Disliked{quote} Personally, I don't think it's true. It could be a big problem because one of the safest bets seems to be buying stocks/calls on the "most shorted" shares of the Russell 2000 or the Nasdaq. Here's one of the GIS results from "zerohedge most shorted": {image} (Zerohedge) This was largely due to stock buybacks as you probably know, and stock buybacks were never announced publicly; they just happened made popular by ZIRP and word of them came to us indrectly, via leaked quarterly reported from the likes of Goldman Sachs. Also, the Powers That...Ignored
Corporate repurchases of stock, however, are subject to regulation and easily locateable if you know what to look for. Unfortunately, very few people know what a 10-Q or 10-K is; fewer really want to read through the whole thing ... . https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2013...e-repurchases/ My take is that the vast majority of companies think that these repurchases add value to their stock in the eyes of potential investors, so they usually gush about how much stock they're buying back in a press release.
However, it is not impermissible to repurchase stock during the earnings blackout under certain circumstances, so -- contrary to popular belief -- the "blackout period" isn't necessarily a "blackout" for everyone. The answer depends on how the company set up its repurchase program, https://www.wilmerhale.com/pages/pub...ewsPubId=93451 ... .
Unfortunately -- and although shoot-from-the-hip Jim Cramer makes stock picking/value investing seem "all so simple",* the kind of due diligence required to actually know what the hell is going on with a company is going to be wayyy beyond the abilities of the average Joe, regardless if it's about their overall balance sheet, any stock repurchase programs they're involved in or initiating, etc. ... .
This is one of the primary reasons I only "trade" individual underlyings as "trades," not as investments ... . I was in the dot-com market, as well as the "Great Recession," and fully understand what Wall Street's about, and it's not about the retail investor, full and fair disclosure, honesty or any of that altruistic bull shit. It's about flirting with the edges of legality, pumping a troubled market or individual stock for their own gain, and packaging turds up into brightly wrapped boxes with bows and selling them to unknowing investors as "sure bets" ... . Strangely enough, I have absolutely no problem with that beyond the fact that the market and its various players can take advantage of those who assume that things will be done in an "above board" fashion all the time ... .
By the same token, those who are operating on that assumption have their fucking heads up their asses and probably deserve what they get; it's pure ignorance to think that the shit that caused the financial crisis "can never happen again" when it's Wall Street's financial wonks and quants' jobs to come up with crap that nobody can understand (credit default swaps, anybody?) ... . "Trust me; this product is great! ... ."
* To give him some credit, I imagine he does do "some work" off camera, although it doesn't appear to be that productive, since his fund under-performs the S&P ... .
Fireworks are fun ... as long as you don't blow your fingers off.