Talk:Naked short selling/Archive 8

Introduction
The introduction isn't very clear. It introduces concepts such as "required time frame" and transactions "remaining open" without explaining what they mean - and general readers will probably not know. Here is a proposed revision - as this is a semi-protected article I thought I would consult before amending.

I have also made the intro shorter and less US-specific, as this really only needs to describe the principles. The details of the bans - which I don't believe only applied to naked shorting - should be covered in the main body of the article.


 * Naked short selling, or naked shorting, is the practice of agreeing to short sell a financial security without having either borrowed the security or ensured that the security can be borrowed before it is due to be delivered to the buyer, as would conventionally be done when short selling a security.


 * As there is a possibility that the short seller will not be able to borrow the security by the time the trade is due to be settled, and as the short seller cannot deliver the security to the buyer until it has borrowed it, there is a risk to the buyer that it will not receive the security on time, or at all. The prevalence of naked shorting is therefore sometimes assessed by looking at the number of "failures to deliver" recorded on security settlement systems.


 * If buyers could be found, it would be possible to naked short a limitless number of securities knowing that the trades could not all be settled by delivery of the securities. For this and other reasons, naked shorting is a controversial practice and its use to drive down the price of securities is illegal in many major financial centers. Some market participants contend that such regulations are poorly enforced and that naked shorting is widespread, can be damaging to targeted companies struggling to raise capital and has led to numerous bankruptcies though other market participants argue that the naked shorting controversy is a "devil theory" rather than a bona fide market issue, and a waste of regulatory resources. Naked shorting is considered beneficial under certain circumstances, such as trading by market makers.

Any thoughts? Westmorlandia (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm ok with a rewrite. I've modified the third para a bit in the following version (moved the two sides of the controversy to the same sentence). I agree that details of various regulations should not be in the intro.
 * Naked short selling, or naked shorting, is the practice of agreeing to short sell a financial security without having either borrowed the security or ensured that the security can be borrowed before it is due to be delivered to the buyer, as would conventionally be done when short selling a security.


 * As there is a possibility that the short seller will not be able to borrow the security by the time the trade is due to be settled, and as the short seller cannot deliver the security to the buyer until it has borrowed it, there is a risk to the buyer that it will not receive the security on time, or at all. The prevalence of naked shorting is therefore sometimes assessed by looking at the number of "failures to deliver" recorded on security settlement systems.


 * If buyers could be found, it would be possible to naked short a limitless number of securities knowing that the trades could not all be settled by delivery of the securities. For this and other reasons, naked shorting is a controversial practice and its use to drive down the price of securities is illegal in many major financial centers. Some market participants contend that such regulations are poorly enforced and that naked shorting is widespread, can be damaging to targeted companies struggling to raise capital and has led to numerous bankruptcies though other market participants argue that the naked shorting controversy is a "devil theory" rather than a bona fide market issue, and a waste of regulatory resources. Naked shorting is considered beneficial under certain circumstances, such as trading by market makers.

