An Idiot’s Guide To Short Selling

Published in Investing on 19 September 2008

Don't know what short-selling means? Haven't got a clue how it caused HBOS to collapse? Donna Werbner can help!

A lot of fuss has been made recently about short-selling. It’s been blamed for the collapse of HBOS, banned by the FSA on financial company shares and generally labelled as ‘evil’ by the media everywhere.

But what is short-selling – and how did it contribute to the current banking crisis?

What is short-selling?

Short-selling – or “shorting”, as it’s often called – is selling shares you don’t own. It allows you to make money when the share prices fall.

Hold on a minute! How can you make money out of share prices falling? And how can you sell something you don’t own?

Here’s a step by step guide to how shorting works:

     1. You borrow some shares for a set amount of time and pay a small fee to person who owns them. You agree to return those shares at a later date. 

So there you are, with a load of borrowed shares you don’t own, which you’ve paid a fee for. Doesn’t sound great, does it? How can you make money out of this situation?

     2. You sell the borrowed shares on to someone else.

     3. Later you have to return the shares to the original owner - except you've already sold them. So you have to go back into the market and buy them. 

      4. If the share price has fallen, you're quids in. This is because you can buy the shares back for a lower price than you sold them for.

A Worked-Out Example

Confused? Here’s a worked-out example, which will hopefully clear things up:

I borrow some shares from Ed, my boss, that are worth £100 for a small fee of, say, a £1. I promise to return these shares in a month.

I then go off and sell the borrowed shares to my Foolish friend and colleague, Jane B, for £100. That’s £100, in my bank account.

A month later, I have to give the shares back to Ed. Luckily, the price of the shares has fallen by 20% during the month. So I take £80 out of my bank account, and buy the shares back. Then I return the shares to Ed, the person I borrowed them from, and pay Ed £1. But I get to keep the £20 in my bank account that I have made in the intervening period!

Of course, I am taking a risk. If the price of the shares had gone up that month, instead of down, I would have lost money. This is because I would be forced to buy the shares for more than the price I sold them for. Instead of pocketing the difference, I would be forced to cough up. 

Did short-selling cause the banking crisis?

I don’t think it caused it – what happened was too big to have one single cause - but I do think it probably contributed to the downfall of both Lehman Brothers and HBOS.

Many investors chose to short stocks in these companies because they legitimately had concerns that they were carrying toxic mortgage debts, and therefore the share price would fall.

But the more that investors short stocks, the more likely it is that the price will fall. This is because lots of people are trying to sell the shares, and few are wanting to buy. And as in any other situation where there is low demand, prices fall.

When prices fall, confidence in the company also falls, and more and more investors want to sell.

So the more people shorted stocks, the more the price fell, the more people shorted stocks, the more the price fell, the more people shorted stocks… and so on and so on.

To stop this never-ending downward spiral from continuing, the FSA has now stepped in and banned investors from shorting financial stocks until January.

This means that, while the share price of financial companies may still fall, it is much harder for investors to make any money from share prices falling.

Hopefully this will create more stability in the financial markets… but only time will tell. So much has happened in the past week, I’m certainly not betting things will get back to normal any time soon.

But then again, if I’d been a betting kind of gal, I wouldn’t be writing this. I’d have shorted HBOS stocks on Monday when they were priced above £2, bought them back Wednesday morning when they were priced above £1, and today… well, naturally, I’d be off enjoying my millions on a Caribbean island somewhere…

PS. Private investors can short shares without going through all the rigmarole of borrowing, selling and buying. They can spread bet. I'd need another article to explain that. I'll just say that it's a high risk way of gaining from falling share prices. It's high risk but some spread betters make money.

> If you think share prices are going to go up, invest in an index tracker, a cheap and simple way to invest in the stock market.

Like this article? Get our best articles delivered direct to your inbox at no cost. Sign up for Foolwatch Daily by entering your email below.

