Posted by guest , Mar 05, 2009 5:40PM

13% borrowing cost is nothing. I was regularly paying 25%+ for hard to borrows during the bull market. Anyone try borrowing NFI, NEWC, HANS, NTRI, TRLG, BIDZ, etc knows what I'm talking about.

Posted by guest , Mar 05, 2009 5:59PM

#3, yes. I was paying 30%+ for some names (e.g., SFI).

8==D~~

Posted by guest , Mar 05, 2009 6:14PM

how thoughtful of MS to hedge the US investment portfolio. TARP is long on MS, MS is short on F. We can't lose.

Posted by guest , Mar 05, 2009 6:37PM

that almost makes me wanna buy ford...almost!

TRB

Posted by guest , Mar 05, 2009 6:41PM

@3, i couldn't borrow HANS period in '07...clearing firm Fidelity had none to lend, settled on naked puts

The Reformed Broker

Posted by guest , Mar 05, 2009 7:59PM

The Huffington Post tabloid publishing a finance-related article is like icanhascheezburger.com commenting on recent trends in the neurosurgery field.

Posted by guest , Mar 05, 2009 8:33PM

long C

Posted by guest , Mar 05, 2009 8:56PM

Short @9

Posted by guest , Mar 05, 2009 8:57PM

isn't, like, 13% in 0% bear market completely different from 25% in a 5% bull by SEVERAL factors?

i mean cmon, the only reason you'd be asking someone for F for 13% NOW is either because you'd hope it would leak so you could squeeze the shorts or because you're desperate to squeeze the longs because F is bottoming and you already have a sizeable position.

honestly I suspect F will be fine, at least relative to all auto. they're actually putting out decent looking (compared to US cars) cars finally, their finances are shitty but not catastrophic, and their CEO turned around Boeing commercial. you'd have to be an idiot to short it now and not hedge.

Posted by guest , Mar 05, 2009 10:14PM

HuffPo is a joke.

Posted by guest , Mar 05, 2009 10:25PM

@12

F will not be fine. Their CEO talks a good game, but it's all talk. Keep watching, you'll see how soon they go down with the others.

Posted by guest , Mar 05, 2009 10:49PM

What everyone is missing is that 13% annualize is almost 0 for a 2-day short position. in fact it is around .07%. F has been hovering around $2 which means $.0014 per share in borrow costs = nothing.

I'm surprised that the carrying costs weren't higher.

Posted by guest , Mar 05, 2009 10:54PM

@15 here -

As a follow up, this shows HuffPos complete lack of knowledge on the economyeverything since they don't understand the effects of annualizing...

Posted by guest , Mar 05, 2009 11:11PM

I want to borrow stock from my comrade with the sweet boobs. Pelosi

Posted by guest , Mar 05, 2009 11:24PM

@14. Granted, we'll see. Mind you I'm not going long or short any time this century so I don't really care but if one were to bet on any US auto, F would have to be it.

Posted by guest , Mar 05, 2009 11:28PM

@15 so why are they begging people who already said they weren't going to loan their shares to loan out? either the email leaker or MS is up to something.

Posted by guest , Mar 05, 2009 11:30PM

@18. you "snarfed, funniest thing i read all day" over a comment about icanhascheezburger.com? Jesus christ man. Get out more.

Posted by guest , Mar 06, 2009 12:45AM

Ford is definitely the "best of breed" in US autos (laughing while I type, but seriously, it is). Two bullets: 1) This is B/D offering 13% to long holder to borrow shares, they would defs lend at more than Fed-13; 2) Stock borrow rates are based on fed so if your rebate is Fed effective less 50bps you are negative rebate even on the coldest borrows.

And if anyone from Huffington Post understands what I just wrote I would be shocked.

Posted by guest , Mar 06, 2009 12:50AM

Sell calls instead.

Posted by guest , Mar 06, 2009 2:01AM

if you're paying anywhere near 50bps for mundane cold s&p borrows, you're getting ripped off.

Posted by guest , Mar 06, 2009 11:38AM

#23, options prices will reflect borrow costs.

8==D~~