--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have some problems with the rewrite. While the current version is US-centric, it is nuanced and adheres carefully to the sourcing. This new version does not. For instance: Agreeing to sell. No, a naked short is a sale, not an agreement to sell. Sentence beginning As there is the possibility... Not correct. The buyer actually assumes no risk, as the transaction is completed as far as he or she is concerned. Sentence beginning If other buyers can be found raises the possibility of driving a company's share price down to nothing, which we shouldn't do, certainly not in the lead, without a specific example of same in a credible source. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Johnny, go ahead and modify my version above. I think the larger point about US centrism is valid and none of the changes you suggest seem controversial. (I'm curious about the buyer risk. In theory, the seller has contracted to deliver but what happens if the shares are not actually delivered and, say, the buyer sells them. It seems to me that there is some litigation risk involved if nothing else.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the factual issues with this revision, I'm not sure it's the optimal place to begin. It's also wordy. My preference would be to work with the current version, which walks a pretty good factual tightrope. On buyer risk: that's an interesting issue. I've always been under the impression that all shorts, legal or not, are seamless from the buyer's standpoint except for the "substitute payments" issue, which is the dividend shorts have to pay which does not get the same tax treatment as ordinary dividends. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But there is no counterparty guaranteeing delivery and, at least the way I see it, if the shares are not delivered then the only way the buyer can hope to exercise his rights of ownership is through litigation since the shares he owns don't really exist. There's probably some flaw in my reasoning because then, if naked shorts are a huge problem as some people seem to feel, there must be hundreds of litigating non-shareholding members of the public out there and I haven't heard of any! (I'll take a look at the existing intro and see if it can serve as a starting point.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the answer can be found here at 7.1, in muddled prose by the opaque SEC. The short answer is "no, it doesn't create counterfeit shares," which come to think of it should be made clearer in the article. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Opaque is about right. My reading is that, according to the document, CNS does not create counterfeit shares because shares are not credited to an account until after delivery is actually made. It is not at all clear where this leaves the buyer. In the simple case, the buyer recovers his cost because the shares were never delivered - but that would leave many a buyer unhappy and kicking if naked shorts were a huge problem. Also, the buyer could now be short the position, ironically in a naked short, if the shares were sold before delivery. This can't be correct but how does the following sequence play out: Broker A sells 1000 shares of, let's take a random stock, OSTK for $10 to Broker B. Broker B sells it for $11 (or $9) on the same day to Broker C. Broker A fails to deliver. The 1000 shares are not credited to B's account. What happens? I assume A has to buy the 1000 shares and deliver it because nothing else will work. Then the risk for B is that A doesn't do that because B still has to acquire the shares and deliver them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RegentsPark (talk • contribs)
 * Yeah, this is nothing if not confusing, which is why I think the SEC website's narrative of the trading mechanics, while poorly phrased, is preferable on basic stuff like this. Meanwhile, we have a gent, apparently in good faith, repeatedly inserting language the pooh-poohs the whole thing, using as sources articles relating to conventional and not naked short selling.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 11:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the SEC commentary actually seems quite clear. The point of sale is an agreement to transfer, and settlement is transfer of legal title. However, broker-dealers do credit accounts before they receive legal title - and sell them on. Provided settlement subsequently occurs, there is no issue with this - the security follows along the chain in its own time. Naked short selling is restricted because it greatly increases the chances that securities will not be delivered, exposing the person who has the security credited to their account - I think this is what we need to bring out in the intro. Paragraph 2 of my original rewrite addressed this, admittedly not brilliantly. But I think it is not quite correct to say that one the short sale is entered into the transaction is completed as far as the buying broker-dealer is concerned, for the reason above - they haven't received legal title to the security. Westmorlandia (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually right now we're saying in the intro that the "transaction generally remains open until the shares are acquired by the seller or the seller's broker." If anything, this gives an impression that the transaction is not completed from the buyer's standpoint, when it is. I don't know of any reliable sourcing which indicates that the buyer of a security that is the subject of a fail is "exposed" to any disadvantage, or even knows that there is a fail. Any implication of that needs to be removed from the article. We need to be careful not to introduce our own analysis or synthesis into the article, particularly the intro, or to give an incorrect impression of the implications of a fail. The whole "phantom shares" argument is explicitly rejected by the SEC.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The market maker exception was removed in September 2008 --Enric Naval (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion though is very US-centric. European short-selling rules are highly ambiguous, with it being very unclear what activities would be considered naked and which would be considered covered. At the moment we are somewhat bogged down in a US jurisdiction and its interpretation, which is why, I suspect, the introduction is not entirely satisfactory. I've suggested something below. --Hangthebanker (talk) 12:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Naked short selling, or naked shorting, is a form of short selling in which the seller of a security places a sell order without taking steps to cover their order. Short sells may be covered in a number of ways but will often involve borrowing the security before selling it.

