Damaging the market by curbing short-selling - Top Stocks Blog - MSN Money
 
Search Top Stocks:

Damaging the market by curbing short-selling

Posted Jul 16 2008, 08:35 AM by Douglas McIntyre
Rating:

Newly-minted legend says that short-selling put Bear Stearns out of business and has swamped the stock prices of Lehman , Fannie Mae , and Freddie Mac. To keep evil from further invading the stock markets, short-selling should be put to sleep.

According to The Wall Street Journal, "In a dramatic emergency order, the SEC said it would immediately move to curb improper short selling in the stocks of struggling mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as those of 17 financial firms, including Goldman Sachs Group, Lehman Brothers Holdings, Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch."

Breaking that down for a moment, "improper short selling" has always been against the law. Banning it twice is not likely to change the complexion of that prohibition.

Short-selling is one of the great services that a portion of investors do for the markets. Public company managements cannot help but feel good about their own prospects. It is the nature of the beast. Executives work for good results and the upbeat nature of their forecasts is part of the psychology that keeps them slaving for their shareholders. Short-selling plays the "emperor has no clothes" role

Banning short-selling assumes that those long shares in a company have no power to influence the media, stockholders, and securities analysts. The theory claims that all of the weapons are in the possession of one side in the fight, which means that the other side will surrender.

Since the problems at companies like Fannie Mae and Merrill Lynch are real and not imagined, it is hard to make the argument that short sellers made them worse. The shorts bet against companies that they knew had made mistakes and they made profits doing it. Forcing them to act otherwise gives investors who want a stock to go up a substantial advantage, even if they do not deserve it.

Putting shorts out of business does not do the market any favors. It just pushes the day of reckoning for companies that failed their stockholders out a little further into the future.

Top Stocks blogger Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 24/7 Wall St.

Comments

 

Short selling with borrowed stock is OK. It is the naked short selling that is damaging. Naked short selling is like printing money. If one floods the market with printed money it damages the value of real money. The same goes for naked short selling. Naked shorts are what should be target. First it is illegal, but noone including the SEC does anything about it. SEC puts out a report every day that a stock has been shorted and failed to deliver within the required period of time is meaningless. If the SEC wanted to stop naked short selling in its track, it would devise a rule that the seller or brokerage firm that sold the short must deliver the shares within the allotted time to settle or face paying the buyer of the shorted stock a 100% penalty of the value of the stock on the date the shorted stock should have been delivered.

Short selling is good, but naked short selling can bring down any company.

I agree with Hyon's comments above that naked short selling is the real no-no.  There is something fundamentally wrong investing on the failure of a company that has the long term obligation of others at stake without buying and delivering the shares you want to short. Granted the "problems at companies like Fannie Mae and Merrill Lynch are not imagined". However, buying something other than Fannie Mae or Merrill Lynch (maybe long term securities/bonds) does not give Fannie Mae or Merrill Lynch an advantage. But, it still requires them to fix their problem in order to gain the trust and ultimate investment of investors.

Naked short-selling is not illegal, although I think it should be.  Only "abusive" naked short selling is illegal.  When one sells a stock short, they are required to deliver the shares within 3 business days.  In a non-naked short, they've made arrangements before executing the sale, in a naked short, they wait until after the sale to look for shares to borrow.  The SEC only cares if you don't settle up in time, althought I don't know what the penalties are.

No offence but isn’t naked short selling the same as selling something you don’t have?

Quite frankly it should be illegal; selling something you don’t have any where else but in the stock market would be considered fraud. And quite frankly naked shorts in truth are nothing but rumor mongering. And we can see how well the stock market responds to rumor.

Please consider this scenario:

The Fed, SEC, and  Paulson make a deal with investment banks: "We protect your stock price by banning naked short selling but  in exchange you guys don't mess up with oil futures"

The price of oil started falling in the middle of Bernake's speech. He dind't talked about anything new, and the falling trend of oil is strong.

Is this possible? What do you think? Does this make sense?

Who ownes the stock that is loan to short sellers the brokers or my stock. If it's my stock it's no different than naked short selling. If it's the brokers stock he is underminning me buy flooding the market with stock killing the supply and demand which would drive the price down. All short selling with borrowed stock should be stopped. If somebody wants to sell a stock and by it back when and if it goes down that's fine but it shouldn't be with borrowed stock.

Has any noticed that the elimination of the up tick rule occurred just prior to the top of the market last July? Maybethe SEC should reinstate the rule that worked just fine from 1934 till 2007!

An outright ban on short selling is ridiculous. Short selling a companies stock highlights any shortcomings it may be facing which is good for investors. I feel that any law passed to restrict short selling is counter intuitive of a "free market economy", which allows investors many ways to make profits. If bureaucrats are allowed to do this what other limitations will they put on investors?

In my opinion the only limitation I find acceptable is to maybe place a restriction on "shorting" a stock that is maybe down a certain percent over a period of time. The law to ban short selling should be done away with.

What is the "up tick rule" mentioned in a recent comment?  

Matt,

You should be making a ton of money today.

Send a Comment

Comments must be directly related to the blog entry. Comments with offensive language will be deleted. Your e-mail address won't be displayed.

(please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):