Share & subscribe

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool. If you spot any comments that are unsuitable hit the flag to alert our moderators.

starseed777 20 Sep 2008 , 5:57am

Oh I see, it was the fault of the "betters" was it!! nothing to do with LAX goverment credit control and the high RATIOS of leverage taken by the banks,totally irresponsible management causing their own bubble to burst because confidence collapsed with it!!! That,s right join the crowd and blame poor Jonny Scapegoat, Get real

Sherville 20 Sep 2008 , 6:14am

And then there would be the avaricious, self-interest and obscene bonus culture perpetuated by the investment banks which has now turned on the hand that used to feed by the market shorters. Sharia banking is the way to teach the whole industry a lesson

ponddigger 20 Sep 2008 , 7:12am

I still don't see what is in it for the owner of the shares, especially if they become worthless when the company goes bust?

starseed777 20 Sep 2008 , 7:24am

Hi Ponddigger, they bet t,other way or lay off, bit like Bookies at race meetings. you can make or lose a fortune on shorting or going long(ie betting the share price goes up) Contrary to to the Crap being spewed about shorters they do noe affect the share price it,s economic factors that cause movement, Try shorting a well heeled Company , you will lose more than your shirt!!!

Punter2008 20 Sep 2008 , 7:46am

"Shorting a well-heeled company"- of course, you little gossips can set tongues a-wagging about how rocky ABC Company Ltd is, without any justification, which the market can then get jittery about, which can then make the shares dive, which is what you wanted in the first place, wasn't it? And then circle like the sharks you are. I for one understand what has happened, but not how a bunch of oiks in London, New York et al, can reduce our financial lifeblood to a haemorrage leading to death. Ridiculous, I for one was laughing quite loudly when seeing those oiks turfed out of Lehmans on monday. Any more, I'll just stand outside and hoot with laughter- so be seeing you soon, starseed777!

AdAstra100 20 Sep 2008 , 8:15am

As a private investor, I still do not see how I could realistically 'short' any share without giving up the day job despite the words in this article, and many others such as the Investors Chronicle, which I take, where the journos continually go on about shorting and going long as if we poor joe public don't have anything else in our lives let alone earning real money for the insiders to play with.

Just a few technical questions though, because I am a not so simple but perhaps a too honest sort of guy! When the lender of the shares loans them to the Shorter, what happens to the ownership provenance on the share register? Are they borrowed ex dividend or not? If the Shorter is not shown as a share holder why is it legal to sell the shares? I can see why the Shorters defend themselves but the 'smell' of the doubts expressed above make me highly suspicious that I am just a pawn in the city boy's game.

Regards

AdAstra

Dhahran2001 20 Sep 2008 , 8:20am

"But I get to keep the £20 in my bank account that I have made in the intervening period!"

I don't believe you do! Please tell me where we can borrow shares without having to pay on delivery. In the author's example the 'shorter' is £1 out of pocket at the beginning of the process and £19 in profit at the end. This maths is really quite simple.

stevotte 20 Sep 2008 , 9:04am

Calm down Starsee777 - she did say that shorting didn't cause it but only 'contributed to the downfall' But, as you say, shorters had nothing to do with it did they. In which case the FSA have completely wasted their time 'p*ssing on the wrong tree', haven't they?

MalcolmXtra 20 Sep 2008 , 9:06am

When the chips are down, find a scapegoat. This is the latest ruse put forward by the banks to distract attention from the fact that they entirely caused this mess themselves.

Banks believed they were bulletproof. That their 'business models' couldn't fail. Well for many years smoke and mirrors have kept the private investor in the dark and the mortgage holders and savers thinking that all was well and all was solid. Nothing like this current climate has happened since the 1930's and we are all much smarter now, aren't we?

It was all nonsense.

Blaming short sellers is like blaming waves for sinking an overloaded oil tanker on the high seas. Even if shorters had any affect (which is highly doubtful) the fault lies with tanker owners who got greedy. The banks had poor and insecure business models. End of. The herd mentality ran deep in the City. To get big bonuses you took big chances and banks did so in fear that to not do would mean leaving them vunerable to preditors who do. A few smart ones backed off from the herd as it ran headlong towards the cliff. LloydsTSB played a blinder and are now the 'staid bank turned master of the universe'.

Shorters didn't cause or effect this crisis. The number of shorts on HBOS didn't increase in the two weeks before the takeover. That is just a myth propogated by bankers - because it couldn't simply have been their fault now could it?

And the FSA? Well they would ban short selling wouldn't they. It distracts from the fact that this toothless organisation should have been regulating banking and stopping anything like this being possible. So now they avert the blame too.