View of a creator of the Island ECN on naked shorts.
Writing to to bring http://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/s72499/levine1.txt to the attention of editors of this article. Follow-ups here:Elvey (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC) (Trivia: It's linked off http://josh.com/, which was the beginning of a long train of events that led me to uncovering the TD Ameritrade database breach of 6 million identities, including Social Security numbers.)

Ginormous white space at top of article
Is anyone else seeing a huge amount of whitespace near the top of the article to the left of the finance sidebar? I tried to fix it with no luck.--Rockfang (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm clueless on formatting, but I think that the white space you see is unavoidable. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the reply. That would be kinda stinky if it was unavoidable.--Rockfang (talk) 01:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh wait a moment. Misunderstanding. I was viewing the page in Firefox, as is apparently every other editor following this page. In Internet Explorer there is an ENORMOUS white space. I have no idea what to do about it. I'll see if I can find a "help" page. Thanks for raising the issue.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've asked for help here.--Rockfang (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I did the same elsewhere, and some kindly editor responded from one of those places and fixed. But you deserve the lion's share of credit for bringing it up.JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Failure to deliver
Please can the "Failure to Deliver" be better explained. This is the crux of naked short selling. What happens, who owns what, the lack of dividends on the non existent stock. Why are people who do this not hounded out. The statement below is incomprehensible to anyone trying to understand what to the layman is total and outright fraud, even beyond simple counterfeiting. When is the position finally closed out etc. This article fails to explain the subject.

''When shares are not borrowed within the clearing time period and the short-seller does not tender shares to the buyer, the trade is considered to have "failed to deliver." Nevertheless, the trade will continue to sit open or the buyer may be credited the shares by the DTCC until either the short-seller closes out the position or borrows the shares.'' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.192.6 (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest downloading a very good study that appeared in the New York University Journal of Law and Business: http://www1.law.nyu.edu/journals/lawbusiness/issues/uploads/5-1/NYB103.pdf It has a good explanation of fails. Also I saw something in Investopedia that may help. Try also the SEC website, which has FAQ pages. ColJenkins (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Three issues
First, does not make sense. Can anybody here actually explain what it means?

Second, this sentence: "Upon the examination of the issue of whether "naked short selling" was in any way a cause of the collapse of Bear Stearns or Lehman, securities experts reached the conclusion that the alleged "naked short sales" occurred after the collapse and therefore played no role in the collapse." ...seems sweeping enough to require a source or be removed. --Honking Cabbie (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I Do agree that needs to be better sourced, or removed (Or even removed until it's better sourced). SirFozzie (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The term 'securities experts' is also quite meaningless. The experts need to be identified.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, the diagram was discussed here as being quite useless but it seems no one actually took it out. I'm ok with removing the diagram as well as the statement above (which can be rewritten/reinserted if sources are forthcoming). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The article states: "Naked short selling can be used to manipulate the price of securities by driving their price down, and its use in this way is illegal." In fact this is very misleading. Naked(!) short selling is ALWAYS illegal no matter what reason you use it for, only regular short selling is legal and even that is controversial.

Reply: No, the original wording is accurate. The SEC says: "Naked short selling is not necessarily a violation of the federal securities laws or the Commission's rules. Indeed, in certain circumstances, naked short selling contributes to market liquidity." If you disagree, take it up with the SEC. http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/keyregshoissues.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.85.233 (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply: Congress mandated in Rule 17A of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act that our markets have prompt, accurate clearance and delivery. It reads, "The prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, including the transfer of record ownership and the safeguarding of securities and funds related thereto, are necessary for the protection of investors and persons facilitating transactions by and acting on behalf of investors." BOTH clearing (booking the sale and paying for it) and settling (delivery) need to happen promptly, and further, the transfer of record ownership needs to occur. Source: e.g. http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/34Act/sec17A.html and http://vlex.com/vid/clearance-settlement-securities-transactions-19231340

So how does the SEC allow this to go on?

They typically cite Addendum C of the NSCC's rules, which allows for the stock borrow program to loan stock to cover TEMPORARY settlement failures - the kind resulting from lost certificates. The "temporary" caveat has been ignored, and it has instead become a long-term device to create an unlimited number of electronic book entries.

