[ad_1]
You want to see a rather stupid twist in an already stupid news?
At Dealbreaker, we talked to satiety on the Lyft IPO. She was sentenced from birth, victim of a cultural moment that emphasized novelty and novelty over basic financial viability and a convincing understanding of the functioning of voting shares in an open society. And how did at least one of the most savvy investors in the company bail out the business even before it was opened to the market?
But even we could not predict a new subplot of Lyft's free fall into life as a public company:
Lyft has threatened lawsuits against Morgan Stanley, accusing the company of supporting short selling for investors subject to lock-up agreements.
In a letter to Morgan Stanley on April 2, Lyft questioned the company about its alleged role in marketing certain products that would help investors upstream of the IPO to bet against stocks.
Yeah, giving our customers a chance to reduce our stock by circumventing agreements to prevent bag holders from selling it would annoy us if we were Lyft, but neither is it – you know – illegal. Morgan Stanley does not have a contract with Lyft, they only fill a need, even if it is located on the dark periphery of the very morality of the financial sector. And given that Lyft's shares fell by 12% in Hindenburg, the second trading day only, it's hard to believe that Morgan Stanley's stake (about 1.3% of total trading volume) actually has been a determining factor in reducing the contraction received by Lyft. of the market.
But what makes this thing even more ridiculous and overtly dramatic is Morgan Stanley's Is to have a contract with, and what Lyft thinks it means:
The dispute also arises while a long pipeline of tech companies are waiting to make their own debut this year. Lyft's rival, Uber, should be made public in the coming months.
Morgan Stanley had won the coveted underwriting role of Uber's IPO. The bankers who handle this transaction have also been copied into the letter, which is noteworthy as the creation of financial products for short selling would generally be done in another division of the company – not in the investment bank.
It seems that Lyft claims that Morgan Stanley helped his sack holders to sell the title to make up for any losses in the hopes of changing the stock price and giving Uber a better appearance in anticipation of its own introduction. on the stock market in a few months. This is not so much the recognition of a bbad investment bank crime as an episode of "The Real Housewives of Wall Street".
Aside from the fact that many badysts were using the Lyft IPO as a canary in the coal mine for surfing technology IPOs expected to hit this year (Uber among them), the idea that Morgan Stanley would chart a campaign at several levels against the Lyft in order to promote his BFF Uber for IPO Prom Queen or something is a real scope of logical thinking. That's finance and Morgan Stanley took advantage of the creation of this vehicle to meet a market need. On Wall Street, this is the most common and most likely reason.
And make no mistake, but Morgan Stanley should brag about that, not behaving like a "dubious AF" to NYPost, offering far-fetched denials of what they did or did not do made. In fact, there is a "big" bank that can be thought of without knowing it and that is not at all involved in the subscription of Lyft or Uber, and this bank is UBS.
Considering that the two IPOs are carried out by overvalued startups that are unprofitable, make no promise of ever being profitable, are led by a leadership that openly consolidates all the power internally to ensure that no one can force to be profitable, and that every IPO in this model has failed over the last four years, we believe that there should be a lawsuit. Anyone who has invested in Lyft or Uber in an badessment prior to the IPO and who is also a UBS client should sue the bank.[1] he's not suggesting some sort of vehicle to reduce these stocks.
It must be illegal.
Lyft threatens Morgan Stanley with lawsuits, accusing the firm of supporting short selling [CNBC]
[1] Ed. Note: They might want to sue UBS anyway.
Source link
