- Your history
Naked short-selling and the fall of Bear Stearns
Er is een reden waarom een muziekblad zoals Rolling Stone en niet The Wall street Journal - om er maar één te noemen - tracht dieper te graven in de financieel-economische crisis en de rol van Wall Street firms en de centrale bank. In de afgelopen weken heeft Rolling Stone een aantal artikels uitgebracht die de vinger leggen op een aantal belangrijke problemen: manipulatie door shortselling, de macht van Goldman Sachs, de afrekening met Bear Stearns, de lobby bij de overheid, de manipulatie van koersen, en de straffeloosheid van dit alles. Voor degenen die het gemist hebben, dit is een dik pak weekendliteratuur...
En de reden waarom Rolling Stone dit schrijft ? Angst om persona non grata te worden bij hun klanten, informatiebronnen en bij de overheid misschien?
From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression - and they're about to do it again.
Het start met een lang artikel over Goldman Sachs en het ontstaan van bubbles. Een analyse van een aantal belangrijke financiële overdrijvingen, en de oorzaken ervan. Ten slotte ook een vingerwijzing naar de passiviteit van de politici en de bevolking :
It's not always easy to accept the reality of what we now routinely allow these people to get away with; there's a kind of collective denial that kicks in when a country goes through what America has gone through lately, when a people lose as much prestige and status as we have in the past few years. You can't really register the fact that you're no longer a citizen of a thriving first-world democracy, that you're no longer above getting robbed in broad daylight, because like an amputee, you can still sort of feel things that are no longer there.
But this is it. This is the world we live in now. And in this world, some of us have to play by the rules, while others get a note from the principal excusing them from homework till the end of time, plus 10 billion free dollars in a paper bag to buy lunch. It's a gangster state, running on gangster economics, and even prices can't be trusted anymore; there are hidden taxes in every buck you pay. And maybe we can't stop it, but we should at least know where it's all going.
Daarna kwam er een nieuw en lang artikel over shortselling, de technieken, de misbruiken en de gevolgen: dat leest u hier inRolling Stone. De auteur maakt duidelijk met eenvoudige voorbeelden hoe deze technieken werken, en hoe dit een geoorloofde diefstal toelaat in de financiële markten:
H
ere's how naked short-selling works: Imagine you travel to a small foreign island on vacation. Instead of going to an exchange office in your hotel to turn your dollars into Island Rubles, the country instead gives you a small printing press and makes you a deal: Print as many Island Rubles as you like, then on the way out of the country you can settle your account. So you take your printing press, print out gigantic quantities of Rubles and start buying goods and services. Before long, the cash you've churned out floods the market, and the currency's value plummets. Do this long enough and you'll crack the currency entirely; the loaf of bread that cost the equivalent of one American dollar the day you arrived now costs less than a cent.
With prices completely depressed, you keep printing money and buy everything of value homes, cars, priceless works of art. You then load it all into a cargo ship and head home. On the way out of the country, you have to settle your account with the currency office. But the Island Rubles you printed are now worthless, so it takes just a handful of U.S. dollars to settle your debt. Arriving home with your cargo ship, you sell all the island riches you bought at a discount and make a fortune.
Het verhaal zoomt ook in op wat er is gebeurd met Bear Stearns, hoe het ten prooi viel aan een onbekende shortseller, aan geruchten en tenslotte op erg korte tijd in de touwen ging:
The best way to grasp what happened is to look at the data: On Tuesday, March 11th, there were 201,768 shares of Bear that had failed to deliver. The very next day, the number of phantom shares leaped to 1.2 million. By the close of trading that Friday, the number passed 2 million and when the market reopened the following Monday, it soared to 13.7 million. In less than a week, the number of counterfeit shares in Bear had jumped nearly seventyfold.
The giant numbers of undelivered shares over the course of that week amounted to one of the most blatant cases of stock manipulation in Wall Street history. "There is not a doubt in my mind, not a single doubt" that naked short-selling helped destroy Bear, says Sen. Ted Kaufman, a Democrat from Delaware who has introduced legislation to curb such financial fraud. Asked to rate how obvious a case of naked short-selling Bear is, on a scale of one to 10, former SEC counsel Brent Baker doesn't hesitate. "Easily a 10," he says.