They also take the position that the ex-clearing transactions are the province of contract law, as the agreements to deliver are a contractual agreement, and the SEC doesn't mediate contractual disputes. A nice way to step out of the role of regulator of the markets, and create instant deniability. The NSCC takes the same position, leaving things up to the brokers, on the honor system.

So the back offices create an unknown number of IOU's, predictably resulting in depressed prices for the afflicted securities, and the regulators say it isn't any of their business.

The SEC itself states that FTDs (naked shorts) are only illegal when the delivery failure exceeds 3 days. In fact this violates decades old US Code (law). Writing this article in the way it is currently written is in my opinion highly questionable, as the legality of naked shorting is suggested with dubios arguments without even mentioning 17A. Leastwise the article must state that naked short selling is illegal in almost any case and actually illegal in any case by 17A which is just ignored by the SEC (which doesn't make it any more legal of course, the SEC is not legislation). —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristophSackl (talk • contribs) 00:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Surreply: The article doesn't say that naked shorting is legal. It just repeats what the best possible source says. Your analysis is original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.77.131 (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If fails-to-deliver are illegal, and there is a WP:RS which states this, then it can be added to the article. The mechanics of FTDs are very hard to understand, and this article doesn't help much.  If there are clear-cut rules like this, then they should be added. cojoco (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a clearcut statement in the SEC FAQ, saying that naked shorting is not always illegal. Naked shorting always involves a fail, but not vice versa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.242.136 (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Re-Reply: Yes, I am aware of the SEC FAQ. But as I posted above, accordung to US Code, namely the Rule 17A of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act, clearly states that not only clearance but also DELIVERY of securities has to come in promptly. I think in no way can promptly be interpreted as in "a few days are ok". The SEC FAQ is not law, US code is, so I think the SEC FAQ simply cannot be used as trustworthy source in this case. It's also clear that the SEC itself has no interest in prohibiting naked short selling. When you search for "naked short selling complaints at the SEC" on a search engine of your choice, you will also quickly find out that there were 5000 complaints on naked short selling (to manipulate pps) in the last year and the SEC investigated 0 (NONE) of them. This clearly shows a conflict between the SECs behaviour and US code and I have to repeat that US code is law and stands above any SEC FAQ whatsoever. I know Wikipedia can't be legally correct in every case, but at least the facts should be correct and impartially mention both sides of the medal. I.e. the SEC opinion and US code. I will leave a possible re-edit of the article to someone else since all my edits were undone within hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristophSackl (talk • contribs) 08:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't give up hope: this article has obviously been a partisan battleground in the past. Where two primary sources contradict each other, I would suggest finding a good WP:RS to provide citable analysis. It seems obvious to me from Australia that NSS has been horrendously abused in your country, but it's very difficult to find unequivocal, well-regarded sources which state this.  Good luck! cojoco (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't find any Rule 17A. I think we need to establish what it says, assuming that it exists, before we conclude that it contradicts a plainly worded and authoritative SEC document. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.245.38 (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a rule 17a but I'm not sure if it is meaningful in the context of this article (other than as original research). Rule 17a, if I recall it correctly, requires the SEC to set up agencies for 'prompt clearing and settlement' but does not explicitly define 'prompt'. Nor does it mandate that every trade must be settled promptly, just that the SEC should facilitate that promptness. Let me see if I can find a link for the rule. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (Addendum) Turns out it is right here in the discussion (see above or [ http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/34Act/sec17A.html this]). The relevant text is also there. Note the 'is necessary' which is a statement of what should be the case but is not a mandate. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for clarifying that. That is Section 17A. Is there also a "Rule 17A"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.245.38 (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the original poster meant Section 17A (since he/she is quoting from it). I see a rule 17a-1, 2, 3, 4, etc., all of which seem to pertain to the implementation of Section 17A. cf. .--RegentsPark (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi all. I do read your Rule17A excerpt: "The prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, including the transfer of record ownership and the safeguarding of securities and funds related thereto, are necessary for the protection of investors and persons facilitating transactions by and acting on behalf of investors." I hereby do not read an explicit ban on short-selling, let alone any subtle distinction between naked and non-naked short-selling ; I rather read the expression of a matter of a principle, which might sounds obvious today, but was certainly less so in 1934, when paper certificates shifted from investor to investor and the many manual interventions resulted in a random average delivery time. I am therefore more inclined to interpret 17A as an instruction to back-offices to make sure settlement is "prompt and accurate" rather than at random time or erroneous. I may be convinced otherwise, however, if you could strengthen your argument by quoting judgments, explicitly grounded on 17A, imposing fines or other sanctions for naked short-selling. Bmathis (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

