How to deal with activist targeting of individual stocks?
The easiest way to deal with risks for individual stocks is to diversify. I do most of my investing in broad market index funds, particularly the S&P 500.  I don't generally hold individual stocks long, but I do buy options when I think there are price moves that aren't supported by the fundamentals of a stock. All of this riskier short-term investing is done in my Roth IRA, because I want to maximize the profits in the account that won't ever be taxed. I wouldn't want a particularly fruitful investing year to bite me with short term capital gains on my income tax. I usually beat the market in that account, but not by much. It would be pretty easy to wipe out those gains on a particularly bad year if I was investing in the actual stocks and not just using options. Many people who deal in individual stocks hedge with put options, but this is only cost effective at strike prices that represent losses of 20% or more and it eats away the gains. Other people or try to add to their gains by selling covered call options figuring that they're happy to sell with a large upward move, but if that upward move doesn't happen you still get the gains from the options you've sold.
"It's only a ""loss"" if you believe the purpose of indexes is to represent the basket of underlying companies with the highest returns.  But that's simply not true.  An index is just a rules-based way to track/measure a thing.  That thing could be the largest US companies, all the companies in a specific sector, all of the companies in the world, a commodity or basket of commodities... Pretty much anything.  Somebody just has to write down the explanation of what an index tracks, then create ETFs to track the index.  By being a ""passive investor"" you are still making active investing decisions to some degree, in that you need to decide which indexes to passively invest in.  If people are not going to attempt to understand the companies they invest in because they're almost certainly better off indexing (which is fine), then the responsibility must fall on someone to make decisions about what are the best rules for the indexes.  For most of the history of capital markets, good corporate governance has been enforced by shareholders.  If management did something bad, shareholders could vote to replace the Board of Directors and in general they had tools to hold management accountable.  Only in recent years, founders of companies like Google, Facebook, Snap, etc., have attempted to subvert this relationship (public shareholders give a company money, and in return the company must answer to the shareholders) and essentially take money for nothing.  So far (it's still a pretty short experiment) this has worked as long as the share price is going up, but what happens when it doesn't?  What happens when these companies screw up and stop performing well, and there's nothing shareholders can do about it?  Investors who intentionally own individual shares will have little to no leverage to demand change, and passive investors would be stuck with some of their money in these companies with terrible governance - and the precedent would only make dual-class and non-voting shares more attractive for future IPOs, making the problem more prevalent.  If you think it is in your best interest to own the entire S&amp;P 500, *plus* Snap, then just do that.  For every dollar you invest into SPDR or something similar, allocate something like $0.01 into Snap.  It's that simple.  But don't make this out to be a story about how S&amp;P is anti-free markets or doing a disservice to investors.  That's ridiculous.  If most Americans are just going to blindly put their retirement savings into index funds without bothering to understand them (again, which is fine) then somebody needs to make sure the companies in said indexes are good companies.  Historically, a company with zero corporate governance and entrenched management =/= a ""good company"".  S&amp;P realized this and decided to set a good precedent for US equity markets rather than a very bad precedent.  You wanna buy shares with no voting rights?  Go for it.  But that should be your decision, not a default inclusion in major indexes." "Thanks for your reply. I think a lot of people are confused when talking about ownership, and I think it is a definitional issue.   When a company issues stock (the first time or anytime), what they are doing is ""selling"" the right to a percentage of the dividend. They are not actually selling parts of the company to you. Everyone thinks this way though, and that has to do with the Chicago School economists who perpetuated their ideas of ownership which is what everyone know thinks is the case. This way of thinking about corporations and ownership is just wrong (not ethically), just erroneous.   As I stated before, Lynn Stout of Cornell University explains this really well. I would encourage anyone to read more about it." Absolutely nothing, and it's not their call to make.  The shareholders will want to cut it into as many parts as they  can sell to recoup some of their lost investment. The judge will demand it even if they suddenly had a moral thought.  This will happen when this (and all those other companies) go under, refocuses priorities, or shuts down departments. Thanks for your reply. I’m not familiar with the term “Held-For-Trading Security”. My securities are generally held as collateral against my shorts. To clarify, I am just trying to track the “money in” and “money out” entries in my account for the shorts I write. The transaction is relatively straight forward, except there is a ton of information attached! In simple terms, for the ticker CSR and short contract CSRUQ8, the relevant entries look something like this: There are no entries for expiries. I need to ensure that funds are available for future margin calls and assignments. The sale side using covered calls is as involved. If you are in a position to have information that will impact the shares of a stock or index fund and you use that information for either personal gain or to mitigate the losses that you would have felt then it is insider trading.  