The bankers did it, in the City, armed with the consent of the FSA. And you can put that in your Cluedo pack for a guaranteed winner.

marktheharp 20 Sep 2008 , 9:09am

Thanks for the article. I can see how people get drawn in to the excitement of buying / selling / betting on shares. However, isn't it all just a huge structure built on sand? There's nothing being produced, just money being moved around. Ultmately that can't be sustainable as no net wealth (or anything else) is being produced - so surely it shouldn't come as a surprise when it goes t!ts up.

billstheboy 20 Sep 2008 , 9:43am

Actually I didn't think you had to even borrow the shares you wish to sell and pay a fee to the lender! I believe you merely sold shares you don't own on say on Day 1 and if the price fell buy them back on Day 2 to deliver to the buyer. And if you did this within the SE account you would be quids in.

joesop90 20 Sep 2008 , 10:52am

The problem started when Margret Thatcher's government gave the "free for all " i.e building societies became banks and vise versa. They were reluctant to close branches...far too many of them on the high street.Internet banking too off and the bank managers do not want to manage "call centers"
But ce la vie

jollster 20 Sep 2008 , 11:38am

I understand short selling, but still don't get what the people lending the shares get from the deal, are they purely gambling on them going up and being extra greedy by getting a fee for lending them? Also, how can you lend shares, surely you own them or you don't! No wonder they've created such a mess.

philostat 20 Sep 2008 , 11:46am

Donna,
May I take minor exception to the title of your article. To be labelled by someone (and, going by the recent pic of contributing staff) who was still at schoool when I became a member here & judging by the expertise & knowledge already demonstrated in the replies above, please note that we are not all Idiots, and as asst ed you should know better. Don a Fool's cap & go stand in the corner.
"Fool's guide.. (as in "to the banking crisis") is thoroughly acceptable, in the sense to which we have come to love & respect the F word.

shudderbin 20 Sep 2008 , 12:01pm

It all boils down to one thing - GREED

Funkyalfa 20 Sep 2008 , 12:11pm

So then - what I need to do now if hope that the Fed dosn't bail out Morgan Stanley and go buy (borrow) some short posistions and wait a month?

Funkyalfa 20 Sep 2008 , 12:12pm

Mmmm, what colour shall I have my new Range Rover in do you think?

DerekC777 20 Sep 2008 , 1:12pm

I don't take exception from this being called an idiot's guide because even an idiot can understand it, although, fortunately, most of us are Foolish enough to know better, otherwise we wouldn't even look at this site! ;-)

(BTW, the BBC also has a good guide to short selling here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7519190.stm.)

I do, however, take exception to people blaming HBOS's miss-selling of mortgages for its low share price. First, we did not have the very low interest rates that led to the expansion of the sub-prime mortgage sector like the US, which consequently lead to the defaults on payments and the "toxic" debt that spread through the banking system by inter-banking loans and bonds.

Secondly, HBOS's balance sheet was sound. It did not over stretch itself like Northern Rock and has just re-mortgaged 1,000s of loans at higher rates bringing more money into the bank making its balance sheet even sounder. I know, I'm one of those who has recently re-mortgaged.

So why did it fail? It seems that the surprise that 158 year old Lehman Bros was going bankrupt sent jitters through the markets (not mention AIG or Morgan Stanly). Rumours about other banks start, particular about the largest UK mortgage lender, HBOS, which has 20% of the UK market. However, HBOS is sound, but markets believe the rumours.

Now this is where short-selling comes in. Rumours make the share price go down. The short-sellers see an opportunity to make money and sell high. This forces the share price down further and others, who do own stock, follow suit, and other short-sellers join in.

Now HBOS does have a problem. Investors are unwilling to lend money to HBOS that it needs for its mortgage business, because, on paper, it is not worth enough, which weakens HBOS further making the share price fall further. The rumours have now become a self-fulfilling prophecy. HBOS still has the same balance sheet, is still sound, but because of the low share price investors don't believe it. The share price only increases when Lloyds TSB seizes the opportunately to buy HBOS on the cheap - and the short-sellers buy back the HBOS shares.

Did short-selling cause the take-over of HBOS by Lloyds TSB? No. But it certainly did not help, and in markets driven by rumours where traders will sell stock based on hearsay, short-selling can be the straw that breaks the camel's back, or more likely, the shout that causes an avalanche of snow to fall on the innocent.