copied from article page
August 17, 2008 The Economist: “Searching for the naked truth“

The real problem with abusive short-selling

“It is impossible to know how big this problem is, but regulators accept it exists. The American Stock Exchange fined two market-makers for precisely this violation in July 2007. A month later the SEC proposed limiting or eliminating the exemption, but momentum stalled in the face of opposition from banks and exchanges. The anti-short lobby, emboldened by the July ban, is again pushing for an end to the market-makers’ exemption. …. How much does all this matter? Deliberate naked shorting has no place in a well-run market…”



j) September 16, 2008 Associated Press: “Naked short-selling blamed in Wall St crisis“

WASHINGTON – With Wall Street engulfed in crisis, the Securities and Exchange Commission is planning measures to rein in aggressive forms of short-selling that were blamed in part for the demise of Lehman Brothers and which some fear could be turned against other vulnerable companies. During emergency meetings between federal officials and investment bank executives over the weekend, SEC Chairman Christopher Cox indicated to the bankers that the agency plans in a few days to impose new permanent protections against abusive ‘naked’ short-selling, a person familiar with the matter said Monday…. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bforth (talk • contribs) 10:18, 16 February 2010

Naked Short selling was NOT banned until the Fall of 2008
That's how Bear Sterns and Lehmen were stripped of $100s of value down to penny stocks and sold off. This happened to ALL of the big banks and other firms.

Chris Cox kept naked short selling in place until Sept. 2008, that is one of the reasons for the collapse of Lehman the entire World financial collapse of 2007-2009. Why does the article miss the point? uriel8  (talk)  06:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Read Mantanmoreland and on The Register for more background cojoco (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Article "Probation" and the Arbitration Committee discussion header
Please will someone explain why this article should require such protection - obviously the issue is contentious. If necessary there should be other linked pages that give different interpretations. I have a 1922 - 24 volume hard copy of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, if I want received wisdom.


 * The reason you ask ? It was all reported in the Reg.
 * http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wikipedia_and_naked_shorting/
 * One does wonder how Jimbo Wales made his money in the stock market ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.167.57 (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to learn how to deal with alternative interpretations, this is what will keep it unique. I am beginning to find Wikipedia irrelevant for anything OTHER THAN esoteric subjects which have been created by genuine nerdy enthusiasts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.176.241 (talk) 09:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The area's of expertise Wikipaedia excels in (like Pokemon characters and other fancruft) also get deleted by people who mistakingly believe this should be considered a serious Encyclopedia.
 * Maybe some wikifiddlers just need to get out of their mom's basement more often. ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.167.57 (talk) 06:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's not get side-tracked into irrelevancies. It has been well documented that this NSS article has been manipulated in the past.  Unfortunately, the real world also appears subject to such manipulation, so I don't think we will see any stories in the WSJ properly explaining NSS any time soon. The world is imperfect, and because all the information you see on Wikipedia is second hand, here is not the place to fix it. cojoco (talk) 12:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

"He who sells what isn't his'n..."
"He who sells what isn't his'n, Must buy it back or go to prison." I think this famous quote about naked short selling, attributed to Daniel Drew, could well be included into this article. Perhaps in a little quote box. __meco (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Germany will ban naked short selling
The German Finance Ministry recently indicated that Germany will ban naked short selling. Perhaps it would be beneficial for the article to implement this German Government regulation.--Fox1942 (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's in the article already. :) SirFozzie (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

'Profit' formula appears incomplete
Under 'Normal shorting' I see:
 * The trader's profit is the difference between the sale price and the purchase price of the shares.

