The Day Capitalism Died


The wise and all knowing mandarins of economic policy and free markets have now issued a new decree: thou shalt not short-sell.

In essence, by banning short-selling of almost 800 stocks our 'leaders' have informed us that the only good market is one that goes up, up and always up.

So: I have a few questions for them based on what I know of the market and some of the possible unintended, or unforeseen consequences.

First, what happens to people who write puts on stocks?

Second, what happens to people who buy puts on stocks?

Third, what happens to all the money people have invested in 'short' mutual funds? Or short ETFs?

Fourth, what about the indexes? Can those be shorted if they have even one of the almost 800 financial stocks that have been banned from short-selling?

Fifth, what happens if there is no bid? Do markets freeze up?

Sixth, what happens to the men and women who built up businesses, or funds, in good faith, who manage money for people that are short funds? Are they out of business?

These are just a few questions. I can imagine many, many more. I cannot even begin to describe the contempt and rage I feel for the people who put this edict in place. It's lunacy.

We are now going to see the mother of all short squeezes and I would not be surprised to see this have the exact opposite effect policy makers seek and liquidity will dry up.

What the fuck ever happened to efficient markets?

This is the most insane, counter-productive, anti-free market, anti-competitive edict I have ever witnessed in my life. I submit to you that a halt in trading of financial stocks would be less counter productive than this.

We are, literally, being ruled by morons. If ever there was a 'Hoover-moment' in this Administration this would be the one. And we will, at some point rue the consequences. Short-selling is an essential safety valve for the markets and banning it, as I have already said, is simply insane. The act of desperate men to hold on to their ill-gotten wealth.

Capitalism is dead. Long live capitalism!

Aggravated at Buzzflash and NewsHeat


Sean Paul Kelley September 19, 2008 - 6:33am
( categories: Analysis | Economics: USA | The Markets )

Barry Ritholtz just put up a piece saying some people think that because the shorts were coming from London and Dubai, it could be the terroristics trying to bring down the land of the free and home of the brave yet again.
hahahahahahaha. Cheney's psychops boys must be working overtime on the strategery.
Did someone put LSD in the Blue Plains water treatment plant for Washington?

JT September 19, 2008 - 7:55am

he had a really wicked hangover from last night.

“Is not our first thought to go on the road? The road is our source, our vault of treasures, our wealth. Only on the road does the ‘traveller’ feel like himself, at home.”
Ryszard Kapuscinski

Sean Paul Kelley September 19, 2008 - 8:17am

"What the fuck ever happened to efficient markets?"

The wealthy discovered that it's much easier to profit in inefficient markets.

NateTG September 19, 2008 - 8:16am

eom

Numerian September 19, 2008 - 8:49am

Pardon my ignorance on the markets but don't the shorts serve an important purpose? It seems like banning shorts would increase volatility since there is nothing to protect the bottom if there are no buyers. Why don't they just ban selling all together and allow only buys; then the markets will only go up ;-)

"You have no respect for excessive authority or obsolete traditions. You're dangerous and depraved, and you ought to be taken outside and shot!" - Joseph Heller

Joaquin September 19, 2008 - 9:40am

(in my amateur's view), partly because of regulation "relaxation".

I don't see anywhere in effect a permanent halt to all of them.

It seems odd to me that some Agonists watching the pre-Friday fire and commenting wrote as if standing somewhere outside the building while the collateral damage of small-time jobs (and a meltdown of the NYC economy) was taking place.

Now that a stupid, overblown badly written special interest friendly bailout proposal is out there to be discussed , I am supposed to tear my hair out instead for the demise of "pure" capitalism circa 2008 personified by the small-time innocent short-seller?

Not.

I want to see "feed on the dying" profiteers including heads of the too big to fail financial firms get nailed.

Is there much of a chance of that happening? Probably not, but not making specific alternative proposals is thumb-sucking.

"Morality depends on whose ox is gored"


"The mythical John McCain is an affable, straight-talking, moderately conservative war hero who is an expert on foreign policy" - Bob Herbert

nymole September 19, 2008 - 10:14am

Speculate on the speculator's speculation!

how far out can we string the derivation?

I think, though, that S-P's onto something, and that to be responsible, you have to also be intelligent, and, if anything, this week has shown us there are a lot of stoopid people acting in the market...

-5.75,-4.05
"God gives men a brain and a penis, and only enough blood to run one at a time." -- Robin Williams

justadood September 19, 2008 - 10:29am

between "feeding on the dying" and efficiently moving an effed-up company's stock's price downwards to accurately reflect its value? A company that is worth, realistically, less than zero (based on its balance sheet and/or outlook) should have its stock quickly revalued to approximately zero. How is the market to accomplish this without short selling? People are much slower to concede major mistakes and take large losses than they are to exploit opportunities for profit.

An efficient market requires a mechanism to bring prices quickly in line with values. If the mechanism is quick on the upside and sluggish on the downside (as is the case with markets that ban shorting), then distortions inevitably result.

chalo September 19, 2008 - 3:00pm

The Fed and Treasury are blowing air into the bubble. Whether they'll be successful in shoring things up in a longer time frame remains to be seen.

Also, consider that all of the short sellers are stuck covering their positions without other short sellers in the system. That means that the next few days are going to show an artificially high demand for those 799 stocks.

