Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:46, 28 January 2006

A naked short sale, (or naked shorting), is a controversial form of selling shares or securities short. It is viewed by critics as a device to depress stock prices.

However, its alleged depressive effect upon share prices has been widely exaggerated, and it is often used as a scapegoat by pump-and-dump scam operators wishing to shift blame for the inevitable decline in manipulated stocks.

The practice is long-standing one in the capital markets. It is when Short selling takes place on a security, but instead of borrowing a share before selling it, the seller does not borrow or arrange to borrow the securities in time for settlement (in the major United States capital markets, settlement typically takes place three days after the transaction). A seller sells something that he doesn't own, and the buyer pays his money, receiving nothing in return but a brokerage statement representing an IOU for the shares ordered. As a result, the seller fails to deliver securities to the buyer when delivery is due; this is known in the securities industry as a "failure to deliver".

Controversy

Critics charge that naked short selling can threaten the stability of stock prices because stocks can be sold without having to first acquire them from existing owners. In practice, true naked shorts cannot be maintained by public investors since they must either have the shares borrowed for them by their brokers in advance or promptly deliver the physical shares. Therefore, true naked shorts are typically done by broker-dealers and market makers who are able to maintain such naked short positions in secrecy via simple electronic journaling or book-keeping, intra-firm, to customers who bought and who simply need to see share figures on their statements to feel assured.

This is a practice of questionable legality, but so are the methods that are used to fight naked short-selling, which are also used to fight less controversial forms of short-selling. These include the buyer requesting physical delivery of share certificates. Even in the rare instance such share certificate delivery is sought by the shareholder, the broker-dealer or market maker can always belatedly buy the needed shares on the open market, and deliver those. That can artifically inflate share prices via what is known as a "short squeeze." Such manipulative methods are frequently illegal, and are used by scam artists to artificially elevate share prices. Investors who buy shares that have been inflated in that manner can be hurt when the shares, as they invariably do, decline. However, short squeezes allow pump-and-dump scam artists to dump their shares on innocent investors.

Some companies, mainly thinly traded small cap operations, have fought back against perceived naked shorting by suing short-sellers and the Depository Trust Clearing Corporation. However, these suits have almost invariably been tossed out of court before trial.

In the United States, the Securities and Exchange Commission enacted Regulation SHO to prohibit Naked Short Selling. Regulation SHO was enacted under concerted pressure from opponents of naked short-selling, which include many stock manipulators and scam artists. Critics of Regulation SHO say that it reduced the ability of the free market to police microcap fraud.

Regulation SHO put in place a warning system against the risk of stock price instability by publicly identifying securities where short positions composed more than 10,000 shares and more than 0.5% of the Total Shares Outstanding for 5 consecutive settlement days or more. Critics charge that this system encourage "short squeezes" aimed at artificially inflating share prices.

Despite the enactment of Regulation SHO, opponents of naked short sales have continued their campaign against naked short-selling, often seeking to attribute ordinary price fluctuations to naked short-selling.

Criticism

Critics of naked shorting have emphatically asserted that the practice constitutes a major scandal on the stock market, and that "hundreds if not thousands of companies"have been victimized by the practice. Some critics have contended that there is a "massive stock counterfeiting" conspiracy, with one vocal critical, Overstock Inc. chief executive officer Patrick Byrne, maintainingthat there is a "Sith Lord" behind naked shorting machinations -- a claim that has been met by widespread derision.

However, critics of naked short-selling have failed to produce evidence in support of their arguments. That and the wild "Sith Lord" and "stock counterfeiting" claims, have hurt the credibility of the anti-naked-shorting movement.

Counter criticism

In 2003, the SEC implemented a new rule to ban the practice. The ruling was mainly to protect vulnerable stocks to aggressive short-selling. However, oppononents of this rule have been arguing that "if naked-shorting had not taken place during the micro-cap crime wave of the 1990s, such stocks would have climbed even higher before they crashed".

Critics of naked shorting are themselves frequently the subjects of harsh criticism, with skeptics pointing out a near total absence of eviddence that the practice even exists. Indeed, the entire subject was pretty well laid to rest at a November 2005 forum on naked short-selling conducted by the North American Securities Administrators Association, in which regulators testifiedthat has been little or no evidence of extensive naked short selling,

James Brigagliano, assistant director of market regulation at the SEC, said, "While there may be instances of abusive short selling, 99% of all trades in dollar value settle on time without incident." Brigagliano said the SEC conducted examination at 45 broker/dealers and asked the markets to look into the trading of securities in which large amounts of "fails to deliver" have been registered.

Cameron Funkhouser, NASD's senior vice president of market regulations, told the forum that NASD had found no evidence of rampant naked short selling. He also noted that although a number of companies have in the past alleged their shares have been manipulated through the listing of their stocks on foreign stock exchanges, he had found no evidence of such activity. "We took (these allegations) very seriously," Funkhouser said. "We have seen not one instance of naked short selling or any abusive short activity" through foreign exchanges."

Despite the overwhelming evidence that "naked shorting" is a nonissue that is a drain on regulatory resources, opponents of naked short-selling continue to press their campaign.

See also

• Bear market
• Efficient market hypothesis
• Long / short equity
• Pump and Dump
• Share price
• Short selling
• Stock market bubble

External links

• An extensive source of information related to naked short selling
• BusinessWeak article on naked short-selling
• A short selling tutorial at Investopedia
• As Exected, Corrupt Regulators Cite Little Evidence of Naked Shorting
• DTCC First Deputy General Counsel Larry Thompson Mutters to himself about Naked Shorting

...............................................................

• Stock market
• Finance
• Financial markets