Posted on 10/09/2008 5:58:29 PM PDT by arista
Stockholders and managers of firms, whose interests lie in higher prices for what they own or manage, miss few opportunities to deride short sellers. As Holman Jenkins of the Wall Street Journal put it, "short selling is a business widely unpopular with everyone who has a stake in seeing stock prices go up."
Regulators, whose blunders short sellers frequently reveal by discovering fraud that escaped their attention, respond similarly. That combination of interests helps explain why, at various times, short selling has been banned in many countries, including England, France and Japan.
Such views are reinforced by accusations that short sellers hope for bad things to happen. Others misplace the blame for the association between short selling and falling stock prices, especially in a "crisis." False comparisons, such as holding short sellers to a standard of perfect foresight, are also used to attack them. However, all of these attacks are misguided.
Short selling is part of the information-revealing process that Mises, Hayek, and others emphasized as the central aspect and advantage of the market process. In a world of uncertainty and change, information is the scarcest good, and short selling is an important source of additional information that would otherwise be lost.
Allowing short selling increases the number of people with an incentive to discover valuable information about firms' prospects, by providing an added mechanism to benefit from information that turns out to be negative. When someone's research or information leads them to negative conclusions about a firm, short selling allows them to communicate their less optimistic expectations to others and make a profit if they anticipate the direction the market will later come to agree with. That is, they profit only if they come to "correct" conclusions before others. In the process, they benefit others by revealing accurate information sooner than would otherwise be the case, reducing the mistakes people would have made from relying on the less accurate prices that would otherwise exist.
Negative information may not be as valuable as positive information for purposes of cheerleading, but it is just as valuable when people wish to make the best use of scarce resources. That is sometimes reflected in the observation that much of economics involves negative information — knowing some things not to do, rather than knowing what to do — especially in combating the trouble that arises from "knowing so much that ain't so."
There is no reason why information that might have negative implications for firms would only be revealed to or discovered by those who are already owners of a particular stock. To attack or restrict short selling is then to restrict the market's ability to elicit and integrate all available information.
Restrictions on short selling are analogous to a voting process where there are only the possibilities of voting yes (owning shares) or abstaining from voting (current non-owners), but "no" votes (selling what you do not own) are impossible. People can vote yes, buying shares and pushing up stock prices, or those who previously voted yes can decide to go back to abstaining by selling their shares, lowering stock prices. But short sellers allow current abstainers to vote "no," giving themselves the ability to benefit from their different views while benefiting others via market prices, without having to first own shares in a company.
Short selling, which allows profits to be made from negative information, is akin to another aspect of a competitive financial market — hostile corporate takeovers. Management groups who fail to make the best use of their company's assets object to the prospect out of their own self-interest. But hostile takeovers provide a mechanism for even those investors who own no current shares in a firm to benefit from negative information. If a firm is poorly run, even someone with no initial position in a company can purchase shares at a price capitalizing its prospects under current management. By then accumulating enough shares, and taking over management, "takeover artists" can gain from eliminating inefficiencies and improving results. This expands the number of potential investors who have incentives to discover such negatives and "fix" underperforming companies.
Short sellers have been portrayed as heartless opportunists, benefiting from bad outcomes. But they are no different from doctors who profit from our illnesses, or teachers who benefit from our ignorance, or locksmiths who benefit from criminal acts. Further, one's belief that future reality is more negative than others believe it to be does not change that reality. It simply conforms market beliefs more accurately to it, when short sellers are right — the only situation in which they can profit from their forecasts. Revealing mistakes is socially beneficial, and a far cry from just hoping for bad outcomes (just as parenting sometimes involves deflating children's false hopes, not to harm them, but to help them make better choices).
What is called short selling in the stock market is common in all sorts of businesses. A farmer who sells on a futures market when he plants, before he has produced his output, does the same thing. So does a homebuilder or custom tool maker producing to order. And that knowledge is hardly new. As the 1909 New York State Commission on Speculation noted, "Contracts and agreements to sell, and deliver in the future, property which one does not possess at the time of the contract, are common in all kinds of business." There is no reason why a practice commonly accepted in business, which participants must therefore view as beneficial, is somehow harmful to those participating in the stock market.
Regulatory opposition also indicates the positive consequences of allowing short selling. Regulatory agencies are supposed to prevent fraud, questionable accounting, and other management misbehavior. However, they often fail not only to prevent, but even to detect them. Short sellers who are betting their own money on being correct often uncover what regulators miss, as they did at Worldcom, Enron, Tyco, etc., showing themselves as more effective market policemen.
Regulators then object precisely because their inadequacy is revealed. In fact, their often-ineffective regulatory oversight makes markets less efficient, by giving participants more confidence in stock promoters' assertions than is warranted. But they try to make short sellers into scapegoats, allowing regulators to leverage their failure into further expansion of their powers, to combat short selling's supposed evils.
