Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   OMG YOU'RE IN ON IT TOO?

   

   Cole, Oct 6th, 2008 @ 5:50pm

   
   

   The conspiracy has reached Techdirt now....

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   

   illegalprelude, Oct 6th, 2008 @ 6:05pm

   
   

   Im not a stock expert but I do follow the markets and although I dont believe part of the demise was because of short sellers and think temporary banning them is pointless, If im not mistaken, shortselling does indeed do a pretty decent job at driving down the price of a company. Im not saying its gonna Bankrupt them but I could see a company being hit 20-30% because of it and these times, thats something they cant really afford, no matter how short term the impact

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   Perhaps it could do the opposite...

   

   Josh R, Oct 6th, 2008 @ 6:12pm

   
   

   Short sellers have an incentive to buy in order to claim their profits.. Perhaps part of the free fall that we are seeing now is caused because nobody profits from stopping the bleeding?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   

   Cynic, Oct 6th, 2008 @ 6:25pm

   
   

   Right, short selling resulted in a situation that a $700 billion bandage is insufficient to cure. If you believe that, I've got some swamp land to sell you.
   
   And let's all ignore the New York Investment Banks that were doing magic with smoke and mirrors...the only real money was in their bonus checks.
   
   And let's ignore the total lack of oversight by the Feds. Had they been following their own handbook (http://www.occ.treas.gov/handbook/assetsec.pdf) things never could have gotten this bad.
   
   For those interested in a simplified explanation of what actually caused the crisis: http://docs.google.com/TeamPresent?docid=ddp4zq7n_0cdjsr4fn&skipauth=true&pli=1

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   

   Youngun', Oct 6th, 2008 @ 6:36pm

   
   

   So I tend to believe what I see on here as it generally is pretty well grounded, but I have a limited grasp of the financial market at best. While i understand why short selling shouldn't make an impact on the price of a company's stock, can someone explain what they think the problems are with this explanation?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   As with all things, this is not black and white

   

   DCX2, Oct 6th, 2008 @ 6:39pm

   
   

   First, if you are looking for a single point of failure for our financial system, you will not find it. The failure is the combined result of borrowers, brokers, lenders, multiple different portions of Wall Street, investors, and the government.
   
   However, let's be honest, Mike. Your reference admits that he himself doesn't claim to understand "non-naked short selling"...
   
   If you see a coordinated attack on a stock where everyone suddenly starts selling short (and why don't we throw in some puts, too, and start raising the insurance rates for credit default swaps), that might cause a bunch of people to panic and start selling, driving the price down. You can verify this as what happened to Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and so forth. This is short selling doing what it's supposed to do, and it's a useful market function. This doesn't mean we should ignore the potential pitfalls, where short selling might drive the stock down too fast and overshoot the equilibrium price.
   
   And for that matter, how on earth can you defend naked short selling? No matter how small an effect it might have on the market, you're still selling stock you don't own. Is it okay to steal from people if you're only taking a few pennies?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   Doesn't naked short-selling == infinite supply of shares?

   

   PassinThru, Oct 6th, 2008 @ 7:55pm

   
   

   If a company has 100 shares of stock, and you and I and 99 of our closest friends short 100 shares, you're telling me the price won't go down?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   Short selling

   

   LBD, Oct 6th, 2008 @ 9:26pm

   
   

   Short selling lowers stock prices BECAUSE it increases supply. It's the supply/demand curve.
   
   DURRRRRRR!
   
   
   Not that the effect is particularly large, nor is it likely related to the economic roles.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   Re: Short selling

   

   LBD, Oct 6th, 2008 @ 9:27pm

   
   

   *Correction* Nor is it likely particularly related to the current economic troubles.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    Don't blame short selling

    

    Mogilny, Oct 6th, 2008 @ 9:47pm

    
    

    It appears people need to find out what short selling is. Yes, people who short sell WANT the company share to do poorly, but they DON'T drive the share prices down directly. They do increase volatility, but that isn't the main factor, which is investor confidence.
    
    If people want to play the blame game, how about technology? Technology helps uneducated idiots to "invest" in shares and funds like buying candy from the corner store. Technology helps idiotic media outlets to spread the panic. Technology interconnects economies which amplifies collateral damage.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    Re:

    

    mobiGeek, Oct 6th, 2008 @ 10:57pm

    
    

    How is a company's stock price dropping "something they can't really afford", unless they are in the process of trying to sell off even more of their stock holder's equity?
    
    Companies don't (or at least shouldn't) be trying to issue new shares constantly. So a drop in stock price might put various pressures on the board of directors, but it should not have an effect on the company's performance, should it?

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

12.  

    Re: Don't blame short selling

    

    mobiGeek, Oct 6th, 2008 @ 11:01pm

    
    

    The only thing that technology should be blamed for in this mess is the improper use of it when building the financial models.
    
    If technology wasn't here to let people invest, then the traders would have found other means to rope in the masses (call centers, door-to-door stock brokers, etc.).

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

13.  

    Oops

    

    Eddie Pasternak, Oct 7th, 2008 @ 1:45am

    
    

    "...it's impact is minimal, if anything...".
    
    Oops.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

14.  

    

    ulle, Oct 7th, 2008 @ 3:47am

    
    

    so selling shorts while naked caused the economy to fail, glad someone finally explained this

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

15.  

    Blind leading the blind

    

    Dave, Oct 7th, 2008 @ 4:12am

    
    

    You cite a reference that, in the article you reference, says he doesn't know what naked short selling is. He makes a guess.
    
    A naked short usually fails to produce the stock within the settlement period, because they don't have the stock. If they were able to borrow the stock, at a margin rate, it would be a short. If the owner of the lent stock then decides to sell, the shorter has to buy to return the borrowed stock.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

16.  

    Article

    

    Isaac K (profile), Oct 7th, 2008 @ 6:48am

    
    

    If you noticed, he said that selling short ALONE will not cause a company to go under IF there is someone who is willing to buy the stock.
    
    That's the point - not that the stock dropped to something more appropriate to it's worth, but that NO ONE WAS WILLING TO BUY THEM AT ANY PRICE, under the expectation of market failure, thus forcing the stock to drop further.
    
    The problem wasn't short selling alone, it was the pre-emptive selling with no one wanting to buy, because you are leveraged against the stock and the more it drops, the more you make.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

17.  

    Emergency Order Schmelergency Schmorder!

    

    Judd Bagley, Oct 8th, 2008 @ 1:13pm

    
    

    Ah yes...This would explain why, as the system began to show the first signs of crumbling, one of the SEC's first actions was to issue an emergency order temporarily enforcing the ban against naked short selling of 19 financial stocks. And why, during the ban, each of the 19 stocks saw dramatic gains in price, and why, once the order expired, each saw dramatic (and in some cases, fatal) drops in price.
    
    It would further explain why, in the wake of the carnage that followed the expiration of the earlier emergency order, the SEC's first act was to enforce the ban on naked short selling market wide, temporarily ban all shorting of 940 financial stocks, and require hedge funds disclose their short positions.
    
    No...wait...your thesis wouldn't explain any of these things, would it?
    
    Mike, yours is as poor an analysis of the situation as I've read yet.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

18.  

    Decline of Social Networking?

    

    Web Design Miami, Mar 15th, 2009 @ 9:38am

    
    

    Has anyone noticed there are more social networking ventures failing than flourishing lately?

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment