Goldman Engaged in 'Naked Short Selling'

GeezerMan

Platinum Member
Jan 28, 2005
2,145
26
91
I'm shocked to see naked shorting going on..

"Last week, in response to an Overstock.com motion to unseal certain documents, the banks’ lawyers, apparently accidentally, filed an unredacted version of Overstock’s motion as an exhibit in their declaration of opposition to that motion. In doing so, they inadvertently entered into the public record a sort of greatest-hits selection of the very material they’ve been fighting for years to keep sealed."

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...in-naked-short-selling-20120515#ixzz1v2q3U4Tv
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
I'm shocked to see naked shorting going on..

"Last week, in response to an Overstock.com motion to unseal certain documents, the banks’ lawyers, apparently accidentally, filed an unredacted version of Overstock’s motion as an exhibit in their declaration of opposition to that motion. In doing so, they inadvertently entered into the public record a sort of greatest-hits selection of the very material they’ve been fighting for years to keep sealed."

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...in-naked-short-selling-20120515#ixzz1v2q3U4Tv

Goldman Sachs is a market maker and naked short selling is perfectly legal (and even desirable) in that case.

Also, you're a complete moron if you are listening or believing anything said by overstock.com and its charlatan CEO.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,327
28,585
136
Goldman Sachs is a market maker and naked short selling is perfectly legal (and even desirable) in that case.

Also, you're a complete moron if you are listening or believing anything said by overstock.com and its charlatan CEO.
Read the article. Hell, just read the excerpt in the OP.
 

GeezerMan

Platinum Member
Jan 28, 2005
2,145
26
91
Goldman Sachs is a market maker and naked short selling is perfectly legal (and even desirable) in that case.

Also, you're a complete moron if you are listening or believing anything said by overstock.com and its charlatan CEO.


careful, words like moron might excite me...can't have that..
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Read the article. Hell, just read the excerpt in the OP.

I did. And also understand Reg SHO and the alleged activities GS engaged in; all appear legitimate market maker activity expressly covered by current and contemporary exemptions. The Merrill Pro allegations seem to have a bit more meat on them however.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Is GS not allowed to engage in naked short selling? I thought they were, but I could be wrong.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
careful, words like moron might excite me...can't have that..

Maybe you can join Patrick Byrne on his search for the Sith Lord who is short selling shares in OSTK. Or maybe you can get excited at the SEC investigation into accounting fraud, multiple report restatements due to GAAP violations, or the $300mm in losses over the last 10 years.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
A quick primer on what naked short selling is. First of all, short selling, which is a completely legal and often beneficial activity, is when an investor bets that the value of a stock will decline. You do this by first borrowing and then selling the stock at its current price, then returning the stock to your original lender after the price has gone down. You then earn a profit on the difference between the original price and the new, lower price.

What matters here is the technical issue of how you borrow the stock. Typically, if you’re a hedge fund and you want to short a company, you go to some big-shot investment bank like Goldman or Morgan Stanley and place the order. They then go out into the world, find the shares of the stock you want to short, borrow them for you, then physically settle the trade later.


But sometimes it’s not easy to find those shares to borrow. Sometimes the shares are controlled by investors who might have no interest in lending them out. Sometimes there’s such scarcity of borrowable shares that banks/brokers like Goldman have to pay a fee just to borrow the stock.
These hard-to-borrow stocks, stocks that cost money to borrow, are called negative rebate stocks.

In some cases, these negative rebate stocks cost so much just to borrow that a short-seller would need to see a real price drop of 35 percent in the stock just to break even. So how do you short a stock when you can’t find shares to borrow? Well, one solution is, you don’t even bother to borrow them. And then, when the trade is done, you don’t bother to deliver them.

You just do the trade anyway without physically locating the stock.
Thus in this document we have another former Merrill Pro president, Thomas Tranfaglia, saying in a 2005 email: “We are NOT borrowing negatives… I have made that clear from the beginning. Why would we want to borrow them? We want to fail them.”


Trafaglia, in other words, didn’t want to bother paying the high cost of borrowing “negative rebate” stocks. Instead, he preferred to just sell stock he didn’t actually possess. That is what is meant by, “We want to fail them.” Trafaglia was talking about creating “fails” or “failed trades,” which is what happens when you don’t actually locate and borrow the stock within the time the law allows for trades to be settled.


If this sounds complicated, just focus on this: naked short selling, in essence, is selling stock you do not have. If you don’t have to actually locate and borrow stock before you short it, you’re creating an artificial supply of stock shares.

Selling something you don't own or have permission to do so should not require a masters in ethics to know it is wrong and should be criminal.


 

GeezerMan

Platinum Member
Jan 28, 2005
2,145
26
91
Maybe you can join Patrick Byrne on his search for the Sith Lord who is short selling shares in OSTK. Or maybe you can get excited at the SEC investigation into accounting fraud, multiple report restatements due to GAAP violations, or the $300mm in losses over the last 10 years.

You must be right since Goldman Sachs’ Blankfein said they were, ‘Doing God’s Work’
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,430
6,088
126
Only an idiot would sell shorts naked. Everybody knows that sales go up when you model your product.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
Only an idiot would sell shorts naked. Everybody knows that sales go up when you model your product.

Apparently enough people were unimpressed by the "product" being modeled that Congress is holding hearings. Hopefully they'll be able to convince investment banks to keep their shorts on when selling. Especially when their product is short.