At the same time that naked short- sellers were counterfeiting Bear's stock, the firm was being hit by another classic tactic of bear raids: negative rumors in the media. Tipped off by a source, CNBC reporter David Faber reported on March 12th that Goldman Sachs had held up a trade with Bear because it was worried about the firm's creditworthiness. Faber noted that the hold was temporary the deal had gone through that morning. But the damage was done; inside Bear, Faber's report was blamed for much of the subsequent panic.
"I like Faber, he's a good guy," a Bear executive later said. "But I wonder if he ever asked himself, 'Why is someone telling me this?' There was a reason this was leaked, and the reason is simple: Someone wanted us to go down, and go down hard."
At first, the full-blown speculative attack on Bear seemed to be working. Thanks to the media-fueled rumors and the mounting anxiety over the company's ability to make its payments, Bear's share price plummeted seven percent on March 13th, to $57. It still had a ways to go for the mysterious short-seller to make a profit on his bet against the firm, but it was headed in the right direction. But then, early on the morning of Friday, March 14th, Bear's CEO, Alan Schwartz, struck a deal with the Fed and JPMorgan to provide an emergency loan to keep the company's doors open. When the news hit the street that morning, Bear's stock rallied, gaining more than nine percent and climbing back to $62.
The rally proved short-lived Bear ended the day at $30 but it suggested that all was not lost. Then a strange thing happened. As Bear understood it, the emergency credit line that the Fed had arranged was originally supposed to last for 28 days. But that Friday, despite the rally, Geithner and then-Treasury secretary Hank Paulson the former head of Goldman Sachs, one of the firms rumored to be shorting Bear had a sudden change of heart. When the market closed for the weekend, Paulson called Schwartz and told him that the rescue timeline had to be accelerated. Paulson wouldn't stay up another night worrying about Bear Stearns, he reportedly told Schwartz. Bear had until Sunday night to find a buyer or it could go fuck itself.
Bear was out of options. Over the course of that weekend, the firm opened its books to JPMorgan, the only realistic potential buyer. But upon seeing all the "shit" on Bear's books, as one source privy to the negotiations put it including great gobs of toxic investments in the subprime markets JPMorgan hedged. It wouldn't do the deal, it announced, unless it got two things: a huge bargain on the sale price, and a lot of public money to wipe out the "shit."
De auteur duidt niet met een vinger rechtstreeks naar Goldman Sachs of JP Morgan of een andere zakenbank. Maar zijn insinuatie is duidelijk:
We may never know who killed Bear and Lehman. But it sure isn't hard to figure out who's left.
En eindigt met een kritische noot:
The nation's largest financial players are able to write the rules for own their businesses and brazenly steal billions under the noses of regulators, and nothing is done about it. A thing so fundamental to civilized society as the integrity of a stock, or a mortgage note, or even a U.S. Treasury bond, can no longer be protected, not even in a crisis, and a crime as vulgar and conspicuous as counterfeiting can take place on a systematic level for years without being stopped, even after it begins to affect the modern-day equivalents of the Rockefellers and the Carnegies. What 10 years ago was a cheap stock-fraud scheme for second-rate grifters in Brooklyn has become a major profit center for Wall Street. Our burglar class now rules the national economy. And no one is trying to stop them.
De teksten in Rolling Stone zijn het makkelijkst te lezen in de "Print Version".
22 Comments
-
Haiku Herman
On 20 Nov, 2009
Gelukkig hebben we nog de tijd om onze allereerste president van Europa te horen dichten.
:) -
carl
On 20 Nov, 2009
Jim Chanos,de man die het Enron schandaal blootlegde vergeleek eens op een topconferentie van de G7 Bankiers van de Centrale banken hetzelfde aan het geburen was in de financiele beurswereld.
Hij was in zijn hedge fund op het spoor gekomen van esoterische en naar later bleek toxische instrumenten.