NateTG September 19, 2008 - 4:32pm

That means that the next few days are going to show an artificially high demand for those 799 stocks.

Lots of folks are calling "manipulation."

tjfxh September 19, 2008 - 5:34pm

You have just described the worst case chaotic system....

The result will be all bank (or financila) shares will get sold. All of them.

Synoia September 19, 2008 - 7:31pm

Or psuedo-capitalism was exposed for what it is — corporate statism under the control of the plutocratic oligarchy. (Did anyone notice that President Bush is in the background and former head of Goldman is running things?)

tjfxh September 19, 2008 - 12:21pm

What's really needed is teeth in cases of failure to deliver, or naked shorting.

How about this? If a failure to deliver occurs, the purchaser shall be reimbursed at the rate of ten times the value of the contact. No settlement periods. If you don't have the shares in your possession when delivery is called, you're penalized for fraud.

Further, instead of simply "borrowing" shares, how about renting them for a prescribed period at a prescribed percentage of their value? Then there would be an up-front cost on a short contract.

Just thinking. And, FWIW, I'm not certain I'm with Barry on this one.

Petronius September 19, 2008 - 12:25pm

is that no one in this govt gallery of "experts" understands exactly how this economy works. They know how they WANT it to work, but not how it actually functions. I think they're stopping the short selling to try and buy some time to figure out what the hell is happening and to prevent a run on assets. That is a situation they have absolutely no idea how to handle, it never fit into their ideology so they didn't plan for it or ever think about it.

This is the ultimate endpoint when you elect on president based on how much you would like to have a beer with him and not on real qualifications.

Buncha friggin idiots.

zot23 September 19, 2008 - 12:25pm

I guarantee you I can solve this whole financial crisis if I can just have a beer with the president.

priscianus jr September 19, 2008 - 1:45pm

by beer? ;)

Tina September 19, 2008 - 4:34pm

This (I believe) are shorts with a different name. And SPK asks good qustion .

Synoia September 19, 2008 - 7:32pm

To clarify: Puts and calls are options. It is like going long or short a future instead of the item itself.

An option contract giving the owner the right, but not the obligation, to sell a specified amount of an underlying security at a specified price within a specified time. This is the opposite of a call option, which gives the holder the right to buy shares.
Investopedia

I don't read anything about put options being off the table, since they don't involve an equity market transaction directly. But because I haven't seen it doesn't mean it isn't there.

The stated purpose of outlawing shorting, as with the uptick rule, is to prevent piling on to drive down the price "below real value." The hidden agenda is to create a short squeeze on existing shorts, which must run for cover since there is a manipulated absence of selling pressure in the market. Existing shorts are not the problem. They provide the fodder for a desired market run-up that generally only lasts as long as short covering is still going on. The hope is that the run up will hold, but without actual support this is not possible, and the down trend continues. We'll see what happens with the current rally on the news of the bailout. Many people are seeing a short squeeze rather than market strength on the news.

While short selling is depicted as the villain of the piece, short selling is part and parcel of a well-operating free market system. Outlawing short selling is tantamount to saying that the free market is not working, and in effect manipulating it.

The real problem is naked short selling. Naked shorting is selling an equity without having a locate, i.e., a means of delivery.

While no exact system of measurement exists, most point to the level of trades that fail to deliver from the seller to the buyer within the mandatory three-day stock settlement period as evidence of naked shorting. Naked shorts may represent a major portion of these failed trades. Investopedia Says... Naked shorting is illegal because it allows manipulators a chance to force stock prices down without regard for normal stock supply/demand patterns.

In 2007, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) amended Regulation SHO to further limit possibilities for naked shorting by removing loopholes that existed for some broker/dealers. Reg SHO requires lists to be published that track stocks with unusually high trends in "fail to deliver" shares. Some analysts point to the fact that naked shorting, albeit inadvertently, may help markets stay in balance by allowing the negative sentiment to be reflected in certain stocks' prices.
Investopedia

tjfxh September 19, 2008 - 9:58pm

:) This should be called something like: Market Trading Patriot Act

creativelcro September 20, 2008 - 10:29am

American Express also added; NYSE expands roster by another 30 stocks

MarketWatch, By Ruth Mantell, September 22

WASHINGTON -- Pushing on to shore up the markets, the list of banned short-sale stocks has been expanded to include the likes of General Electric Co., General Motors Corp. and American Express Co.

The three companies' shares are all part of the 30-stock Dow Jones Industrial Average.
GE and GM may not be the most obvious firms to be picked out as financials.

However, GM has a 49% stake in GMAC Financial Services, noted David Healy, an auto-industry analyst.

Meanwhile, GE's commercial finance operations accounted for nearly 20% of revenue for second-quarter continuing operations, while the company's GE Money operations accounted for 14%.

Monday morning, the New York Stock Exchange issued a list of 30 new companies on the short sale ban list. The list is being updated throughout Monday, and possibly through the week, said Scott Peterson, an exchange spokesman.

"Being that we had no easy and quick way to determine if a company met the [SEC's] criteria, we sent a blast email to all of our members asking them to self-certify if they met the criteria," Peterson said.


"Frankly, we've lost a lot in recent years." - General Colin Powell

Raja September 22, 2008 - 1:06pm

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.