged seven podcasters and social media influencers with stock market manipulation. The benefit to those charged totals near $114 million as they allegedly ran a pump while they were dumping scheme. According to the SEC, the charges are against eight Twitter users that also used stock trading message boards on Discord, and a podcast to promote specific stocks to “hundreds of thousands of followers.” Meanwhile, they are said to have quietly sold into the run-up they helped create in the stocks’ prices.

The fraud they are being charged with began at the dawn of the pandemic in January 2020 and involved participants from various locations, including defendants from Texas, California, New Jersey, and Florida.

The main podcaster named in the case (Knight) is suspected of and also charged in the illicit trading scheme as having used influence to promote the others as expert traders, according to the SEC. Among the most called upon stocks used in the alleged scheme were Gamestop (GME), and AMC Theaters (AMC) – two  darlings of newer investors that saw a rise in popularity beginning during the stimulus check, lockdown period in 2020. This period in market history helped usher in many brand new investors with time to listen to podcasts, follow social media posts, enjoy market-related memes, and benefit from a rising overall market.

Source: SEC.gov

The criminal charges include conspiracy to commit securities fraud and, for several of the defendants, multiple counts of securities fraud. Each of the charges carries a maximum possible sentence of 25 years in prison. The Justice Department simultaneously filed separate criminal fraud charges against the defendants, the SEC said.

The SEC’s complaint calls for the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas to impose fines and to require that the defendants give up their allegedly ill-gotten gains, along with a ban on future misconduct.

The SEC’s Summary of the Scheme

From the SECs court filing:

The Defendants engaged in a long-running fraudulent scheme to manipulate

securities by publishing false and misleading information in online stock-trading forums, on

podcasts, and through their Twitter accounts. The Primary Defendants, aided and abetted by

Knight, engaged in a pattern of conduct, sometimes referred to as “scalping,” in which they

recommended the purchase of a particular stock without disclosing their intent to sell that stock.

They generally executed their scheme in three phases. First, one or more of the Primary

Defendants identified a security to manipulate (the “Selected Stock”) and purchased shares of

that particular security. By sharing the name of the Selected Stock among some or all of the

group, the Defendants provided each other with the opportunity to purchase shares at lower

prices prior to the manipulation. Next, they promoted the stock to their followers on podcasts

and/or social media platforms in order to generate demand and inflate the share price. Typically,

the Primary Defendants announced price targets, teased upcoming news about the company,

and/or stated their intention to buy shares or hold their current positions for longer periods.

Finally, after promoting the stock to their followers in these ways, the Primary Defendants sold

their shares into the demand generated by their recommendations. When the scheme succeeded,

the Primary Defendants were able to sell their shares at higher prices and make profits. In order

to cover up their scheme and continue perpetrating it, the Primary Defendants at various points

deleted old tweets and Discord chats, and lied to their followers about the reasons why particular

stock picks were followed by declines in the prices of those stocks, obscuring their own roles in

causing losses among their followers and other retail investors.

None of the Primary Defendants disclosed that they were either planning to sell,

or were actively selling, a Selected Stock while recommending that their followers buy it. Nor

did any of the Primary Defendants disclose that they were coordinating with each other to

manipulate the price and volume of trading in the stocks they were promoting. Moreover, the

Primary Defendants’ deception extended beyond their omissions and outright lies about their

intentions regarding, and views about, the securities they were promoting. For instance,

sometimes they peddled false or misleading news about particular stocks through social media or

podcast interviews. On some occasions, the Primary Defendants lied about losing money on a

particular stock when in reality they had profited handsomely, in order to generate trust among

their followers—trust that was necessary to perpetuate the scheme and ensure that their followers

would continue to purchase shares based on their future recommendations. Indeed, in private

chats and surreptitiously recorded conversations, they bragged and laughed about making profits

at the expense of their followers.

Defendants’ specific roles in the fraudulent scheme varied depending on the

timeframe and the specific security at issue. Typically, only a subset of the Primary Defendants

participated in the manipulation of a particular stock. Those Primary Defendants would agree on

a Selected Stock in which they would each establish a position (i.e., “load” or “load up” on the

stock). After loading up on the Selected Stock, most, if not all, of the Primary Defendants who

had established positions in that stock would recommend it to their followers. The Primary

Defendants often referred to “swinging” or taking a “swing” position in the stock, by which they

conveyed to their followers that they intended to hold onto the stock for at least a day and likely

longer. As the primary defendants involved in the deceptive heralding of a particular stock

often informed other defendants of their plans, those not directly promoting the stock could,

and many times did, take advantage of the advanced knowledge by purchasing the Selected Security, in

advance of the promotion, and selling the Selected Security at inflated prices that resulted from

the promotion. Over the course of the ongoing scheme, all of the primary defendants, aided and

abetted by Knight, engaged in this conduct, participating directly in scalping and other deceptive

conduct, and all of the Defendants profited from the knowledge that others were doing so.

The Primary Defendants deceptively promoted stocks through three channels:

stock-trading forums on Discord; podcasts; and Twitter.

Take Away

Fraud in the securities market is almost as old as the markets themselves. While the SEC exists to protect investors, the best person to protect oneself is yourself. When consuming investment advice, ask yourself how well you know where the advice is coming from. What is the persons background, for example, are they credentialed with a CFA or guided by the responsibilities that FINRA registrations enforce. Are they ranked by a third-party entity as to their stature?

The alleged pump and dump scheme being investigated and prosecuted by the SEC only exists because people tend to follow the crowd, after-all crowds seem safe. Successful long-term investing often involves more thought than following others into a trade. There are true stock analysts that can help investors sort through all the opportunities, but in the end, the individual investor still needs top ask if it makes sense, does it feel right, and it is likely to match investment goals.

On December 15, Channelchek along with veteran stock analysts, provided registered users of Channelchek their thoughts on a select few companies they cover. If you were not able to attend live, register for Channelchek emails (no cost) now to learn when these extremely insightful presentations will be available online. At a minimum, I promise one will immediately see the difference between a stock market social media influencer and how they make recommendations (tout stocks), and professional equity analysts that ignores hype and instead drills down to best assess the future prospects of a company. Sign up for Channelchek notifications here.

Paul Hofffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.pacermonitor.com/view/O46ED3A/SECURITIES__EXCHANGE_COMMISION__txsdce-22-04306__0001.0.pdf?mcid=tGE3TEOA

https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2022-221

https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/role-sec#:~:text=The%20U.%20S.%20Securities%20and%20Exchange,Facilitate%20capital%20formation