En de aanwezige centrale bankiers begrepen hem niet.Het was ook zondagnamiddag toen hij hen op zijn bevindingen wees en ze waren moe en verlangden naar hun vliegtuig,blij om naar huis te mogen gaan.Hij was het onderscheid aan het uitleggen tussen de Level one en Level two and Level three Assets.Nu wten we dat die Level 3 Assets de meest problematische waren van allemaal in de crisis en de banken hadden geen reserves hiervoor geboekt en ze waren ook niet in de fameuze modellen opgenomen.
Achteraf bleek (Jim Chanos sprak in april 2007) dat al deze Level 3 Assets er veel slechter aan toe waren dan oorspronkelijk gedacht en dat de banken veel veel meer waren geleveraged dan toen werd gedacht en vol zaten van illuiquide assets.
Het is intussen een aantal maanden verder gebkeken dat onze wereldleiders niet in staat zijn de omvang van de huidige corrupte crisis te begrijpen.
IOntegendeel ze zijn zelfs vast besloten om slechts de gevolgen van de crisis te bestrijden,liever dan de oorzaken ervan.
Eris het wegvallen van de financiele basis (dollar en schulden) over de ganse wereld,er is het uiteenlopen van de belangen van de grote wereldspelers en de snelle desintegratie van het ganse actuele wereldsysteem alsmede het verdwijnen van de capaciteit om in te grijpen bij deze grote wereldspelers.
Dat een Magazine als Rolling Stone zulke corrupte praktijken moet blootleggen is veelbetekened.
Conclusie :
"Iets" nieuws zal dus als toevalsproduct en al improviserend ontstaan.
Dit zal tragische gevolgen hebben.
Veel van die spelers zullen het gevaar lopen te bezwijken onder het gewicht van hun eigen geschiedenis.
Tot nu toe beseft de massa van de bevolking de tragiek niet van deze situatie.
Obama,Brown,Merkel en Sarkozy houden niet op de historische dimensie van deze crisis te onderlijnen.
Zo proberen ze te verbergen dat zijzelf niet meer in staat zijn de aard van de crisis te begrijpen.
Ze zijn intussen wel bezig hun naam te zuiveren voor het geval hun beleid in de toekomst mislukt. -
Luk
On 20 Nov, 2009
- De printversie leest veel aangenamer dan de standaardversie. Prima tip :-)!
- Weet iemand waarom "naked short-selling" werd geïntroduceerd? Met welk nut voor ogen?
Het nut van "Short-selling" geleende aandelen verkopen met het oog ze lager terug te kopen) lijkt mij verdedigbaar: het zorgt ervoor dat niet alle neuzen in dezelfde richting wijzen (dat gaat bellenblazen tegen) en het verhoogt de liquiditeit (dat komt bedrijven e.d. ten goede). "Short-sellers" kunnen m.a.w. piramidegedrag op de aandelenmarkten tegengaan.
Maar waarom "naked short-selling" (oneigen aandelen verkopen)? Iedereen begrijpt dat bij voldoende verkooporders de koers van een bedrijf onder druk komt te staan (onvoldoende opvang langs de kant van de kopers). Eenvoudig realiseerbaar daar men de aandelen niet hoeft te bezitten (en koop meteen een lading puts op het bedrijf).
Er moet bij het toelaten van "naked short-selling" toch voorafgaand onderzoek gebeurd zijn naar de mogelijke (negatieve) gevolgen? Is dit gebeurd? Wat waren de resultaten? Of is de maatregel zonder meer ingevoerd (dat kan ik mij toch niet voorstellen). Wat is het nut tegenover "short-selling"? In het artikel spreekt men over een nog grotere liquiditeit (men moet niet eerst nagaan of de aandelen in bezit zijn). Is dit de enige reden?
- GS bezondigt zich ongetwijfeld aan malafide praktijken. Hoe komt het dat er geen ex-werknemers uit de biecht klappen? Ik begrijp dat niet. Het is bijgevolg moeilijk om bepaalde (complot)theoriëen naar werkelijkheid in te schatten.
Iemand antwoord op m'n vragen? -
Nick Doms
On 20 Nov, 2009
There is no difference between short-selling and naked short selling. Both are always covered by securities lending in the market because of the delivery obligation in DTC.
