A lot was said this past week in regard to the SEC attack on rumor mongering and willful misrepresentation of facts for the benefit of naked short sellers. One point that I'd like to make perfectly clear is this: The SEC's indicated desire to quash the spreading of false negative information by, and for the benefit of, manipulative short sellers, is nothing even remotely akin to a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment does not give protection to slanderers, liars, and sabotage artists. I'd also like to make clear my opinion that honest short selling is a positive, healthy, and necessary practice. I believe it helps to define and benchmark real value within the markets.
The Los Angels Times reported that SEC Chairman Christopher Cox may have his hands full in the wake of a measure that protects nearly two dozen large financial firms from naked short selling. The measure requires "anyone effecting a short sale in these securities (to) arrange beforehand to borrow the securities and deliver them at settlement." It's a rule that is long over due for enforcement and that shall most probably, at least temporarily, lay to rest some serious market abuses.
This issue now faces many critical questions. Here are some things I'd like to know: First, shall this move by the SEC be recognized as fair warning by naked short sellers, and if so, shall it change the face of things? How deep shall the SEC probe go? Are we to witness a full scale investigation with the promise of sanctions for market abusers? Can the SEC effectively track this whole thing down? Is the SEC sweep looking for conspiratorial conduct or simply seeking out a few anomalies? Bloomberg provides some clarification of the situation in light of the recent SEC subpoenas.
The balance of the third quarter will provide answers to most of my questions. I think the SEC probe might inject a much needed dose of confidence into the markets. I hope for and expect a heavy short squeeze cycle to rumble through Wall Street as the spreaders of negativity and falsehoods quite down. A nice round of purchasing on stocks that are heavily shorted against balance sheets that are sound should put a good wooden peg into the hearts of some of those nasty, naked short, blood suckers.
I can only hope that Christopher Cox has a motivated team that will dig very deeply. One needs only to read, with a measure of care, the Deep Capture Blog, in order to get a glimpse at how deep seated some of these manipulative short selling schemes may actually be. Unfortunately, though we probably will see improved trading conditions going forward, I think we shall see very little in the way of sanctions or reparations for the damage that has already been done. The good news here is that we might finally be able to stop pulling our hair out due to deep and unexplained drops in the share values of companies that are well managed and fundamentally sound.











Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
7-20-2008 @ 2:09PM
Dan said...
Benchmark real value? Are you kidding? Short selling, by definition, is a speculative engagement. If we didn't have short selling... I think THEN we would see the real value of common stocks.
Short sales makes the jettisoning of a few shares on the market seem like dumping a few hundred shares - value wise.
Now if you said that short selling makes market play more fun... or that it makes you feel more engaged to complement your long-term portfolio with Vegas-style tactics that (if successful) give you an excuse to were a cape and make people refer to you as "Nostradamus." Then, yes... I agree.
7-20-2008 @ 2:37PM
Patrick Byrne said...
Gary,
Bravo.
"The SEC's indicated desire to quash the spreading of false negative information by, and for the benefit of, manipulative short sellers, is nothing even remotely akin to a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment does not give protection to slanderers, liars, and sabotage artists. I'd also like to make clear my opinion that honest short selling is a positive, healthy, and necessary practice."
Your statement is true. It is precisely what I tried to make clear three years ago. Be prepared for photos of you to appear with UFO's coming out of your head, for stating this truth.
Patrick Byrne
7-20-2008 @ 3:02PM
The Baron said...
Short Selling is not only a trading technique that has outlived its initial purpose,but it is immoral because no stock buyer should have their stock loaned to a shorter who sells the stock to drive down the market value of that stock. And add to that, naked short selling, and you have criminal activity. The SEC is supposed to oversee such activity but for whatever reason hasn't. The reasoning that shorting is a positive because the shorter has to evidentually buy in the stock is almost laughable if not such a serious matter. Any corporation that has experienced some hard times
or been on the Brink of Bankruptcy, can tell you the serious damage done to them and its stockholders by 'Short Raids". The next time you sign an hypotication agreement with a Broker,tell him to cross out the loaning you stock to a short- seller. A Brokerage firm should only be concerned with its right to sell the mortgaged stock to meet a Maintenance calls. Any other rights will be for the purpose of generating commissions.
7-20-2008 @ 4:27PM
Scott said...
I have a margin account which allows me to short stocks, which I occasionally do. I would agree that naked shorts, as opposed to covered shorts, should be regulated or curtailed, but I also believe that short positions help stabilize the market. Being able to bet against irrational exuberance is healthy. If you think the stock market would be better off with only long positions, look at the shanghai index (shorting Chinese stocks is forbidden) and find a good financial advisor to manage your investments.
7-20-2008 @ 5:52PM
william lindblad said...
I think that if anyone took the time to read the L.A. Times report you would agree that all moves of last week are questionable. The Cox move being in the front. It is highly selective and only covers specific stocks. which to no surprise, are in the finance area.
Cox's own statement on the matter raises eyebrows as he stated that shorts are necessary to sound market activity. Granted, he means the legal kind and all of the related action is supposed to alleviate naked shorts and the malicious rumor mongers. The real reason behind all that transpired between Fri. 11th and Mon. 14th was that the government has a vested interest in keeping the stock markets stable. They managed a few lies between Fri and Mon themselves. I applaud them for the effort, but I think this is going to prove too little, too late.
Take the time to read Sec. Paulson's latest statements and you will agree that his outlook is not exactly rosy.
The Washington actions also have from my perspective, a potential fly-in -the-ointment scenario, and if there it will be discovered by the investigative press with the outcome worse than watergate.
7-20-2008 @ 8:13PM
Zac said...
Are you aware that DeepCapture is an astroturf site run by the CEO of Overstock.com, a cash-burning company, that serves to stalk and intimidate anyone who criticizes the company?
"The First Amendment does not give protection to slanderers, liars, and sabotage artists."
Don't you think the markets are a little smart for that? If a company can be destroyed by middle school rumor mongering, wasn't the company incredibly weak in the first place? The reason that companies like Lehman and Bear Stearns are vulnerable to rumors is that they were not level with investors in the first place, and investors simply do not trust them. If someone started spreading rumors about the status of a company like Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway -- a paragon of transparency and integrity, no one would believe it. Why? Because it's an honest and ethical company. Companies like Bear Stearns are victims of their own mismanagement and lack of honesty, not savvy people who bet against them.
>The good news here is that we might finally be able to stop pulling our hair out due to deep and unexplained drops in the share values of companies that are well managed and fundamentally sound.<
If they're fundamentally sound, then what's the problem? Manipulative trading would create a tremendous bargain opportunity! People should be celebrating the opportunity to buy more! Have you been taking advantage of this great opportunity to load up on well managed and fundamentally sound companies (with billions of dollars in losses in the past few months, buy hey)?
7-20-2008 @ 8:23PM
ivanson said...
These brokers cleaned up on playing the market and now they want special treatment now that they've lost Billions on their bad investments. If you want to stop short selling, TURN A PROFIT! Don't cry if you lose five Billion in a quarter and your stock goes down. I'd like an investigation as to how these brokerages houses landed special treatment in the market when no other businesses have. If they lose twenty Billion a year they should be worth less!
7-21-2008 @ 1:07AM
valuetrader said...
Don't forget of the pure theft of the money when "they can't find the shares". This is how stupid the boyscout's honor system is set up. Get rid of naked shorting across the board. If not prepare for some inevitable violence and bloodshead. People don't like to get robbed, remember the American Revolution?