Then in the next section (Naked shorts in the United States):
 * The seller may also decide not to borrow the shares ... because of the costs of lending.

So, shouldn't the profit be the difference between the sale and purchase prices, MINUS the costs of lending? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hizoomi (talk • contribs) 08:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Market maker exemption
The language in this article is confusing, and needs to differentiate between options market making, for which naked positions are banned, and regular market making, which I'm fairly sure are not covered by Reg SHO and its amendments. Figureofnine (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See: "The requirement included two major exceptions: the so-called "grandfather" and "options market maker" exceptions. Both of these exceptions provided that certain "fails to deliver" in threshold securities never had to be closed out. The Commission eliminated both exceptions in August 2007 and September 2008, respectively.Press release: SEC Takes Steps to Curtail Abusive Short Sales and Increase Market Transparency"


 * --Enric Naval (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's the relevant release. Note that it refers to options, not equity, market makers, and to grandfathering which is a separate issue. However, I was mistaken in saying that Reg SHO does not apply to equity market makers, as it does. See Key Points, V(1): "Selling stock short without having located stock for delivery at settlement. This activity would violate Regulation SHO, except for short sales by market makers engaged in bona fide market making. Market makers do not have to locate stock before selling short, because they need to be able to provide liquidity. However, market makers are not excepted from Regulation SHO's close-out and pre-borrow requirements." The key point here is "bona fide" market making. Market makers can make believe their engaged in market making while they're really taking short positions. If someone can find an enforcement case on that, it would add greatly to the understanding of this issue. Figureofnine (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I finally found this. The last sentence is detailing some sort of exception for market makers, but I'm too sleepy and I'm not expert enough in this question (I bolded some sentences that look like relevant):

"Question 4: How does Rule 204T apply to registered market makers, options market makers, or other market makers obligated to quote in the over-the-counter market, that are selling securities as part of bona fide market making?

Answer: Temporary Rule 204(a) provides that if a participant of a registered clearing agency has a fail to deliver position at a registered clearing agency in any equity security for a long or short sale transaction in that equity security, the participant shall, by no later than the beginning of regular trading hours on the settlement day following the settlement date, immediately close out the fail to deliver position by borrowing or purchasing securities of like kind and quantity.

We are extending temporary Rule 204(a)'s close-out requirement for fails to deliver attributable to bona fide market making activities by registered market makers, options market makers, or other market makers obligated to quote in the over-the-counter market (collectively, "Market Makers"). Thus, a participant must close out the fail to deliver position attributable to a Market Maker by no later than the beginning of regular trading hours on the morning of the third settlement day after the settlement date for the transaction that resulted in the fail to deliver position.

In addition, any Market Maker to which a fail to deliver position at a registered clearing agency is attributable must attest in writing to the market on which it is registered that the fail to deliver position at issue was established solely for the purpose of meeting its bona fide market making obligations. In addition, such written attestation must describe the steps the Market Maker has taken in an effort to deliver securities to its registered clearing agency.

Temporary Rule 204(b) provides that if a participant of a registered clearing agency has a fail to deliver position in any equity security at a registered clearing agency and does not close out the fail to deliver position in accordance with the rule's requirements, the participant and any broker or dealer from which it receives trades for clearance and settlement, including market makers, may not accept a short sale order in the equity security from another person, or effect a short sale in the equity security for its own account, to the extent that the broker or dealer submits its short sales to that participant for clearance and settlement, without first borrowing the security, or entering into a bona-fide arrangement to borrow the security, until the participant closes out the fail to deliver position by purchasing securities of like kind and quantity and that purchase has cleared and settled at a registered clearing agency. To allow Market Makers to facilitate customer orders in a fast moving market without possible delays associated with complying with this requirement of temporary Rule 204(b), we are not applying the borrowing requirements of the rule to Market Makers provided the Market Maker can show that it does not have an open fail to deliver position at the time of any additional short sales. Division of Trading and Markets: Guidance Regarding the Commission's Emergency Order Concerning Rules to Protect Investors against "Naked" Short Selling Abuses"