It is and always has been an investment strategy.
As much as one may criticize the practice, also think about the other side of the deal:
A pension plan (public or private) has a large stock portfolio. In order to increase the return of such, they wish to lend their shares to the market participant at a certain rate of return for lending and a commission.
The pension plan realizes a higher ROE, the short seller makes the delivery in the market and bets on a falling price of the stock.
This is the same scenario as where a stockholder pledges his shares, which he holds in his portfolio, and writes a call contract or simply buys a put contract.
The effect and the purpose is exactly the same.
This is not the reason why BSC went bankrupt and the notion that the Fed and UST agreed to extend a loan but later reneged on the deal is false. BSC, under their charter as an IB, would never get a loan from the Fed. Only commercial banks were eligible for that (the law has since changed) so that is an impossible scenario.
More to come if you are interested.
Sincerely, -
DVS
On 20 Nov, 2009
@Luk i.v.m. Goldman Sachs: en wat te denken van het nieuwsbericht enkele maanden geleden dat GS de arrestatie had bevolen (of gevraagd?) van een voormalige medewerker-programmeur die ervan verdacht werd stukken van de ontwikkelde trading-software te hebben gestolen? GS gaf aan dat de arrestatie nodig was omdat ze bevreesd waren dat, indien de software in verkeerde handen zou vallen, deze zou kunnen misbruikt worden voor marktmanipulatie. Dit komt neer op een bekentenis, nl. dat GS dankzij zijn trading software in staat is koersen te manipuleren. In Europa is het blijkbaar redelijk stil wanneer het over High-Frequency Trading gaat, maar ik kan me niet voorstellen dat men hier geen gebruik maakt van dergelijk speelgoed. Het zou goed kunnen dat de heropleving sedert maart voor een groot deel gebaseerd is op koersmanipulatie, indirect door de overspoeling met goedkoop geld (dollar carry trade), en direct door manipulatie van het sentiment en goed georkestreerde trading-activiteiten (futures, ETF's?)...
-
Nick Doms
On 20 Nov, 2009
That is standard practice and according to the agreed upon CoC and NDA.
It is not related to any potential manipulation or use of software.
It has to do with whichever software is developed withing a Firm, such becomes the intellectual property of the Firm and not the programmer.
Stealing any company property upon leaving the Firm warrants an arrest.
How would you feel if your housekeeper, upon resigning, would walk away with some of your furniture that they cleaned? Or better, some of your personal equipment?
You would call 911 and have them arrested.
Same scenario and your insinuation towards market manipulation is far fetched.
With all due respect.
Sincerely,-
DVS
On 24 Nov, 2009
If the reason for arresting that former GS programmer was that "the code could be used to 'unfairly manipulate' stock prices", as was stated by the prosecutor speaking on behalf of GS (see article in NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/business/24trading.html), then there is definitely smoke (and possibly a fire). Doesn't this imply that the firm that owns the software has the means to manipulate stock prices?
To add a line to your home theft analogy: suppose your housekeeper steals your (possibly illegally held) weapon and you demand his/her arrest because he/she could use it in a bank robbery (because you trained your housekeeper to help you do that).
How should we react?
In a court of law, the thief will be punished (which, as a noble person, you rightfully defended here).
In a just world, your illegal holding of a weapon will also be punished, or at least be investigated (which you chose to ignore here).
So in our politically correct world, the ones hiding behind their shields of intellectual property protection and air-tight non-disclosure agreements are allowed to walk away.
I invite you and other readers to have a look also the zero-hedge post on Goldman Sachs trading revenues in 2009 (even though this site often gives one-sided views, it provides food for thought : http://www.zerohedge.com/article/another-view-goldmans-trading-perfection-and-statistical-improbabilities#comment-124926). I don't know if the charts are valid, but if they are, then I'm seriously wondering what is the edge that Goldman Sachs has over other traders which enables them to make 116 days with over one-hundred million dollar trading profits in 194 trading days.
Could it be superior - possibly market price manipulating - software?
