
German regulator investigates Volkswagen shares manipulation
On October 26, Porsche announced it held 42.6% of ordinary shares and 31.5% in cash-settled options on ordinary shares to hedge against price risks, representing an effective total stake of 74.1% in Volkswagen. This was more than the 35.14% shareholding Porsche had disclosed on September 16.
If Porsche settles its options, the company would receive the difference between the Volkswagen share price and the underlying strike price in cash. Porsche said it would then buy Volkswagen shares at their market price. Porsche intends to increase its stake in Volkswagen to up to 75% in 2009, to achieve a controlling interest in the company.
Porsche's larger than expected holdings, along with the German state of Lower Saxony's stake of 20.1%, meant that there was an effective free float of only 5.8%. This presented a squeeze for short sellers as they scrambled to cover positions from a much smaller pool of shares than they previously thought.
Volkswagen's equity price rose to €1005.01 on October 28 from €210.52 at the end of last week. It then plummeted back down again to close at €512 on October 29.
As a result of these price movements, German stock exchange Deutsche Börse lowered Volkswagen's weighting in the Dax to 10% from 27% on October 28. Porsche said on October 29 it would sell up to 5% of Volkswagen's shares so that short sellers could fulfil their delivery obligations without causing "further market distortions", which caused heavy losses for them earlier this week.
Investors have complained about the lack of transparency around options positions. Under German law, cash-settled options do not need to be disclosed to shareholders because they do not result in an entitlement to acquire shares. BaFin said that as a supervisory authority it does not have the remit to impose stricter disclosure requirements; this would instead be an issue for the country's legislature.
Porsche blames the short sellers for creating price distortions and dismisses any claims of wrong doing on its part. "Porsche denies all responsibility for these market distortions and for the resulting risks to which the short sellers have exposed themselves," said the company on October 29.
The company claimed it had complied with all the applicable capital markets law provisions and it was not active in the market during the recent share price movements.
"Allegations of price manipulation by Porsche are therefore without any foundation whatsoever," Porsche stated.
See also: MF Global head steps down after Lehman losses
IMF, EU and World Bank feed Hungary $25.1 billion bailout
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Printing this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Copying this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
SEC may lack legal clout to impose new dealer rule – Citadel
Adoption of quantitative dealer definition may require congressional changes to US Securities Exchange Act
US Basel endgame hits clearing with op risk capital charges
Dealers also fret about unlevel playing field compared with requirements in the EU
CFTC’s clearing house recovery rule splits industry
Some fear CCPs will fast-track recovery, others say any rule book will be ignored in emergency
EU banks ‘will play for time’ in stand-off over India’s CCPs
Lawyers say banks are unlikely to set up subsidiaries and will instead pin hopes on revised Emir fix
ECB mulls intervention on uneven banking book reporting
Inconsistency among EU banks on whether deposits and loans are in scope for credit spread risk
Iosco warns of leveraged loan ‘vulnerabilities’
As recovery rates plummet, report calls for clearer covenants and more transparency on addbacks
Narrow path to compromise on EU’s post-Brexit clearing rules
Lawmakers unlikely to support industry demand to delete Emir active accounts proposal altogether
The Fed’s stress test models are inaccurate. Something has to change
First step for US regulator to improve its bank loss forecasts would be to open up its models to public scrutiny, argue two banking industry advocates