DOCSLIB.ORG

Gamestop, AMC and the Self-Fulfilling Beliefs of Stock Buyers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Gamestop, AMC and the Self-Fulfilling Beliefs of Stock Buyers Home / Publications / Research / Economic Brief / 2021 Economic Brief April 2021, No. 21-13 GameStop, AMC and the Self-Fullling Beliefs of Stock Buyers Article by: Gaston Chaumont, Grey Gordon and Bruno Sultanum The recent stock market gyrations of GameStop and AMC Entertainment illustrate that companies' fates can sometimes hinge on self-fullling beliefs. Pessimistic expectations can raise the specter of bankruptcy, while optimistic expectations can allow for survival and eventual success. We show how it is sometimes possible for small coalitions of buyers — such as those that formed on the online forum Reddit — to tip the balance in favor of an optimistic scenario. By doing so, a coalition can reap large prots and fundamentally improve a company's prospects. A cash-strapped company's survival can depend on the self-fullling beliefs of investors. It is possible for the company to fall prey to a vicious cycle in which pessimistic expectations bar it from raising additional funds and thereby force it into bankruptcy. Alternatively, the company may benet from a virtuous cycle in which optimistic expectations permit it to raise additional funds and thereby allow it to survive and even prosper. These divergent possibilities were demonstrated by the recent market swings of GameStop (GME) and AMC Entertainment (AMC). The pessimistic cases for GME and AMC were obvious: Reduced trac at malls and movie theaters, respectively, decimated their revenues, and the persistence of these tough operating conditions could have saddled the companies, which were heavily indebted, with even larger debt burdens, possibly resulting in bankruptcy. Many hedge funds acted on this pessimistic view by "short selling" the companies' stocks.1 But there were also optimistic cases to be made for GME and AMC. Michael Burry (the investor portrayed in The Big Short movie) argued that GME, a retailer of video games and consoles, was given an extension for its current business model when manufacturers revealed that next-gen video consoles would continue to include physical media.2 As for the movie-theater chain AMC, it had been protable before the pandemic and could conceivably be so afterward, provided it could continue servicing its debts. In dramatic fashion, the now famous (or infamous) Reddit WallStreetBets (WSB coalition) appears to have tipped the balance in favor of the optimistic scenarios for GME and AMC. By buying large quantities of the companies' stock, the WSB coalition drastically bid up the share prices. For example, a $10,000 investment in GME shares on Jan. 4 was worth $250,000 on Jan. 28. This giant leap in GME's price increased the mark-to-market value of outstanding shares by $20 billion and cost hedge funds (who were shorting the stock) $12.5 billion, according to one report.3 The story was similar for AMC. For both AMC and GME, the emergence of optimistic scenarios turned out to have very real eects on the companies' fundamentals. On Jan. 28, AMC issued 44.4 million shares and paid o $600 million in debt. Notably, its share price went up when it announced this plan, indicating that buyers, sellers and holders of the stock believed on average that it was worth diluting the existing shares to recapitalize the company. As for GME, it announced a 3.5 million share stock oering on April 5 worth approximately $670 million at April 5 prices.4 The company may use those proceeds to pay o some of its $485 million in debt,5 and GME had said previously it was considering issuing stock to fund its new focus on e- commerce.6 By buying GME and AMC stock aggressively, the WSB coalition reaped massive rewards and fundamentally improved the companies' prospects. Of course, it is dicult to say how well GME and AMC will fare in the future, but they are much stronger nancially and better positioned to take advantage of demand increases if they occur. A Model of Self-Fullling Expectations Our research sheds light on the stock price dynamics of GME and AMC.7 We built a model of a company that is fundamentally solvent but illiquid in the sense that it needs access to nancial markets to continue operating. In the model, both pessimistic and optimistic outcomes are mathematically possible, and only investor expectations determine which outcome will occur.8 In the model's optimistic scenario, the company is able to nance productive investments that increase the company's fundamental and market values. In the pessimistic scenario, the company is forced to cease operations. We show that when the pessimistic case is initially expected, there is an arbitrage opportunity — that is, an ability to make riskless prot — for a coalition of investors. Provided that the coalition has sucient buying power, it can bid up the value of the company's securities, thereby allowing the company to raise money by issuing additional shares. By doing so, the coalition can eectively push the company into the optimistic outcome. A key result of the model is that a pessimistic outcome cannot be sustained if investors anticipate a "short squeeze" — that is, an aggressive bidding up of the stock price by the coalition of buyers.9 Importantly, the model does not require the coalition to invest in a bubble or be irrational. However, the model does require that the coalition can buy additional shares, which became impossible at a number of brokerages at the peak of the short-squeeze turmoil in the case of GME and AMC. The model provides a natural explanation of the recent stock price swings of GME