(We have some very knowledgable people here on Pols – thank you for posting this Danny. – promoted by DavidThi808)
Short selling has long been a scapegoat for market failures, but any trader worth his salt will tell you its not short selling that is the problem. Part of the bailout plan is a set of orders issued on Sept 18th temporarily banning short selling of 799 financial stocks and other related practices (others are lobbying to get on the list).
Short selling – a bet that a stock price will decline – is the practice of selling stock without owning it, hoping to buy it later at a lower price and thus make a profit. It is both good risk management tool and important component to healthy functioning market.
In fact, short selling is often one of the first warnings that something is wrong with a company. In addition, in a bad environment short selling is one of the few ways to limit risk and/or make money
Before dismissing short selling ban out of hand, let’s examine the problem the ban is trying to address. The “problem” according to the treasury, is that financial firms are subject to market confidence which can be destroyed by a coordinated short assault. While perhaps true, why not ban downgrades from the NRSROs that spark real panics?
The real problem is that short selling is asymmetric with buying actual securities.
Short sellers are supposed to borrow securities they sell in order to have something to deliver to the buyer, in a process called covering. In a practice creatively called “Securities Lending,” institutions that own large portfolios of securities lend those securities for a fee. This process has two impacts: 1. these large institutions do due diligence on the short sellers (because the short seller ads counterparty risk) 2. Since the short seller must find a security to deliver, it puts a natural cap on short sales. The more the shorts pound a stock the harder it is to find a sec lender with that particular stock, and the higher price they demand for its loan.
Unfortunately not everybody borrows the stock and they instead the short simply “fail to deliver” To differentiate from “covered” short selling the practice of purposely Failing to Deliver is called naked short selling.
New rules instituted in 2005 to regulate brokerage complicity in the Naked Short practice. However, the rules included permissive language such as “that broker-dealers have grounds to “believe” that shares will be available for a given stock transaction,” which makes it impossible to enforce the no Naked Short rule. In addition, even though there is a rule, there is no punishment for the rule and on Wall Street rules without punishment are meaningless.
The SEC has issued two other temporary rules related to short sales which have some merit.
One is a rule that temporarily requires institutional money managers to report their short sales. It shocks many that they have not been required to report this up until this point, but the industry lobbied hard to prevent the disclosure of shorts.
Second is a temporary suspension of the limitation on the repurchase of a company’s own shares. The so called “safe harbor” rule exist to prevent a company from manipulating its own stock. The temporary suspension of this rule has merit as it allows companies to defend their stock price.
Verdict
No way. A temporary ban on all short selling is a terrible idea. A more proper response is permanent severe penalties for fails to delivers on all securities, that escalate on both the failing party and eventually the broker handling the sale. This would allow shorts to continue, but it would remove the artificial asymmetry that is created by naked shorts.
A permanent order requiring disclosure of shorts is a no brainer-the fact that it hasn’t been a required disclosure indicates the folks running the SEC have no brains
If institutional money managers were required to report shorts, a permanent rule could be put in place that would suspend the repurchase “safe harbor” rule for any company under certain types of attack by shorts. However, this would have to be explored after data was collected surrounding the behavior of shorts and a determination of whether their behavior distorted the market.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Labor Day Weekend Open Thread
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Labor Day Weekend Open Thread
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Labor Day Weekend Open Thread
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Labor Day Weekend Open Thread
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Labor Day Weekend Open Thread
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Labor Day Weekend Open Thread
BY: Duke Cox
IN: Who’s Paying For These Racist Anti-Harris Sign Stunts?
BY: davebarnes
IN: Labor Day Weekend Open Thread
BY: notaskinnycook
IN: Labor Day Weekend Open Thread
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Labor Day Weekend Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
Banning short selling actually puts pressure on institutional investors to dump, rather than loan, securities they would otherwise hold for the long term.
Loaning out shares to short sellers gives you a hedge, take that away and you force short term strategies onto the people you most want to encourage to hold on.
I’m wondering whether buyers’ strikes have done more to tank AIG, BEAR, LEH, MS, MER and GS than short selling?
What’s happened, I’m speculating, is that owners of those companies’ stocks rushed to sell on the bad news, and there were no buyers.
How many of the people wanting to sell, or what percentage of the shares offered were from shorts vs. longs I don’t know.
While the brokers fell into black holes, most banks actually rallied because they are seen as winners in this mess. However, I think banks are facing some rough times as speculators wake up to the risks they’re still facing.
So, if banks’ longs decide to sell, they may not find many willing buyers, and their stocks will fall, although not as much as LEH, BEAR and MS, I’m speculating.
When the market thinks short sellers are attacking a stock, they don’t even have to sell. They just watch the longs dump their stock into a void and then cover.
So while I’m opposed to banning short selling, I can see why a lot of people are for it for awhile.
Keep on rocking in the free world comrades…
as opposed to short selling in general. Other explanations I’ve read of that practice just weren’t making sense to me! Some of this is tough sledding for those of us who were more your liberal arts types and we’re lucky to have you here to explain it to us.