So, well done FSA! It's about time you did your job and started regulating... And well done traders, for excepting that you need more regulation.

YiamCross 20 Sep 2008 , 1:24pm

Well, puner2008, I expect the oiks being turfed out of Lehmans are laughing at you a lot more loudly than you are at them because they've got millions in bonus payments stashed away in places where the current financial turmoil will never hurt it. In fact they'll probably still be laughing loudly in a year or two when they mop up the bargains because they're the only ones with the cash to buy them. The people you're laughing at are probably staff on simple salaries who now have no job, no redundancy money and are probably owed a month or two in back pay. As is usual in these situations, the people who have no control over what's happening are the ones who pay the price whilst those who did the damage are sipping champagne in a high-class resort on a tropical island waiting for things to calm down a bit before they come back to pick up where they left off. Thank you America for confirming for them that nothing they do will ever have adverse consequences for their indefensible behaviour. Remember, if you're going to screw someone over make sure you do it on a grand scale so no one can ever allow the consequces of your actions to crystalise.

ponddigger 20 Sep 2008 , 2:31pm

That still does not explain why anyone would lend say a million quids worth of shares to say a hedge fund, knowing that when one got them back they might only be worth say half a million quid?, or if they were in Fannie or Freddie, maybe nothing.
If one actually owned them oneself you would want them to be worth more, or maybe that is what is wrong with the remains of my pension fund, it is bad enough to have management fees gouged out of it, but maybe they just think it is all a game.

Sungeipatani 20 Sep 2008 , 2:40pm

Whilst "short selling" may have had a marginal effect on HBOS and other shares, the real reason for the collapse in share price was just plain selling. People or institutions who held them sold them. This of course forced the selling price down which made people panic who then sold more and so on.

It was not greed that caused the collapse but fear.

janesk 20 Sep 2008 , 4:16pm

I think that if all the banks/financial institutions etc, called all the overseas debt in, we wouldn't be having a "credit crunch". We seem to carry on giving loans to these countries with no real chance of repayment ever. Why do they do that ??? I cannot see them giving me a few million on a non-repayment application, so why do it with countries that have no chance of ever repaying us, and putting these same countries into more & more debt ?? Makes no sense to me or millions of other Britains.

YiamCross 20 Sep 2008 , 4:31pm

You lend shares you have no intention of selling because you get a fee for doing what you were going to do anyway- keep the shares. If you thought they were going to go down, then you'd be selling them. I imagine it's hard to borrow shares to short if everybody believes they're going down the pan. As you say, why would anyone lend shares they know are going to be worth a lot less by the time they get them back?
That's the thing about the future, nobody knows what it's going to be, everything is so obvious with hindsight. Even when if you were sure you knew what's going to happen, would you have the guts to swap your savings for a short position that might cost you your house as well if things don't go the way you thought they would?

Share prices drop like a stone when the market makers can't find anywhere to place shares they're being offered, when everyone is selling and nobody wants to buy. Shorting doesn't have a lot to do with that.
Rumour must influence who wants to sell and who wants to buy but there's no smoke without fire and I'm sure not everyone dealing shares is that stupid. Let's be honest, it's more to do with being able to (or not!) trust what these companies report about their situation when it's obvious they've been playing a game they can't win once conditions have changed against them.
If these people had been doing the right thing all along there'd be no reason to believe there's a real risk they might be insolvent. I just think it's shameful that those at the top who should be looking 5-10 years ahead get a handsome payoff for steering their company onto the rocks just because that's where everyone else was heading.

zaplutus 20 Sep 2008 , 5:42pm

I just do not understand how you all can be so blind as to our own part in this "melt-down"! Before this crisis came about was it not the norm to walk away from any institution which would not give you the most instant, cheap, long term mortgage with minimum (if any) deposit? This very site (only one of many) is still urging its members to constantly "shop around" for cheaper and cheaper mortgages, loans, savings, current accounts et al.

What can the financial institutions do but quietly retire the prudent management and employ the "salesman" with promises of hugh rewards!

The consumer "war cry" for more than two decades via Television, Radio, Press and Internet has been "give me what I want or I walk".