Even if in the end your quiet period passes with little or no movement of the stocks in question.  It is the attempt to benefit from or the appearance of the attempt to benefit from inside information that creates the crime.  This is the reason for the quiet periods to attempt to shield the majority of the companies employees from the appearance of impropriety, as well as any actual improprieties. With an index you are running a double edged sword because anything that is likely to cause APPLE to drop 10% is likely to give a bump to Motorola, Google, and its competitors.  So you could end up in jail for Insider trading and lose your shirt on a poor decision to short a Tech  ETF on knowledge that will cause Apple to take a hit.  It is certainly going to be harder to find the trade but the SEC is good at looking around for activity that is inconsistent with normal trading patterns of individuals in a position to have knowledge with the type of market impact you are talking about. You could certainly look at the holdings of index funds and choose index funds that meet your qualifications.  Funds allow you to see their holdings, and in most cases you can tell from the description whether certain companies would qualify for their fund or not based on that description - particularly if you have a small set of companies that would be problems. You could also pick a fund category that is industry-specific. I invest in part in a Healthcare-focused fund, for example.  Pick a few industries that are relatively diverse from each other in terms of topics, but are still specific in terms of industry - a healthcare fund, a commodities fund, an REIT fund.  Then you could be confident that they weren't investing in defense contractors or big banks or whatever you object to. However, if you don't feel like you know enough to filter on your own, and want the diversity from non-industry-specific funds, your best option is likely a 'socially screened' fund like VFTSX is likely your best option; given there are many similar funds in that area, you might simply pick the one that is most similar to you in philosophy. Yes, but it's *other institutional speculators* they are exploiting, as I made clear in my message. i.e. they prey on the people who prey on the small investors. The man on the street being upset about it is just completely stupid. It does not affect them one iota.  Also, it's worth pointing out that the amount of revenue generated by HFT is absolutely miniscule compared to all other forms of speculation. The return is somewhere around $1 for every $100,000 traded. So, even when a majority of trades in a market are HFT, a very small proportion of the profits are. If they all own common stock, no, everyone has to be treated equally.  There are also lots of protections against, say, A and B finding one shareholder to vote with them and using their 50.1% to grant themselves special rights.  there are a million ways you could do that - issue preferred stock to A, issue options to B, buy a service from A for $10mm, rent a basement from B for $10mm, etc. etc.  This stuff has to be prevented otherwise nobody would be willing to be a minority investor. "Wouldn't any rational person leave those decisions to the managers who have collectively positioned the company to be able to generate those profits in the first place?  I'm sure Carl Icahn and other ""activist investors"" would disagree but part of the reason for investing is you trust management to make a good ROI.  If as an investor I'm not happy with a 30 or 40 percent ROI then I should get out of the stock." First, I want to point out that your question contains an assumption. Does anyone make significant money trading low volume stocks?  I'm not sure this is the case - I've never heard of a hedge fund trading in the pink sheets, for example. Second, if your assumption is valid, here are a few ideas how it might work: Accumulate slowly, exit slowly.  This won't work for short-term swings, but if you feel like a low-volume stock will be a longer-term winner, you can accumulate a sizable portion in small enough chunks not to swing the price (and then slowly unwind your position when the price has increased sufficiently). Create additional buyers/sellers.  Your frustration may be one of the reasons low-volume stock is so full of scammers pumping and dumping (read any investing message board to see examples of this).  If you can scare holders of the stock into selling, you can buy significant portions without driving the stock price up.  Similarly, if you can convince people to buy the stock, you can unload without destroying the price.  This is (of course) morally and legally dubious, so I would not recommend this practice. You can't control the number of special interest groups.  You can't control their stubbornness, animosity, or lack of foresight.  What you can do is limit how and when special interest groups can press their views.  Create a new team whose whole job is to field lobbying before it gets to congress.  They see all the new bills, etc. and boil them down to simple terms, pros, and cons, before presenting them to congress.  The final version must also be signed off on by the lobbying party before it is presented.  You need a second party in this group:  The Devil's Advocates - a group that is REQUIRED to argue against EVERY proposal.  The whole reason for this group is to ensure that no proposal passes without contest.  You need a group whose whole goal is to identify the impact of each proposal, and return the findings to fielders.  They also require a devil's advocate.  When the final proposal is signed off on, then the fielding group presents it to congress, not the lobbyists or their supporters.  The funding for these groups comes directly from the lobbyists, who must finance their bill through congress, unless special exception is made.  