With equal respect,
Sincerely,
-
-
-
carl
On 20 Nov, 2009
Paul Huybrechts,voorzitter van de VFB, omschrijft NSS als volgt :
Normaal moet je aandelen bezitten of ze ontlenen om ze te kunnen verkopen.
Maar in de VS (en op alle niet-gereguleerde markten) is het vlot mogelijk om aandelen te verkopen die men noch bezit,noch ontleent.
Men mag aandelen dus vrijelijk bijdrukken.
Tot je slachtoffer -Fortis bvb.- op de knieen zit en je de verkochte aandelen alsnog voor een prikje kunt inkopen.
Volgens Matt Taibi van Rolling Stone betaalt men zelfs dividenden op niet bestaande aandelen en stemt men ook op de AV met niet-bestaande aandelen.
In 2005 onderzocht de Securities Transfer Association 341 stemmingen en trof in alle gevallen OVER-VPTING aan.
Er ontstond ook een nieuwe specialisatie Prime Brokerage genaamd,waardoor in de handel de band met reele aandelen eigenliojk OVERBODIG werd.
Er werden en worden daar miljarden mee verdiend.
In 2009 zal er alleen al voor zeven miljard dollar aan bonussen worden uitbetaald in UK en US. -
Nick Doms
On 20 Nov, 2009
Matt Taibi is wrong.
It is impossible to get a proxy statement as the counterpart of a short sale since the shares have to be registered with the CH in order for such proxy to be mailed out.
The synthetic markets (unregulated) are a different animal. The only one that exists in equity trading in the US are the pink sheet stocks. All others are fully regulated as far as equities are concerned.
Prime brokerage is not a disconnect with real shares, it is a tactic and a portfolio strategy that relies on borrowing power, i.e. going short heavily on cash to invest.
Sincerely, -
carl
On 21 Nov, 2009
De kranten van de Mc Clatchy groep schetsten de jongste weken hoe Goldman Sachs VANAF 2006 speculeerde op de crash van de afgeleide hypotheekproducten die het aan de andere banken,pensioenfondsen enz. als Triple AAA verkocht.
Die hadden het maar moeten wten,zegt nu de woordvoerder van GS.
Quote van de voorzitter van de VFB,Paul Huybrechts -
Theo
On 21 Nov, 2009
@ Carl
One could also argue that the boys at Goldman seem to have been the only ones who have listened to all the economists predicting the house market implosion and speculation bubble burst!
Hence their actions as you describe them since 2006...
On this blog we keep talking about the economists, but we never seem to look at how companies act upon analysis by economists.
Here we have a perfect opportunity:
- Goldman Sachs seem to have listened and come out on top
- while Fortis and Dexia even started their own repackaging "plants"
Today people are calling GS the Devil in disguise... while somehow Fortis and Dexia have become the Fallen Angels of the story.
What I would like to know is who's economics advice were they listening to? Lippens gave us a hint on the topic in his interview in de Tijd...-
DVS
On 24 Nov, 2009
So has GS been smarter than the rest? Possibly, but wouldn't it be easy to predict the house market implosion and subsequent bubble burst if you helped inflating it in the first place? At least that is what is described in the part on Goldman Sachs' putative role in Bubble #3... Same mechanism in the other bubble stories.
As to the C-grade students in the class, Fortis & Dexia (& KBC?), I remember indeed that Mr. Lippens had warned two-three months in advance of an imminent financial melt-down (tsunami), prior to the events of September-October 2008, and I am also curious who had come to this insight before/with him.-
Geert
On 24 Nov, 2009
@Dries: I think it was more like a few weeks before the Fortis-collapse that Lippesn warned about the meltdown.
-
DVS
On 25 Nov, 2009
Hello Geert,
I'm relatively new to this forum, even though I've been reading along for quite some time. Thank you for your initiative.
I found this report citing Fortis' tsunami warning (by mouth of Lippens) of an imminent US financial meltdown, dated June 28, 2008:
http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2008/06/28/fortis-bank-predicts-us-financial-market-meltdown-within-weeks/
Some ten weeks later (or 2.5 months), Lehman Bros imploded and filed for bankuptcy (September 15th). Many smaller banks were to follow...