For more than ten years now we have been witnessing a mortgage feeding frenzy - people who should have saved for a deposit on a home eventually thought it was their right to demand a 110 per cent, thirty five year mortgage!

It takes a very strong and confident bank to step back from a feeding frenzy like this and watch some of their market share walk away when they try to argue prudence. Thankfully there were a minority of banks which did take a long view despite the majority and the government constantly throwing fuel on the fire.

Most property owners have done very nicely up to now - lovely house, maybe two!, nice car from a second mortgage sometimes! All this because the public, government and media made it their mission to bring it all about. Now that we all find that we overstepped the mark and have to make adjustments we are so blinkered that we really believe the fault lies in only one place.

We all played our part in creating the current situation and we all benefitted on the journey - yes especially the obscene bonuses in the bank boardroom! But come on - open your eyes, the banks couldn't have busted themselves without us, the consumer.

jamesunsen 20 Sep 2008 , 6:45pm

houses in this country are overvalued by a factor of 2 to 3. Until this is rectified, ie. the bubble bursts, mortgage lenders are continuing to be at risk. Further hard times ahead?

Fingered 21 Sep 2008 , 4:28am

It ain't really the Shorters .....that's just too easy. Google this and have fun reading: " Alternative Net Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers That Are Part of Consolidated Supervised Entities"

Fingered 21 Sep 2008 , 4:43am

Forgot to add........ The regulators just shut down Ameribank. That's the 12th U.S.one this year. Seems the Bailouts-R-Us plans of the Fed and Uncle Sam are working just fine and the whole financial nuclear winter will soon be sorted out.

kensutton 21 Sep 2008 , 10:40am

If you are a long-term holder of an share say an index tracker, then you could make extra money by loaning out your shares, even if you agree with the shorter that the price was heading lower. However in efficient markets ( is the such a thing?) for every buyer who thinks the price is heading down another expects it to rise and would be happy to get the extra money from the hedger.

4beatlefans 22 Sep 2008 , 1:14pm

My (lack of) understanding of the money markets may be apparant, but this is my perception; when there are big profits, the greedy take them, then when it all goes wrong, they go bleating to the government and then the taxpayer bails them out...

Cookie83 22 Sep 2008 , 1:40pm

Hi,

Great article. The stumbling block I find is getting people to understand the part of selling something you don't own...

Anyhoo. My question, if anyone could answer it, is what happens if the shares are not available to be rebought...? Or is this something that would not occur in real life?

Cookie

DoctorPooh 22 Sep 2008 , 3:59pm

Great article - I now understand how SS works... a few queries though, as I understand it actual ownership of the shares lies with the holder of the share certificate so is it really possible to unoficially "rent" shares off someone for a few days? If the shorters are selling their rented shares then they are selling something that they don't actually own. If I was a landlord I'd be pretty irritated if a tenant sold a property I was renting him lol. Dubious practice all round.

Additionally what about the cost of each trade? should this not be put into the equation.

Fingered 22 Sep 2008 , 6:53pm

Cookie83, what you are describing is something called "Naked" short selling. Naked short selling, or naked shorting, is the practice of selling a stock short without first borrowing the shares or ensuring that the shares can be borrowed as is done in a conventional short sale. When the seller does not then obtain the shares within the required time frame, the result is known as a "fail to deliver". However, the transaction generally continues to sit open until the shares are acquired by the seller or the seller's broker, allowing a trade to occur when the order is filled. ......there's a ton of legislation in this area, not always effective.

crazybucks1 23 Sep 2008 , 5:45pm

I'm from the US and I like reading your comments. I'm trying to understand what happened because it doesn't make sense at all other than "the big boys got caught." Anyway, I checked my retirement account because I had it in a stable fund and right now there is no loss. What was interesting though, was when I came across a fact sheet that defined these various funds. Here's one of the funds:
Lehman Brothers US Credit Index: Is the US Credit component of the US Government/Credit Index. It consists of publicly issued US corporate and specified foreign debentures and secured notes that meet the wspecified maturity, liquidity, and quality requirements etc.
The US Government decided not to bail out Lehman Brothers, but decided to bail out AIG. So now, I'm curious about who the players are and why the collapse. I think the problem runs deep in the bowels of, some of those who rule and those that conduct business. Hands washing hands.

justb 02 Oct 2008 , 9:25am

We all know the market runs on rumour, fear and greed usually in that order.