If a ton of special interest groups want to get their form in, they must wait their turn in line.  The less work the fielding group has to do to clean up their request, validate it, and discover the pros and cons, the faster the lobby request will go through.  This is just a rough idea off the top of my head.  What are the issues you see with it? Patrick Byrne (CEO of Overstock.com) ran a somewhat interesting website awhile back called 'Deep Capture' which focused heavily on naked short selling and bear raids. He was called all sorts of names and many 'serious' journalist types brushed his allegations off.   His basic argument was that a cabal of hedge funds would simultaneously naked short a specific equity and then a coordinated group of journalists and message board jockeys would disparage the company as loudly and publicly as possible, driving the price down. Naked shorting is supposed to be illegal since you can hold the types of positions like in the linked article about Citigroup where the number of shares sold short actually exceeds the number of shares in existence.  The group he named was essentially a who's who of hedge funds and fraudsters and included many names of prominent politically active 'reformed' criminals from the S&amp;L days on Wall St. I can't remember how the cards fell, but the scheme allegedly involved Michael Milliken, Sam Antar (from Crazy Eddie's Fraud), Gary Weiss, Jim Cramer, etc etc.   It was a fascinating story.   Byrne actually followed through with several lawsuits (one of which was settled after a Rocker Partners paid Byrne $5 million dollars to settle).   The 'Deep Capture' site is down, but I [found a decent article](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wikipedia_and_naked_shorting/print.html) that sums up some of the shenanigans, including a journalist sock-puppeting to edit Wikipedia, repeatedly denying it, being IP-traced to inside the DTCC building (the Wall St. entity responsible for clearing trades, including naked shorts). It is a shame that really insightful article is wrapped up in a paranoid wrapper.  It is all accurate, IMO and is basically the worldview I use when I trade markets.  Except I don't get all fixated on gold.  I see gold as just one tool out of many for exploiting the exploiters. "Without any highly credible anticipation of a company being a target of a pending takeover, its common stock will normally trade at what can be considered non-control or ""passive market"" prices, i.e. prices that passive securities investors pay or receive for each share of stock. When there is talk or suggestion of a publicly traded company's being an acquisition target, it begins to trade at ""control market"" prices, i.e. prices that an investor or group of them is expected to pay in order to control the company.  In most cases control requires a would-be control shareholder to own half a company's total votes (not necessarily stock) plus one additional vote and to pay a greater price than passive market prices to non-control investors (and sometimes to other control investors). The difference between these two market prices is termed a ""control premium.""  The appropriateness and value of this premium has been upheld in case law, with some conflicting opinions, in Delaware Chancery Court (see the reference below; LinkedIn Corp. is incorporated in the state), most other US states' courts and those of many countries with active stock markets. The amount of premium is largely determined by investment bankers who, in addition to applying other valuation approaches, review most recently available similar transactions for premiums paid and advise (formally in an ""opinion letter"") their clients what range of prices to pay or accept. In addition to increasing the likelihood of being outbid by a third-party, failure to pay an adequate premium is often grounds for class action lawsuits that may take years to resolve with great uncertainty for most parties involved. For a recent example and more details see this media opinion and overview about Dell Inc. being taken private in 2013, the lawsuits that transaction prompted and the court's ruling in 2016 in favor of passive shareholder plaintiffs.  Though it has more to do with determining fair valuation than specifically premiums, the case illustrates instruments and means used by some courts to protect non-control, passive shareholders. ========== REFERENCE As a reference, in a 2005 note written by a major US-based international corporate law firm, it noted with respect to Delaware courts, which adjudicate most major shareholder conflicts as the state has a disproportionate share of large companies in its domicile, that control premiums may not necessarily be paid to minority shareholders if the acquirer gains control of a company that continues to have minority shareholders, i.e. not a full acquisition: Delaware case law is clear that the value of a dissenting [target company's]   stockholder’s shares is not to be reduced to impose a minority   discount reflecting the lack of the stockholders’ control over the   corporation. Indeed, this appears to be the rationale for valuing the   target corporation as a whole and allocating a proportionate share of   that value to the shares of [a] dissenting stockholder [exercising his appraisal rights in seeking to challenge the value the target company's board of directors placed on his shares]. At the same   time, Delaware courts have suggested, without explanation, that the   value of the corporation as a whole, and as a going concern, should   not include a control premium of the type that might be realized in a   sale of the corporation." "Does the writer of this have Target stock or something? I'm always amazed when people come to the defense of large corporations. Target would NOT HESITATE to do ANYTHING possible to squeeze every dime, dollar, etc, out of each and every one of their customers.   When the customers do it, though, suddenly it's ""looting"", ""stealing"", etc? Fuck that.   EDIT: Surprised to see many on Reddit agree."