Mantanmoreland (talk | contribs) m repairing vandalism |
71.107.35.89 (talk) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Naked short selling is mostly illegal in the USA. It is the act of selling a security without having or delivering the security to the buyer. |
|||
A '''naked short sale''', (or ''naked shorting''), is a controversial form of [[Short selling|selling shares of securities short]]. It is viewed by critics as a device to depress [[stock price]]s. |
|||
However, the extent to which this practice takes place has been widely exaggerated, and allegations of naked short-selling have historically been used as a scapegoat by pump-and-dump scam operators wishing to shift blame for the inevitable decline in manipulated stocks. |
|||
There is ample evidence that illegal naked short selling has happened and continues to happend on a daily basis in the US equirt markets. |
|||
Allegations concerning naked short-selling have long swirled around the [[capital markets]], and were the subject of a cover story in Forbes magazine on February 8, 1988. At that time, [[stock promoters]] involved in the Creative Securities and [http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/34-42181.htm Haas Securities] stock swindles were alleging that their firms' shares -- subsequently found to have been a subject of [[pump and dump]] fraud -- were pushed down by naked short-sellers. In fact, these stocks collapsed after the stock fraud ended, and no naked shorting was proven. |
|||
In an ordinary short sale, stocks are borrowed and then sold, with the aim of profiting when a stock price declines. In a "naked" short sale, the short-seller does not borrow or arrange to borrow the securities in time for [[Settlement (finance)|settlement]] (in the major [[United States]] capital markets, settlement typically takes place three days after the transaction). |
|||
The direct effect is a decline in price of the security, due to an artificially higher supply introduced by the naked short seller and not the issuer of the original and underlying security. |
|||
== Advantages for the market of naked short selling == |
|||
In criminal [[stock fraud]] operations, retail investors are encouraged by either a [[stock promoter]] or [[bucket shop]] to buy a stock pushing it's value far beyond its true value. This is also called [[pump and dump]]. If naked shorting were allowed by SEC rules, other brokerages would step in and naked short the stock bringing it back to true value. In essence, SEC rules against naked shorting allows criminal stock fraud operations to exist and make large profits. |
|||
By making naked shorts illegal, volume of trading is reduced resulting in higher spreads and illiquidity. Also, present naked shorting rules allow brokerages to make large profits doing "bona-fide market making" while stock markets are falling. Since retail investors are not allowed to do naked shorting, this presents an unfairness or uneven playing field. |
|||
Naked short selling is synonymous with the term, "failing to deliver" or FTD and also "failing to recieve" or FTR. |
|||
== Disadvantages for the market of naked short selling == |
|||
Naked Short Selling causes a drop in share price. Companies who are doing a [[stock offering]] will have to issue more shares to raise the same amount of cash. Critics of the practice also charge that naked short-selling could theoretically result in trading in fictitious shares. However, regulators have found no evidence of that actually taking place. |
|||
== 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 [[broker]]s 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 selling activity is permitted in the USA only in limited cases and by exempt entities, like by market makers and specialists - but even then the securities still must be delivered within a certain time frame. |
|||
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 alleged naked shorting by suing short-sellers and the Depository Trust Clearing Corporation. However, these suits have almost invariably been [http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20060127005585&newsLang=en tossed out of court] before trial. |
|||
So strictly speaking, naked short selling is not illegal, though for the most part, and for the vast majority of sellers, it is. |
|||
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 counteract [[pump and dump]] stock frauds. |
|||
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. |
|||
Recent Freedom of Information Act releases by the SEC in 2005 in the USA has shown that naked short selling is rampant with an avergae of over 150 million shares per day being sold in this manner on the NYSE and NASDAQ alone and several hundred million more PER DAY on other exchanges and on the OTC exchange. In other words, these shares are bought but not received by buyers, FTD - failure to deliver and failure to recieve - every single day. |
|||
Despite the enactment of Regulation SHO, opponents of naked short sales have continued their campaign against naked short-selling, and have been accused of seeking to attribute ordinary price fluctuations to naked short-selling. |
|||
The DTCC, the main clearing organizatin in the USA, has officialy stated that the monetary fails, attributed to naked short selling, are $6 Billion, PER DAY. Another statistic was 1% of all trades failing to deliver or recieve due to naked short selling. |
|||
To note is that the above statistics are concentrated in a small subset of securities, making a profound effect on the price of the effected securities. |
|||
Also to note is that none of the above data includes "ex-clearing" naked short selling and failures to deliver. A problem that the DTCC has said is about 4 times larger. |
|||
== Criticism == |
== Criticism == |
||
Revision as of 21:58, 28 January 2006
Naked short selling is mostly illegal in the USA. It is the act of selling a security without having or delivering the security to the buyer.
There is ample evidence that illegal naked short selling has happened and continues to happend on a daily basis in the US equirt markets.
The direct effect is a decline in price of the security, due to an artificially higher supply introduced by the naked short seller and not the issuer of the original and underlying security.
Naked short selling is synonymous with the term, "failing to deliver" or FTD and also "failing to recieve" or FTR.
This selling activity is permitted in the USA only in limited cases and by exempt entities, like by market makers and specialists - but even then the securities still must be delivered within a certain time frame.
So strictly speaking, naked short selling is not illegal, though for the most part, and for the vast majority of sellers, it is.
Recent Freedom of Information Act releases by the SEC in 2005 in the USA has shown that naked short selling is rampant with an avergae of over 150 million shares per day being sold in this manner on the NYSE and NASDAQ alone and several hundred million more PER DAY on other exchanges and on the OTC exchange. In other words, these shares are bought but not received by buyers, FTD - failure to deliver and failure to recieve - every single day.
The DTCC, the main clearing organizatin in the USA, has officialy stated that the monetary fails, attributed to naked short selling, are $6 Billion, PER DAY. Another statistic was 1% of all trades failing to deliver or recieve due to naked short selling.
To note is that the above statistics are concentrated in a small subset of securities, making a profound effect on the price of the effected securities.
Also to note is that none of the above data includes "ex-clearing" naked short selling and failures to deliver. A problem that the DTCC has said is about 4 times larger.
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 "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 designed to protect vulnerable stocks to aggressive short-selling. However, opponents 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". [1]
Critics of naked shorting are themselves frequently the subjects of harsh criticism, with skeptics pointing out a near total absence of evidence 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
- BusinessWeek article on naked short-selling
- A short selling tutorial at Investopedia
- Regulators Cite Little Evidence of Naked Shorting
- A FAQ by DTCC First Deputy General Counsel Larry Thompson
...............................................................