and AMC (shown in Figure 1). Specically, early this year, the market appeared to anticipate that a pessimistic outcome would prevail and did not expect a short squeeze. However, as buying by the WSB coalition intensied, the companies' stock prices increased substantially, and investors became increasingly aware that a coalition of optimistic investors existed and that a short squeeze was happening. This condition temporarily ceased when trading restrictions were put in place during late January amid rallies in the companies' stock prices. After the restrictions hit, GME and AMC stock prices declined. However, those restrictions have been lifted. And, with the possibility of a short squeeze now rmly in investors' minds, GME and AMC stock prices have remained at elevated levels. Enlarge Methodology We use a theoretical model with many potential investors and a single rm. There are three periods in the model — zero, one and two. In period one, the rm generates revenue but must repay its debt (or default) and make an investment decision. We assume that if the rm invests during period one, the revenue it would produce in period two would be sucient to make the investment lucrative for both the rm and its investors. Crucially, the rm does not have enough revenue in period one to make the investment and repay its debt, so to invest, it must raise funds by issuing stock.10 If the share issuance raises enough resources for the rm to invest, it pays out its substantial net worth as a dividend at the end of period two and dissolves. If it is not able to invest, it liquidates — and if its debt is larger than period-one revenue, it les for bankruptcy. In period zero, each investor owns initial shares of stock and debt (although this assumption can be relaxed). They then engage in trading that establishes period-zero prices for the shares and the bonds. However, their ability to do so might be limited by trading frictions. In period one, they again trade stock, and their total demand for shares must equal the supply, which is the initial shares plus the newly issued shares. This trading determines the price in period one. We rst consider the case of competitive equilibrium, which describes what outcomes are possible when all investors take prices as given. Second, we consider the notion of a coalition game. In this game, a coalition of investors can coordinate their actions, but they only do so to the extent that it is in the self-interest of each individual coalition member — which theoretically we characterize as a Nash equilibrium.11 Results Our rst result is a standard one in the spirit of research published in 2000 by Harold L. Cole of the University of Pennsylvania and Timothy J. Kehoe of the University of Minnesota.12 We show that, for certain levels of debt and revenue, there are two competitive equilibrium outcomes: an optimistic one, where the rm stays solvent in period one and invests; and a pessimistic one, where the rm does not invest and liquidates (possibly through bankruptcy). Either of these outcomes can occur, with the outcome hinging exclusively on investor beliefs. In both outcomes, the price of the new shares issued by the rm is competitive and does not entail a risk-adjusted prot or loss for investors. The pessimistic outcome features low prices for shares in periods zero and one and a low price for bonds in period zero, while the optimistic outcome features high prices for shares and bonds. In other words, the optimistic outcome is better for all investors than the pessimistic one. Our main result concerns the coalition game. We show that in the pessimistic outcome, an arbitrage opportunity for a small coalition exists. Taking advantage of this opportunity requires two steps. First, the investors in the coalition must buy stock or debt at extremely cheap prices. For convenience, we assume investors already own debt in period zero, so this step is not necessary; however, that assumption can be relaxed. Second, the coalition of investors executes a short squeeze, oering to buy the newly issued shares at their optimistic values in an amount sucient to fund the rm's investment.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The P&A Blog
    The P&A Blog March 1, 2021 The GameStonk Saga By John D. As the token almost Gen Z-er in the office, I’ve become, for better or worse, the office authority on cryptocurrency news and internet lingo. The recent run-up of GameStop stock, catalyzed from a rag-tag bunch of internet investors, proved to only solidify my place in the office: I used Robinhood as a teen and through college, I’ve been a part of this internet group for some time (not posting, just watching), and I watch the markets all day – all of what I bring to the table has culminated in this blog post! First and foremost, many of the terms I use relate to complicated financial instruments. At the bottom of the article, I have explanations for items I think would be confusing to someone not immersed in the finance world. Second, I need to give an overview of the main players in this drama (again, if you want a deeper explanation for some of these, see the appendix at the bottom of the article): 1) GameStop: They are the largest brick-and-mortar retailer dedicated to video games. In a world of online shopping, empty malls, and streaming, this business looked to be dying for some time. 2) Robinhood: An online brokerage that was the first company to slash commissions to $0 for stock trades. They make money buy selling order flow to other institutions (more on this later). 3) Reddit: The online forum in which the subreddit r/wallstreetbets began touting that people should buy GameStop for various reasons.