In rear view, it is quite cynical that Fortis apparently saw this coming weeks in advance, and still it couldn't prevent its complete demise.
Kind regards,-
Geert
On 26 Nov, 2009
I see, you are right about the timing.
It was a around the time of their dividend cut.
Indeed cynical, as if the captain saw the storm , but knew his boat was unprepared
-
-
-
Theo
On 26 Nov, 2009
@ DVS
It was far from me to claim that GS are angels!
I believe that in this whole mess everybody has responsibility.
On the other hand I stand by the question I posed above...
For example, Record Bank CEO publicly declared that years ago at bankers' seminars he decided to stay far away from repackaged sub-prime mortgages. As result his bank has fared well during first the credit crunch and later the financial market crisis. His clients did not suffer and his bank didn't need to be bailed out.
All that though didn't avoid his bank recently being penalized by financial and market regulators... and thus impacting his clients!!!
As far as Lippens and his tsunami "warning" 10 weeks before the collapse of Lehman Bros... give me a break! the undersea earthquake started a year earlier with the closure of a certain French investment fund; Fortis chose to proceed with the takeover despite the tsunami warnings in the summer of 2007.
Why did Lippens and the rest of Fortis think all the major central banks were pumping so much liquidity in the financial system at the time??? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that a takeover in such circumstances and under such conditions will only mean value destruction on multiple levels!!!
What captain? There was no captain and no crew!
The ship was drifting in high sea during the biggest storm
-
-
-
Nick Doms
On 24 Nov, 2009
We need to make a difference between the primary bubble and the secondary bubble.
Wall Street firms do not play in the primary market so the housing bubble was not caused by them with the exception of BoA, WF and WAMU, just to name a few.
The secondary market collapsed partially because of the primary paper that was underlying collateral and of course because of securitization, restructuring and repackaging.
GS came out on top because of their hedging strategies (CDS contracts).
I don't know who Fortis or Dexia listen to, but GS takes their advice from Abbey Cohen and she is an excellent economist and financial strategist.
Sincerely, -
Nico
On 24 Nov, 2009
First of all thanks Geert for the interesting articles
@ Nick Doms.
You say there is no difference between short selling and naked short selling because of the delivery obligation.
I do not understand this. If you are allowed to sell stocks in big quantities on the market which you do not own for some time you actually will increase the aparent number of stocks for some time and distabilise the stock market. Especially if you do that for financial stocks whose value depends a lot on trust and reputation, that may create a panic reaction in the market. If the scheme works and the market does panic, you buy back at low prices and win, if it does not and the stock recovers to its original price (assuming you can buy the stock at that price) you loose nothing?
There are of course risks as well.
If I own 80% of a stock and lend 40% to a third party who sells it on the market. I buy back from him the 40% and now own 80% of all shares + 40 % lent out. The third party has to deliver 40%, but cannot of course unless I am willing to sell. I think something similarly happened to the Volkswagen stock last year I believe
Anyway it seems clear to me that such practices can disrupt the market, and can destroy fine companies.
The economic value of hedge funds is according to the textbook that they narrow the spreads and create liquidity, but in this case the effect of such what I would call 'hedge fund practices' is the exact opposite, it simply creates volatility, and if it leads to a panicing market you can destroy a competitor.
There clearly is a big danger in these short selling practices it seems.
In my humble opinion (naked) short selling should either be very well regulated more regulated or perhaps even better forbidden. -
DVS
On 26 Nov, 2009
@Geert
I suppose that, in the megalomanic case of Fortis and many other banks with bad debt, it was a situation of 'The Needle and the Damage Done'. Irreversible damage.
This sidestepping on Fortis might seem somewhat off-topic, but I strongly believe it has been a perfect example of what has gone wrong in the financial sector (over-securitization, overleveraging, derivatives as weapons of mass destruction, dixit W. Buffett, a pyramid game) and of the manipulative scheming that is going on, virtually every day and at various levels.
Of course, it is inherent to money - people manipulate in order to get ahead. But some forms of manipulation should not be tolerated. The problem is they are often played out in such a subtle manner that they pass unnoticed and are difficult to prove in our hypocrite, politically correct societies. We are at the tip of a gigantic speculative ice-berg. Underneath the surface, ice comes and goes, and ships run into it, get damaged or sink. The way the ice-berg is perceived is deliberately kept obscure.