Also, a secondary source that explains the circumstances to determine if it was "bona fide" or not. ---Enric Naval (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

SEC case against goldman
The cited article does not mention naked short selling rather it talks about goldman selling CDOs that were 'designed to fail'. It says that Paulson made a billion betting against the CDOs but the case (partly settled btw) is about goldman not informing clients that they had sold the other side to Paulson. I'm not sure why it was included in this article but it shouldn't be here in the first place. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. One unrelated question, is Goldman's settling for 450.000$ good for Naked_short_selling? --Enric Naval (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are you asking? Your reference directly refers to a fine against GS for Naked short selling. Be bold. Cookiehead (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That looks fine since it directly concerns naked short selling. --RegentsPark (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I added it. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note my fix, based on the actual wording of the settlement, which is standard. Figureofnine (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

SEC temporary order 2008
The article says
 * As part of its response to the crisis in the North American markets in 2008, the SEC issued a temporary order restricting short-selling in the shares of 19 financial firms deemed systemically important, 

Should this read "banning naked short-selling"? If not, then the relevance of the sentence to this article is not apparent. AxelBoldt (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Naked Short Selling market
Yeah, sorry, I'm not going to be able to pull away enough time to get fluent in Wikipedish, but this subject has me very interested. I just finished reading Wall Street vs. America and I also own probably too many shares of a penny stock that has undergone pumps, dumps, mergers, reverse stock splits, and - well, you get the picture. The Investors Hub blog for the stock has both sides well represented and the pro-stock folks blame shorters for everything. I don't, but their claims led me to read some. The question I have is sort of general, but still needs a tad background: In the '80s, I was having drinks in a bar in Manhatten with a friend - I owned a small software development company and he was a programmer for a fairly large NY brokerage company. I was visiting from LA, and the talk took an interesting turn. What, I asked him, would prevent us all from having an "open trade" market? One that allowed us to trade everything. I could buy Madonna (remember, this was in the '80s), sell Dockers, buy cocaine, sell Ronald Reagan, etc. The point/idea was/is: who needs to OWN anything to sell it if you aren't really concerned with possession (and, hence, delivery)? All you really bought was the right to try to sell it later if the "price" went up. The price, of course, is just what someone else is willing to pay. It's really just betting on the future. If Levis has a major boll weevil problem next year (or, someone/everyone decides Levis are farmer's clothes), and I bought Levis last year, I'm probably in trouble. Popularity, after all, in whatever form (cultural/financial, etc.), is the determining factor in whether a product/service/concept becomes or remains profitable (from a bettor's standpoint) anyway. If all you need is an online market place (at a $1 a trade to the exchange), what is wrong with the idea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.133.31.62 (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a discussion forum to discuss ideas about the topic. Article talk pages are for discussing possible changes to the articles. Try an internet discussion forum. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"By Whom" comment under "Extent of Naked Shorting"
This article may provide an answer to the "by whom?" annotation in paragraph 2 beneath "Extent of Naked Shorting": http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/accidentally-released-and-incredibly-embarrassing-documents-show-how-goldman-et-al-engaged-in-naked-short-selling-20120515 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.88.202 (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Distinguishability
I think some of the source of controversy (in the general context) lies in confusion about which trades actually constitute 'naked short sales' and this controversy is leading to lack of clarity in this article.

The distinction seems to be that when the seller has no intent to deliver the borrowed security, but only to buy it back at some (presumably near-term) future date, that constitutes a 'naked short'. This is a perfectly sensible definition, but not an objective one.

Given that definition, it seems that laws restricting naked shorts, but not regular shorts, will be difficult to enforce.