    [Show full text]
  • The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine
    The Big Short Inside the doomsday machine Also by Michael Lewis Home Game Liar's Poker The Money Culture Pacific Rift Losers The New New Thing Next Moneyball Coach The Blind Side EDITED BY MICHAEL LEWIS Panic The Big Short INSIDE THE DOOMSDAY MACHINE Michael Lewis W. W. NORTON & COMPANY NEW YORK LONDON Copyright (c) 2010 by Michael Lewis All rights reserved For information about permission to reproduce selections from this book, write to Permissions, W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 500 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10110 ISBN: 978-0-393-07819-0 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. 500 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10110 www.wwnorton.com W. W. Norton & Company Ltd. Castle House, 75/76 Wells Street, London W1T 3QT For Michael Kinsley To whom I still owe an article The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.--Leo Tolstoy, 1897 Contents Prologue Poltergeist Chapter 1 A Secret Origin Story Chapter 2 In the Land of the Blind Chapter 3 "How Can a Guy Who Can't Speak English Lie?" Chapter 4 How to Harvest a Migrant Worker Chapter 5 Accidental Capitalists Chapter 6 Spider-Man at The Venetian Chapter 7 The Great Treasure Hunt Chapter 8 The Long Quiet Chapter 9 A Death of Interest Chapter 10 Two Men in a Boat Epilogue Everything Is Correlated Acknowledgments PROLOGUE Poltergeist The willingness of a Wall Street investment bank to pay me hundreds of thousands of dollars to dispense investment advice to grown-ups remains a mystery to me to this day.
    [Show full text]
  • Dodona I, LLC, Et Al. V. Goldman, Sachs & Co., Et Al. 10-CV-07497
    Case 1:10-cv-07497-VM Document 40 Filed 02/04/11 Page 2 of 86 37KO doGRFO of bespeaks caution provides no protection to someone who warns his hiking companion to walk slowly because there might be a ditch ahead when he knows with near certainty that the 1 *UDdGa&yo& lRQo&OLHVaRay.” q Court appointed lead plaintiff Dodona I, LLC (“Dodona” or “Plaintiff”), on behalf of itself and two proposed classes of similarly situated investors, alleges the following for its amended complaint against the defendants. NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is a securities class action on behalf of investors in two offerings of collateralized debt obligations (“CDOs”) led by The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (“Goldman”). The first CDO comprised a $837 million offering of securities co-issued by Hudson Mezzanine Funding 2006-1, Ltd. (“Hudson 1 Ltd.”) and Hudson Mezzanine Funding 2006-1, Corp. (“Hudson 1 Corp.”) as to all tranches except the Class E and Income Note tranches, the latter two of which were issued solely by Hudson 1 Ltd., as well as a senior swap transaction with an initial notional amount of $1.2 billion (the “Hudson 1 CDO”). The Hudson 1 CDO was issued on or about December 5, 2006. The second CDO was a $407.9 million offering of securities co-issued by Hudson Mezzanine Funding 2006-2, Ltd. (“Hudson 2 Ltd.”) and Hudson Mezzanine Funding 2006-2, Corp. (“Hudson 2 Corp.”) as to all tranches except the Class E and Income Note tranches, the latter two of which were issued solely by Hudson 2 Ltd.
