Sheared by the Shorts

A place to talk about speculative investing ideas for the optional Variable Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

Post Reply
User avatar
lazyboy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 299
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 4:04 pm

Sheared by the Shorts

Post by lazyboy »

I found this article to be revealing, although it may be old news to some. Any comments?  :-\

Sheared by the Shorts: How Short Sellers Fleece Investors

"Why did gold and silver stocks just get hammered, at a time when commodities are considered a safe haven against widespread global uncertainty? The answer, according to Bill Murphy's newsletter LeMetropoleCafe.com, is that the sector has been the target of massive short selling. For some popular precious metal stocks, close to half the trades have been "phantom" sales by short sellers who did not actually own the stock."

http://www.truth-out.org/sheared-shorts ... 1317326458
Inside of me there are two dogs. One is mean and evil and the other is good and they fight each other all the time. When asked which one wins I answer, the one I feed the most.�

Sitting Bull
User avatar
stone
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2627
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:43 am
Contact:

Re: Sheared by the Shorts

Post by stone »

In that artical, it says how Lehmans stock was subjected to intense short selling. I can see how short selling could make a company prone to hostile take over but I don't follow how a falling stock price could contribute to a company going bust unless creditors and suppliers viewed a falling stock price as a flag for a company being non-credit worthy. Lehmans was an awfull company and people holding Lehmans stock were going to be wiped out. From what I can see, Lehmans stock holders could only have a gripe against short sellers if the stock holders thought that they could have ditched the shares before the company went under. So someone who sold up just before the company was wound up could say that they would have got a better price were it not for the short selling, but someone who held stock to the bitter end can't have any complaint. Am I in a muddle about this?
"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment." - Mulla Nasrudin
User avatar
smurff
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 980
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:17 am

Re: Sheared by the Shorts

Post by smurff »

From what I recall, some company's debt (loans, notes, bonds etc) agreements have covenants that specify all kinds of ratios that have to be maintained.  Some of those ratios are calculated on the market capititalization, which yields a per share price.  Sometimes the covenant is as simple as continuing to be a "listed" stock on NYSE or NASDAQ, and the stock exchanges set minimum prices for stock listed on their exchanges.  Sometimes if the price drops too far--say, loses 50% of its 90 day moving average over 10 trading days--the company will be in violation. If the ratios or stock prices are not maintained the company is in technical default and the debt can be called (forced to be paid early, on demand).  It's a simple way for the creditor to see trouble coming without having to dissect the company's books everytime something comes up.

So a company whose stock comes under enough short-selling pressure can find itself in violation of those covenants--on the face of it without any fault of their own. (In theory short sellers help expose companies that are being mismanaged or corrupted in some way, but HFT tactics may force reevaluation of some of those theories.)
Last edited by smurff on Sat Oct 01, 2011 2:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
lazyboy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 299
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 4:04 pm

Re: Sheared by the Shorts

Post by lazyboy »

I don't see any constructive value, to the market, of Naked Short Selling as it's being presented in the article...It just appears to be a huge manipulation to churn stocks and create short term profit by big players  at the expense of the shareholders, companies and average buy and hold investor. For myself, I don't by individual stocks anymore. My 25% in VTI for the PP is volatile enough for me.
Inside of me there are two dogs. One is mean and evil and the other is good and they fight each other all the time. When asked which one wins I answer, the one I feed the most.�

Sitting Bull
User avatar
stone
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2627
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:43 am
Contact:

Re: Sheared by the Shorts

Post by stone »

Smurff, your explanation makes it all make sense- cheers. Is it correct that some companies (such as Apple?) do not have debt and so would be entirely immune to such pressure from short sellers?
"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment." - Mulla Nasrudin
User avatar
smurff
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 980
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:17 am

Re: Sheared by the Shorts

Post by smurff »

stone wrote: Smurff, your explanation makes it all make sense- cheers. Is it correct that some companies (such as Apple?) do not have debt and so would be entirely immune to such pressure from short sellers?
Thank you Stone, I'm glad my long missives make sense.  :)

I haven't looked at Apple's financials lately, so I don't know how much debt that company may have.

But public companies that have no debt, but are traded on major exchanges also have to worry about investors, actual and potential, who can make or break them. 

Not all stock selling takes place over the exchanges.  Corporations retain some of their own shares when they go public; they also do stock buybacks when their stock price sinks to a level where it is a bargain.  They then keep these shares in their own treasuries.  The industry calls them "treasury shares."  Those companies often sell these shares at higher prices later--usually in blocks, directly to large entities like banks, insurance companies, and pension funds--to raise cash.  Some companies just hold on to them as a cushion to help keep hostile investors from taking over the company.  Corporations can sell treasury shares instead of, or in addition to, borrowing money.  If a large company has no debt on their books, this is most likely the way they raise large amounts of money (outside of funds from earnings)  when they need them to launch a new product, buy another company, etc.  Employees who receive shares as part of their compensation (bonuses, 401Ks, employee stock purchase plans, etc.) get paid from treasury shares. 

Those large entities who buy direct from the corporation pay market rate or thereabouts, and the money they pay for the shares go directly to the corporation.  That's unlike the shares you see sold on the open market, where the funds paid for them go to the investor who sells them, with fees to brokerages, but nothing to the corporation except glory at being popular.  So even though a company may have little or no debt on their books, if short sellers come after them and force the price of the shares down, that can dry up a major source of corporate funding.  (If they sell treasury shares anyway when under price pressure, that's an indication that something is wrong.)

Another issue no-debt companies have to be careful of is that the large entities (pension funds, insurance companies, etc.) often have rules on the minimum price per share of the publicly traded stocks in their portfolios.  Usually that minimum price is around $10--a few as low as $5--so a company whose share price dips from short selling pressure to that point may find itself in real trouble.  Pension fund managers will begin calling the corporation's CFO at home, then start calling their hedge-fund friends at their kid's parties, and that's AFTER automated programs have begun divesting.  A steep share price decline can tarnish the company's reputation, whether warranted or not.  Even today, there are a few people who refuse to invest in Apple shares because of how badly they managed their share price in the 1990s (just over $3.00 per share in late 1997).  They don't trust them, no matter how great their products are. 

If a gang of determined short-sellers force a major decline in the company's share price, several things can happen.  If the company has debt, it can end up in default if it has certain covenants; if the company doesn't have debt, it won't want to sell its treasury shares and a source of funding is cut off. 

As the price goes down and down, and it's a company with great products or too much cash on the balance sheet, it can become a takeover target--which reduces its ability for self-determination in running its business affairs.  (I'm saying this as if the corporation were a person.  Right.)

That's why the management of the company's share price can consume a big chunk of the corporate executive division's time and resources.   They hire consultants to help them with the latest strategies for doing so.  In some companies, that's all (apparently) that the CEO, CFO, and Board of Directors do, along with setting their own salaries and bonus plans.   ::)
Post Reply