Replies

I assume the hypothetical-PPT is not interested in profit or owning stocks. They are only interested in moving the price upward of everyone else's stock. Many of the arguments hinge on the intervener presumably ending up owning a bunch of stock to accomplish it's goal. I think that is a false assumption. I think they can move the price up and end with no position over a couple days if not hours.
The hypothetical-PPT is only interested in driving up the price of everyone else's stock, they are not and need not be net long any stock to do that. They can buy out a seller at the ask, and the next at a higher ask, they can also buy above the ask, or become the seller and move the ask up. They can do this above the bid, encouraging bidders to likewise bid-up. As sellers see the ask come up, profit motive will induce them to raise it themselves. In this fashion the bid/ask and spread move up, though the hypothetical-PPT now owns some stock. When the spread has moved up enough and become wide enough, the hypothetical-PPT then sells back it's position inside the spread thereby unwinding itself without moving the price. The 'momentary' position (in any given stock) would have been small relative to the daily volume and easily sold back, especially if this is done every few upticks or so. This can be repeated throughout the trading hour, day or week. Net long positions and tens of billions of dollars are not needed.

I'm not clear on whether or not your scenario implies a net gain or loss on trades. If the PPT has moved the market up, but unloaded its position quickly, that seems to imply a profit. At most, it sounds like any net loss would be small. If tens of billions of dollars are not needed and, at most, losses would be small, then I think you have weakend your argument for PPT intervention--a rational, profit seeking market participant is more likely to be responsible. If the scenario you propose could be pulled off at a proft, then we simply have to assume that some player has figured out a new way to make a buck off the market. If the scenario involves a small loss, then I think it would be safest to assume that the loss is offset by some other position, eg, they move the market up in order to unwind a position or to load up on shorts or puts.

It may be most effective on light trading days to give and upward direction to a market that is trading sideways. Theoretically, they ought to anticipate good or bad news and try to move the market up before bad news (knowing a sell-off is pending and they won't be able to stop it but they can start it up higher so it ends higher) or move it up when good news is announced (to leverage the good news and start a rally or short covering).

Again, to me this makes a rational, profit seeking market player more plausible. Ie, it looks like someone is trying to "get some action going" when the market is otherwise quiet. Wouldn't the PPT want to do the opposite: quiet down a market that's gotten too jumpy?

As a further sanity check, how does your PPT-scenario match up against past, well known, large market plays? For instance, does anyone know the mechanics of Soros's play against the Bank of England back in the early 90's? He supposedly netted $1B. How long did the play take? How much capital did the play take? How much would he have lost had the play not worked out?

Inquiring minds want to know! ;)

[z]

I'm not clear on whether or not your scenario implies a net gain or loss on trades. If the PPT has moved the market up, but unloaded its position quickly, that seems to imply a profit.

But typically they are fighting a downward market, during which they take losses. Issues will move in different direction as well - profit in some, loss in others. Overall I would assume net losses, but less than if every share was bought and held all the way down. If the market reverses and recovers, I would assume they would unwind any position. For a profit-oriented trader sustained net losses, even if small, are to be avoided.

If the scenario you propose could be pulled off at a proft, then we simply have to assume that some player has figured out a new way to make a buck off the market.

Even when it might yield a profit, the cash required to trade sufficient volume (all the sellers that have to be taken out just to move the ask up) in all the issues to be moved is larger than any 'extra' cash a fund would have available. I haven't thought through if they'd try this on margin. In a downward market, I doubt a long-fund would risk it, and in a sideways market, I assume they'd wait or unwind. Obviously in an upward market there is no need.

Wouldn't the PPT want to do the opposite: quiet down a market that's gotten too jumpy?

I assume they're only trying to prevent a steep plunge or the 'cascading effect'. A sideways or upward 'jumpy' market they'd sit out.

Honestly, I'm outta my depth understanding how large trading is done and what attention it draws or not. I'm only trying to postulate a workable trading technique to move proces upward without regard to profit.

For instance, does anyone know the mechanics of Soros's play against the Bank of England back in the early 90's?

My understanding is that he triggered a run on the pound by selling it short in large quantities.

He supposedly netted $1B. How long did the play take?

< 24 hours

How much capital did the play take?

$10 billion

How much would he have lost had the play not worked out?

10 billion X the percent the pound increased in value.

Do a google on ERM & Soros for more background on the unusual exchange rate circumstances surrounding the trade.