    [Show full text]
  • No Thanks for the Memories
    February 12, 2016 No thanks for the memories. View as PDF Click here to view as PDF. “It is better to be three hours too early than a minute too late.” -Falstaff, in Shakespeare’s The Merry Widows of Windsor. “Put simply, the Fed has created the third speculative bubble in 15 years in return for real economic improvements that amount to literally a fraction of 1%.” – John Hussman, referring to a recent influential research paper by the University of Chicago’s Cynthia Wu and Fan Dora Xia. SUMMARY – The latest Hollywood blockbuster The Big Short evokes strong memories here at Evergreen of the bubbly days leading up to the subprime housing bust in 2007 and 2008. – Like the film’s protagonists – hedge fund managers Mark Baum and Dr. Michael Burry – we spent several years warning about the risks to the creaky housing market and the overleveraged US financial system. While our caution was a source of frustration for some clients, it ultimately paid off for the patient majority who stuck with us. – While our defensive posture in the face of rising prices was eventually vindicated, that process did not happen overnight. As the movie reminds us, mortgage-backed security (MBS) valuations actually continued to rise even as defaults rose sharply. Being early in recognizing bubbles can be extremely painful for a year or two, but what matters most is being right in the long run. – Once again, we find ourselves in that uncomfortable position at Evergreen. After years of overly accommodative Fed policy, we see bubbles all around us and also signs that many of them are beginning to pop.
    [Show full text]
  • Michael Burry 2000/2001
    MSN Money Articles By Michael Burry 2000/2001 Strategy My strategy isn't very complex. I try to buy shares of unpopular companies when they look like road kill, and sell them when they've been polished up a bit. Management of my portfolio as a whole is just as important to me as stock picking, and if I can do both well, I know I'll be successful. Weapon of choice: research My weapon of choice as a stock picker is research; it's critical for me to understand a company's value before laying down a dime. I really had no choice in this matter, for when I first happened upon the writings of Benjamin Graham, I felt as if I was born to play the role of value investor. All my stock picking is 100% based on the concept of a margin of safety, as introduced to the world in the book "Security Analysis," which Graham co-authored with David Dodd. By now I have my own version of their techniques, but the net is that I want to protect my downside to prevent permanent loss of capital. Specific, known catalysts are not necessary. Sheer, outrageous value is enough. I care little about the level of the general market and put few restrictions on potential investments. They can be large-cap stocks, small cap, mid cap, micro cap, tech or non-tech. It doesn't matter. If I can find value in it, it becomes a candidate for the portfolio. It strikes me as ridiculous to put limits on my possibilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Learning from Dr. Michael J. Burry's Investment Philosphy
    Learning from Dr. Michael J. Burry’s Investment Philosophy Panda Agriculture & Water Fund Team LEARNING FROM DR. MICHAEL J. BURRY’S INVESTMENT PHILOSPHY A journey through t h e investment stages of the man who bet against arrogance and put the financial industry in check . Introduction We want to contribute by making financial knowledge less cyclical and more anti-fragile5. Financial markets are rife with stories about big companies, banks and investment funds going bust or irredeemably We are also interested in promoting Dr. Burry’s unorthodox going bankrupt, mind-boggling trades and hedge fund value investing approach. When asked about our investment wizards making money from wild ideas. ‘The Big Short’, the approach we usually say that our philosophy is 50% value film adaptation of Michael Lewis’s book, has reverted public and 50% global macro. When it comes to analyzing attention to the subprime crisis and the strong conviction companies, we focus on critical value points, paying special investing strategy. By watching this movie, not only did we, attention to cash flow generation (something Dr. Burry also the Panda Agriculture & Water Fund team1, rediscover the does). As portfolio managers however, we also look at the book, which we had read, it also prompted us to delve global environment and macroeconomic trends. In fact, one further into Dr. Burry’s investment philosophy. This of the reasons for starting Panda was our having identified document humbly seeks to be the most complete agriculture as one of the strongest macroeconomic trends in compilation of Dr. Michael J. Burry thoughts2. the coming decades.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Big Short' Investor Michael Burry Is Now Going Long on Gamestop
    9/29/2019 ‘Big Short’ Investor Michael Burry Is Now Long on GameStop - Barron's MEDIA FEATURE ‘Big Short’ Investor Michael Burry Is Now Going Long on GameStop By Tae Kim Aug. 21, 2019 6:00 pm ET Michael Burry Photograph by Tony Avelar/Bloomberg Michael Burry, whose prescient bet against subprime mortgages before the financial crisis was depicted in the book and movie The Big Short, is making another contrarian call: going long shares of GameStop . GameStop’s “balance sheet is actually in very good shape,” Burry told Barron’s in a phone interview on Wednesday. “I believe they will have the cash flow to justify a much higher share price.” Burry, a major character in Michael Lewis’ best-selling The Big Short, was depicted by actor Christian Bale in the movie based on the book. The investor was among the first to bet against subprime mortgages using credit default swaps going into the financial crisis. He rarely talks to the press. On Monday, his firm, Scion Asset Management, revealed it had sent a letter to the board of GameStop (ticker: GME) urging the company to fully execute the $237.6 million remaining on its current $300 million share-buyback authorization. The statement also disclosed that Scion now owns three million shares of GameStop, or some 3% of shares outstanding. https://www.barrons.com/articles/big-short-investor-michal-burry-is-now-long-gamestop-51566424832?mod=article_inline 1/3 9/29/2019 ‘Big Short’ Investor Michael Burry Is Now Long on GameStop - Barron's GameStop shares have fallen 72% this year after a series of disappointing earnings reports and worries over its future in an increasingly digital- download dominated landscape.