The incidence of fail-to-delivers may be an indication of the incidence of naked shorts, but there are many other factors, such as other transactions where delivery fails, and the number of naked shorts that are closed within the delivery window.

The obfuscation in the non-wiki discussion seems to include a fair amount of painting with a broad brush by those opposed to any sort of selling. Finding short-selling in general and naked shorts in particular a convenient scapegoat, many sources appear to be willing to blame speculators for falls in a stock's price, glossing over the fact that that same class of speculators are the primary engine for rises in stock prices. Conflating failure-to-deliver (usually treated as a lapse of contractual responsibility), naked shorting, and short-selling in general with fraudulent sales and price manipulation is a viable strategy for vilifying investors taking a position based on a judgement that a particular stock is overvalued.Wcoole (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

This article relies on media coverage when there is ample research available, most recently a 2014 study I added. The overuse of speculative and uninformed articles provides a misleading impression and is unnecessary when peer reviewed studies are available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonniethebrain (talk • contribs) 04:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration Motion
The Arbitration Committee are proposing to remove sanctions related to this topic area which appear to be no longer required. Details of the proposal are at Arbitration/Requests/Motions where your comments are invited. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz  Read! Talk! 21:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

misused citation
Citation number 6 is used to cite the sentence which says SEC regulations "prohibit" the practice. The article cited for this says no such thing. It says a short term, temporary ban of 17 months on "abusive," naked short selling was put into place in 2008. That has long since ended. Since short selling, naked or not, is a fundamental market mechanism for adjusting the prices of securities, the use of the term "prohibit" is likely to be incorrect. Since the citation doesn't cite what is actually claimed in the article, I would suggest changing "prohibit" to "regulate" until someone can actually cite a US law or SEC regulation which actually prohibits naked short selling.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Naked short selling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive {newarchive} to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8171667.stm;

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Naked short selling. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090731163151/http://news.bbc.co.uk:80/2/hi/business/8171667.stm to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8171667.stm;

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense graphic
this graphic makes no sense and I suspect we're being punk'd by whoever made it. Can someone explain it to me and if not I'd like to get rid of it or replace it with a graphic that means something.GMT+1 (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about the subject, but from the perspective of the layperson it does not help me understand the subject any better. The graphic's original contributor,, seems to be indefinitely blocked, so I'm not sure we'll get much guidance on that front. Perhaps there are some talk page watchers who might chime in? /wiae /tlk  19:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I just got here. We are not being "punk'd" because I understand it. I trade for my own account as a career (although I don't knowingly sell short), so it is a separate question to ask how to explain it to a layperson. The first rectangle shows a naked short seller selling short. The downwards red arrow shows that the short seller now owes shares to the buyer. The upwards blue arrow shows that the buyer has paid for the somewhat imaginary shares. The second rectangle shows the short seller belatedly covering. The upper fat red arrow shows the short seller getting the shares from the market, the blue arrow shows him paying for it, and the lower red arrow shows the short seller finally delivering the shares to the buyer. Art LaPella (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Naked short selling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081005040752/http://news.smh.com.au/business/asx-ban-on-short-selling-is-indefinite-20081003-4t16.html to http://news.smh.com.au/business/asx-ban-on-short-selling-is-indefinite-20081003-4t16.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090302054831/http://www.dtcc.com/news/press/releases/2007/wsj_response.php?lpos=3&lid=3 to http://www.dtcc.com/news/press/releases/2007/wsj_response.php?lpos=3&lid=3
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227192527/http://bennett.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=279519 to http://bennett.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=279519

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Naked short selling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090826083809/http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20081006125839.pdf to http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20081006125839.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101202083735/http://www.nrc.nl/international/article1993052.ece/Dutch_invented_short_selling_in_1609 to http://www.nrc.nl/international/article1993052.ece/Dutch_invented_short_selling_in_1609
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080106171438/http://www.rgm.com/articles/bloomberg2.html to http://www.rgm.com/articles/bloomberg2.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071105053113/http://www.rgm.com/articles/financialwire.html to http://www.rgm.com/articles/financialwire.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)