Blog article
See all stories »

An article relating to this blog post on Finextra:

MEPs crack down on sovereign debt speculation and naked short selling

A ban on certain trades in sovereign bonds, and requirement that traders settle their uncovered positions by the end of each trading day, were two key outcomes of Monday's Economic Affairs Committee v...


See article

Short Selling

It’s become popular with politicians in times of great market crisis and extreme volatility to stop short selling. This naturally is never supported in the market as it undermines liquidity and opportunities of making profits. Old Jobbers (Market Makers) will know that you make money in both Bear and Bull markets but it is always more skilful in Bear markets. The concept being anybody can buy in a rising market and sell for a profit but it takes more nerve and understanding to sell short trusting judgement on when the market has bottomed.

Stock lending/borrowing is key in covering short sales and Investing Institutions also make money by lending mountains of stock that would otherwise remain in the vaults gathering dust and earning nothing. So preventing short selling actually hits the investor.

So if short selling is deemed by Politicians as fundamentally wrong for the market and presumably for the investor, why it is allowed at all?

The answer is that markets and investors need the liquidity that short selling brings. Without releasing static assets in the vaults of the investing Institutions the market would stall, inhibiting volatility and the chance to make profits. Why would professional investors put their investment into the markets if they can get better returns elsewhere?

Profits must be allowed to be made and the risks must be allowed to be taken. Sure risks must be understood by all and measured closely but taking away all risks in the markets is not the answer.

I feel that the long term answer to short selling is to manage the risks being taken by individual market players. This could simply be done by insisting on a greater margin for Stock Lending. This alone would increase the profits for investors and mitigate a small part of the profit by short sellers however, it would not prevent short selling.

Short selling is a very important part of the market and has to be allowed unhindered by political interference. If the market agreed to increased margining and brought greater monitoring and control of stock borrowing, the politicians could be kept at bay.

3470

Comments: (1)

A Finextra member
A Finextra member 22 August, 2011, 16:35Be the first to give this comment the thumbs up 0 likes

The issue is that to the public selling short just aint natural. Isn't selling sometimes blind too - selling blind to make a profit with no up front guarantee of having the stock reserved to purchase.  That's just gambling.  Isn't that what drove VW shares up when traders had shorted them and then couldn't convert because there were no shares to buy!

Something else is wrong in that equation, because if shares were offered 'at market price' then short selling would fail:

Agree to purchase stock at $100 (market price)

Sell, sell, sell at 100, 95, 90... (say average 95)

Buy, buy, buy at 90 (making $5 per share)

But you lost $5 on the original agreement to buy, so its even so far - you have to gamble on the market continuing to drop (stimulated by other share dumping) and buy at $85 - making $5 (=5%) gain.

I suspect the markets only drop when stock is sold beyond what is available to buy, and that sounds like fiddling the books.

 

Now hiring