    [Show full text]
  • The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine
    The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine Michael Lewis \Aames Financial, like The Money Store, belonged to a new category of firms extending loans to cash-strapped Americans, known euphemistically as \specialty finance." [...] Aames was the first subprime mortgage lender to go public." \The mortgage bond was different in important ways from old-fashioned corporate and government bonds. A mortgage bond wasn't a single giant loan for an explicit fixed term. A mortgage bond was a claim on the cash flows from a pool of thousands of individual home mortgages. These cash flows were always problematic, as the borrowers had the right to pay off any time they pleased. This was the single biggest reason that bond investors initially had been reluctant to invest in home mortgage loans: Mortgage borrowers typically repaid their loans only when interest rates fell, and they could refinance more cheaply, leaving the owner of a mortgage bond holding a pile of cash, to invest at lower interest rates. The investor in home loans didn't know how long his investment would last, only that he would get his money back when he least wanted it. To limit this uncertainty, the people I'd worked with at Salomon Brothers, who created the mortgage bond market, had come up with a clever solution. They took giant pools of home loans and carved up the payments made by homeowners into pieces, called tranches. The buyer of the first tranche was like the owner of the ground floor in a flood: He got hit with the first wave of mortgage prepayments.
    [Show full text]
  • The BIG SHORT - 2.0
    The BIG SHORT - 2.0 Michael Burry, a Scion Capital hedge fund manager, bet against the housing market ○ He bet against (ie shorted) securitized sub-prime mortgages ○ What happened when sub-prime mortgages started to collapse? ○ Did his bet pay off? Not initially. Why? ○ The banks did not “mark-to-market” (they didn’t correspondingly update the valuations of these securities). ○ What happened as a result? ■ Burry’s “fortitude was tested” as he continued to have to pay to maintain his “”short” position. ○ Meanwhile, banks were repositioning themselves, before the “SHTF”. So, flash forward, today: Who might be repositioning themselves? Let’s see: ● http://www.mining.com/web/central-bank-gold-buying-undermining-dollar/ ● https://www.businessinsider.com/central-banks-buy-gold-at-rate-not-seen-since-wwii-2019-2 ● https://www.businessinsider.com/gold-china-buying-spree-continues-as-central-banks-boost-demand-2019-4 ● https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/31/world-gold-council-central-banks-buy-most-gold-since-1967-.html ● https://thedailycoin.org/2018/12/26/russian-central-bank-buying-gold-on-the-international-market/ Meanwhile, banks continue to give assurances, that “things are fairly healthy”, in spite hedging with cautionaries: ● https://www.marketwatch.com/story/5-things-jpmorgan-ceo-jamie-dimon-just-told-investors-and-the-american-public-2019-04-04 Gee, what other analogies might we make…? Perhaps instead of arguing Wits 1.0, 2.0, Rocks, Who-did-What, Liar-Liar-Pants-on-Fire, Who was right/wrong, etc, while caught up in “what’s in their shorts”, ● Many participants on CEO need to be told, ENOUGH! (R 4, iv) I’d also wager, the BIG SHORT 2.0/HEDGE would better serve for engagement in discussion, not what’s in their drawers.