Opposition to short selling also confuses correlation with causation. Selling short only lowers the price sooner than would otherwise occur. It cannot force the price down for long if the fundamental circumstances do not support it. Short sellers simply recognize negative information sooner. Their activity can begin the process of reducing market prices, but it is the negative information that causes stock prices to fall. And even when short sellers are wrong, they provide extra profit opportunities to those who expand their holdings at the temporarily low prices that result, a benefit ignored by those blinded by their exclusive devotion to "what's in it for me?"
Opposition to short selling is often no more than objecting to its effects on a particular stock the opponent currently owns. The only principle involved is that of preventing any change that might lower the price of what one owns (which is then over-generalized, as the Luddites' opposition to losing their threatened jobs to printing presses was dressed up as principled opposition to technology in general), ignoring the benefits to society from revealing more accurate information.
Short sellers are also attacked for allegedly spreading negative rumors that sometimes turn out to be false. But false positive rumors are regularly asserted by a far larger group who benefit by pumping up stock prices, from managers to brokers to financial talk show touts. But critics of short selling are only concerned about what they don't benefit from. In addition, the consequences of all forms of potential misinformation are made more problematic by the belief that regulatory agencies actually protect investors from it, when they really don't. Without that unwarranted confidence, investors who knew to be wary, or to trust only those who had earned superior reputations that they would put at risk, would be more accurately informed than they are now.
Short sellers are also criticized whenever they are wrong. But holding them to a standard of correct expectations is an impossible standard. No one has perfect foresight. People who buy stock are not always correct that it will go up thereafter. And even if they were, those who sold the stock to them would have to have been wrong in their judgment. Applying such a standard of perfection to short sellers alone is just a mechanism to attack them, not a serious idea.
Firms do not always stop their aversion to short sellers at negative attitudes. They often directly attack them. For instance, The Economist reported, "Not long before Tyco went bankrupt it was still buying full-page advertisements to campaign against short-selling." Similarly, within a month of Biovail filing suit against short sellers for expressing negative opinions about it, the SEC announced an investigation which led to a settlement involving serious fraud charges.
Perhaps most telling about the assaults on short selling is a 2004 NBER study that discussed the fact that "Firms use a variety of methods to impede short selling, including legal threats, investigations, lawsuits, and various technical actions." It revealed the high probability that firms attacking short sellers actually have something to hide, indicated by the fact that "firms taking anti-shorting actions have in the subsequent year very low abnormal returns of about -2 percent per month."
Short sellers receive widespread condemnation. But it is undeserved. They are no more self-interested than others in financial markets. They improve the information incorporated in market prices that we all rely on to improve social coordination, as we seek to make the best of a world of unavoidable scarcity. The attacks against them are poorly thought out, and often come from those whose real abuses or regulatory failings short sellers threaten to uncover. It is time we stop selling short the short sellers.
The Fannie Maes had funny math that my husband and I wondered about. If they were such wonderful investments with such high profits, why didn’t they have more returns in dividends or profit?
So we sold a little short as the questionable numbers started to come out of the summer. We used the proceeds to pay off our own house. So we sold short on the big financial crisis and and ended our own personal mortgage in the long run.
Selling at a loss isn’t evil. Sometimes, it’s like Suze Orman has says - leave the loser before you lose everything.
Yes they are sold twice. They are sold once to the buyer who went long, then sold again when sold short borrowed or not. This means that there more sellers than buyers which drives the price down. That means the float has been artificially increased even if temporary. That’s the whole point of shorting. Its not the innocent absorbing the difference in price between the high (sold short) price and the buy back price (cover) that shorts would have you to believe. Sure they buy them back or cover but most times the damage has been done by then. This thing of providing liquidity to the market is a shorts myth. If an investor wants liquidity just buy stocks of companies with a higher float and average daily volume.
Thank you. I was going to say the same thing. There is a big propaganda effort going on on the part of crooked naked short sellers claiming that "short selling is good, there's nothing wrong with short selling". That's not the point.
Naked shorts need to start going to jail.
“I traded stocks for 5 yrs, mostly shorting. I couldn’t tell you how many times I pushed that button and was told....no shares available. If the broker doesn’t have the shares to lend you don’t get them! sheesh”
With all due respect for your 5 years of trading, I must tell you that you are wrong. Sheesh!
I have posted many times about naked short selling and recommended visiting the site www.DeepCapture.com, by Patrick Byrne, CEO of Overstock.com, a company that was victimized by a naked short sale attack.
Read and understand. Naked short selling is an attack on our economy, no less dangerous than a terrorist attack on Wall Street.
Here’s his latest missive:
Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne Comments on SEC’s New Rules Against Naked Short Selling
‘Still no penalties for financial rapists’ declares Byrne
SALT LAKE CITY, Sept 17, 2008 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX/ —
Overstock.com, Inc. (OSTK) chairman and CEO Patrick M. Byrne comments on the SEC’s September 17, 2008 press release (see ) that purports to protect investors against naked short selling.
Dr. Byrne commented, “At the core of the SEC announcement is a decision that if a hedge fund naked shorts a stock, its broker isn’t supposed to let them naked short again. But guess what: they were not supposed to naked short in the first place. Instead of giving the buyer who receives the fail to deliver the right to put it back to the naked short selling participant, the SEC once again opts for no penalties for financial rapists.
“If the SEC were anything but a hedge fund bootlick,” continued Byrne, “it would not have taken the half-measure of a pre-borrow requirement applied only as a penalty for those failing to deliver within T+3, but would have instituted a market-wide pre-borrow requirement (as it did in its July 15, 2008 Emergency Order protecting Upper Caste financial firms), and mandatory buy-ins at T+3.
“Some questions for the SEC:
1. How will the SEC determine whether an institution is in compliance with this rule? The only way to determine compliance is through an SEC audit, something that could only occur months after the fact. In the case of a bear raid, that will be too late.
2. Where is the ‘buy-in’ requirement? Under the new SEC rules a crooked hedge fund can still naked short sell without settlement and keep that short open indefinitely. It appears that only future naked short sales will require a pre-borrow and that there is still no closeout requirement for failed trades.
3. What of manipulative day trading? Chairman Cox has admitted that the financial stocks did not have a significant level of naked shorts, but rather collapsed under day trading activities. The new rule fails to address this, the very activity that generated the need for the July 15, 2008 emergency order. The manipulative day trading short seller never has a position open for three days. However, under the new rules, he can still use a single locate multiple times to create the best leverage possible to drive natural investors out of the market.
4. Where are the penalties? Without meaningful penalties, these rules have no bite. The SEC needs to make sure that the rules are strictly and aggressively enforced — both for failures to deliver that occur within the CNS system and outside the CNS system in ex-clearing trades, where, I suspect, there is naked shorting that makes the object of current SEC concerns look like small potatoes.
“Rule 10b-21, the short selling anti-fraud rule, is a carefully contrived joke. It moves from a low-penalty too-vague-to-enforce rule, to a high-penalty too-vague-to-enforce rule. Without strict and aggressive SEC enforcement (for which the SEC has zero demonstrated record) it will be just more lines of meaningless pabulum in the Federal Register.
“On the bright side, the SEC has eliminated a major loophole in Regulation SHO, the options market maker exception. There was never a good reason why options market makers should have been allowed to naked short and fail to deliver in perpetuity. For taking this long overdue action, I applaud the SEC.
“What is needed is a Congressional investigation into the abortion that is our nation’s stock settlement system, focusing especially on the DTCC. A healthy next step would be to unplug the SEC and move its functions into the DOJ.”
How about requiring that any company selling a stock is expected to, when closing the deal, prove that the stock was possessed at time of sale. If such proof is lacking, the buyer shall have 24 hours to either (1) demand that the price be retroactively reduced to the lowest market price that occurred between the sale and the earliest time seller can prove ownership, or (2) reject the sale outright.
Further provide that sellers who are in default on a trade shall be forbidden from trading until the default is resolved (even if it means they have to use another broker to get the stocks they need to settle the default).
Criminal penalties would apply only if it could be shown a seller had no intention of making good on a sale.
Under those rules, naked short selling would be in every case riskier and/or less profitable than legitimate short selling. Only if the seller faked proof of stock ownership could those limitations be avoided; such faking of proof would be a serious criminal offense.
Explain why high stock prices are a good thing at any time other than the exact moment when you sell a stock.
If I'm going to dollar-cost average into a stock for 20-40 years and then start taking money out, should I want the stock to go up while I'm putting money in, or should I want it to remain nice and cheap relative to dividends? In what way will having the stock price go higher today allow me to collect more in 20-40 years?
There are only two ways that a speculative market as a whole can make money:
If the water level in the present is higher than in the future, one can collect energy from every gallon that flows. As more speculators enter the market, the "present" level will diminish and the "future" level will rise. If too many speculators enter the market, the "present" levels will be drained below the "future" levels, thus requiring an investment of energy to move the water uphill. The greater the disparity, the more energy is required.
In a sane market, the diminishing "present" water level (increasing price) would be a red flag, telling investors to back off. Unfortunately, bulls that see a red flag tend to charge in instead.
Prices of stock are certainly important when one buys or sells them, but the market price of an asset which one is neither buying nor selling is meaningless. If the vast majority of stock in a company is held by people who intend to keep it until 2015 and then liquidate it by 2020, price fluctuations for the small number of shares that are actively traded won't have any real effect on the value of the non-traded shares. The market may support a bubble when all those trades are on the sidelines, but any bubble is going to burst as soon as anyone tries to liquidate in any major way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.