I distinguish two kinds of manipulation, direct and indirect.
The indirect kind works on the market sentiment, is based on behavioural response mechanisms. This manipulation aims at influencing people's herd behaviour, their primal fears or their degree of manic depressive tendency (pain of loss, euforia, irrational exuberance). Today's media and network technology provide perfect tools for manipulating people's attitudes to changing financial situations, both in bear and bull markets, in prosperity and depression. Many politicians, analysts and market gurus are masters in this field...
The direct kind concerns stock price or index manipulations. The posts on the fall of Lehman, Bear Stearns and the likes, dealt with naked short-selling. I agree with other posters that this technique is disruptive and destructive. A trading environment is being created in which virtual money is used to push prices down, with or without of the help of (false) rumours. If timed well, this is enhanced by panic selling, which gives shorters opportunities to cover. Risky (cf. short-squeezes), but almost a perfect recipe for huge short-term gain. Of course there is often a high degree of predisposing weakness in the shorted victims; in a way, they are simply pushed over the edge on which they danced in more rosy days.
On the opposite of short-selling are "pump and dump" and "laundry"-schemes. In this context, the programme-trading should be scrutinized. I have little doubt that the so called high-frequency trading (HFT) tools have front-running capabilities which put their operators at the level of insider-traders, which is illegal. The free market bid-and-ask process is disrupted. This has been compared to a blackjack casino in which one privileged player sees every other players' cards and, obviously, consistently beats them, in micro-second fashion. That player, moreover, gets unlimited money to play with. My insinuations on Goldman Sachs' possible involvement in such manipulations are not that far fetched (cf. Nick Doms' critiques earlier on). Admittedly, their software can be used to "unfairly manipulate stock prices" [if it falls in the "wrong hands"]. I see only one way to interpret this; the bottomline was that this was not just a case of stealing company property. So why play devil's advocate...? For the sake of law and order?
Of course, most manipulators use hybrid methods, based on an intricate scheme of direct and indirect manipulation techniques. I believe the futures trading in particular can be used to create a bullish or bearish sentiment, at least in the short term, especially when fed by incentives with macro-economical impact that induce irrational risk-taking and bubble creation. According to the Rolling Stone article, Goldman Sachs appears to have master-minded and inflated the speculative bubble that arose in 2008 in the oil futures. This is manipulation at a global scale, not only having direct financial implications but also compromising the well-being of millions in developing countries. Perhaps firms like Goldman Sachs have a prodigious work-force, outsmarting the rest, simply "reacting" better than others to changing economic realities (cf. Theo)? I rather believe they help create the new economic realities, tailor them to their needs. And of course, they are not alone. They are on top of their ice-berg together with other enlightened ones waving at the ships sailing by... -
Nick Doms
On 26 Nov, 2009
@ Nick (same name right)
Short selling:
This strategy occurs in the options market by writing a call on a position held in a portfolio and betting on a share price downturn.
Such contracts have to be covered in one of three ways:
-pledging the underlying shares for the duration of the option
-collateralizing the exposure through other shares with same value
-margin (cash) being subject to daily exposure calculations
Naked short selling
Occurs in the equity and bond markets. The shares are delivered as per DTC rules through Sec lending.
If nor delivery takes place, then DTC will issue an automatic buy-in at the cost of the seller, plus a penalty for failure to adhere to the rules.
Some synthetic markets will see naked short selling as well but such will result in a buy-in procedure initiated by the buyer since their is no CH involved.
Short selling is crucial to maintain the liquidity in the market and cannot be viewed as manipulation.
It is a strategy. and it is hedging, in most cases.
Sincerely, -
Garry Basel
On 14 Mar, 2011
Out of my examination, shopping for electronics online can for sure be expensive, however there are some tips and tricks that you can use to obtain the best discounts. There are often ways to find discount bargains that could make one to have the best electronics products at the smallest prices. Good blog post.
