    [Show full text]
  • Michael Lewis. 2010. the Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine
    Michael Lewis. 2010. The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine. New York: W.W. Norton Company. pp. 266. $27.95. ISBN 978-0-39-307223-5 The collapse of the subprime mortgage bond market and the resulting "Great Recession" produced tremendous outrage at the evident corruption and fraud, which has in turn fueled a cottage industry of elegant postmortems of the crisis. 1 Michael Lewis, one of the more entertaining observers of the financial world, has woven a story which captures the convoluted pathology of the U.S. investment banking system. Oklahomans concerned about the health of the financial industry are well advised to read The Big Short for an entertaining account of how a few traders spotted the bubble, and won enormous sums of money betting on when it would burst. Lewis's first big book, Liar's Poker (1989) captured the manic quality of the "go go" Wall Street culture of the 1980's. In The Big Short (201 0), he capitalized on relationships forged during his earlier career in the financial world to tell the story of the financial crisis from the perspective of a small group of money managers who had the foresight to see the subprime mortgage crisis coming, and who had the strength of will to resist the "follow-the-leader" Wall Street mentality that spawned the crisis. For seasoned financial observers, the mechanics of the story are familiar; as the "smart money" found themselves ensorcelled by the escalating complexity of the derivatives market, they 130 OKLAHOMAPOLITICS I NOVEMBER2010 became ever more tolerant of the risks they were willing to take to justify their lavish compensation packages.
    [Show full text]
  • FUNDS on FRIDAY by Glacier Research
    FUNDS ON FRIDAY by Glacier Research w 12 F e b r u a r y 202 1 V o l u m e 108 2 The Big Short…Squeeze Written by: Saleh Jamodien, Junior Research & Investment Analyst at Glacier by Sanlam The recent market volatility during the GameStop saga mirrors the events in the well-known film adaptation of the book “The Big Short”. The film chronicled the lives of a few sophisticated investors who predicted and profited off the collapse of the housing and credit bubble in the 2008 Global Financial Crisis by taking a short position on the housing market. In this instance however, it was the retail investors who were in the driving seat while the Wall Street’s hedge fund managers were on the back foot. Setting the scene Citron Research, an activist short-selling firm and renowned for their bearish research reports, announced that they have taken a short position on GameStop, citing that the company was on a terminal decline and has significantly struggled with revenue during the pandemic. When one takes a long position on a stock, they are essentially stating that the company is undervalued by the market and would profit by buying the stock in the hopes that the stock price rises at which point they would sell. When one takes a short position on a stock, however, they are taking a stance that the company is overvalued by the market and is not fundamentally sound. Therefore, a short seller would borrow shares from a broker and sell them to the market with the intention of buying them back at a lower price, at which point they will return the shares to the broker plus some prior agreed- upon fee and profit the difference.
    [Show full text]
  • Book Review Patrick M. Foley, CFP , QPFC
    Book Review The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine By Michael Lewis Patrick M. Foley, CFP®, QPFC May 2012 I’ve read quite a few books on the 2008 Global Financial Meltdown at this point, including some that I’ve reviewed previously. There was Fools Gold, told from the perspective of JP Morgan; The Devils Casino, about the fall of Lehman Brothers; The Monster, which focused on subprime lenders; and House of Cards, which detailed the collapse of Bear Stearns. Recently I finished one that was particularly entertaining (I know… an unusual description for a financial apocalypse story!). Called The Big Short, it was easily the most compelling read of the bunch. The author is Michael Lewis, who is best known in the investment world for having written Liar’s Poker, and best know outside if it for Moneyball and The Blind Side. The Big Short views the meltdown from the perspective of traders who recognized the growing rot within the mortgage industry, and made fortunes betting against (“shorting”) that market and the major global financial institutions that were at the center of it. Lewis is a gifted writer with a particular talent for recalling historical events through descriptions of conversations and characters, such as this colorful depiction of Gregg Lippmann (A Deutsche Bank bond trader who guided several fund managers in making huge bets against the mortgage market): He wore his hair slicked back, in the manner of Gordon Gekko, and the sideburns long, in the fashion of an 1820s Romantic composer or a 1970s porn star. He wore loud ties, and said outrageous things without the slightest apparent awareness of how they might sound if repeated unsympathetically.
    [Show full text]