Shorters are like the hyenas picking over the carcase after the management has done its worst and the true shareholders are left with the bones or worse. Shorting is not a problem in a stable market, they win some and lose some, but once the market becomes vulnerable they can create a run on shares which can kill a company completely. In this type of market it is the lenders of the shares who are the stupid ones. No point getting a fat fee if your underlying share value is wiped out.

The main reason I object to shorters is that they do just that hold shares for a short time and thus make the company's share price vulnerable. Companies want a stable share price to be able to value their business and raise any finance they need to raise. Shares should be held by those with a long term view in order to enable companies to grow and then return value to their shareholders through an increase in share price and dividends. But there will always be people who will gamble with anything.
Thank god I no longer work for a listed plc.

taikosan 02 Oct 2008 , 5:53pm

It's not the small short-sellers who cause the havoc - it's when the big bullies short-sell millions of pounds worth in one go that hits the markets. Once the share drops by say 5% or so, that sets up selling by the stop-loss group so it goes down more. This sets off fear of the unknown, by other investors, and before long it becomes a bloodbath. Stopping the market bullies can only be done by banning the practice altogether or limiting the amount anyone can short. This latter solution would be virtually impossible to control so banning it has to be.

captainbucks 02 Oct 2008 , 9:31pm

I like this article as the author/s do not seem to just automatically think one understands the concept of selling something you don't own. (like the BBC site does.) But can someone knowledgeable PLEASE tell me:

What happens if I cannot 'buy back' a share I have borrowed and then sold? I can understand that it may in reality be the case that there are always shares avaialble for a certain price, but what if I, the short-seller, have made a bad choice, the share price rises and then my own finances happen to be in such a state that I cannot afford to buy the share/ all of the shares back?

Who then actually owns the share? The person who I sold it to or its owner? What happens to me?

starseed777 20 Sep 2008 , 5:57am

Oh I see, it was the fault of the "betters" was it!! nothing to do with LAX goverment credit control and the high RATIOS of leverage taken by the banks,totally irresponsible management causing their own bubble to burst because confidence collapsed with it!!! That,s right join the crowd and blame poor Jonny Scapegoat, Get real

Sherville 20 Sep 2008 , 6:14am

And then there would be the avaricious, self-interest and obscene bonus culture perpetuated by the investment banks which has now turned on the hand that used to feed by the market shorters. Sharia banking is the way to teach the whole industry a lesson

ponddigger 20 Sep 2008 , 7:12am

I still don't see what is in it for the owner of the shares, especially if they become worthless when the company goes bust?

starseed777 20 Sep 2008 , 7:24am

Hi Ponddigger, they bet t,other way or lay off, bit like Bookies at race meetings. you can make or lose a fortune on shorting or going long(ie betting the share price goes up) Contrary to to the Crap being spewed about shorters they do noe affect the share price it,s economic factors that cause movement, Try shorting a well heeled Company , you will lose more than your shirt!!!

Punter2008 20 Sep 2008 , 7:46am

"Shorting a well-heeled company"- of course, you little gossips can set tongues a-wagging about how rocky ABC Company Ltd is, without any justification, which the market can then get jittery about, which can then make the shares dive, which is what you wanted in the first place, wasn't it? And then circle like the sharks you are. I for one understand what has happened, but not how a bunch of oiks in London, New York et al, can reduce our financial lifeblood to a haemorrage leading to death. Ridiculous, I for one was laughing quite loudly when seeing those oiks turfed out of Lehmans on monday. Any more, I'll just stand outside and hoot with laughter- so be seeing you soon, starseed777!

AdAstra100 20 Sep 2008 , 8:15am

As a private investor, I still do not see how I could realistically 'short' any share without giving up the day job despite the words in this article, and many others such as the Investors Chronicle, which I take, where the journos continually go on about shorting and going long as if we poor joe public don't have anything else in our lives let alone earning real money for the insiders to play with.

Just a few technical questions though, because I am a not so simple but perhaps a too honest sort of guy! When the lender of the shares loans them to the Shorter, what happens to the ownership provenance on the share register? Are they borrowed ex dividend or not? If the Shorter is not shown as a share holder why is it legal to sell the shares? I can see why the Shorters defend themselves but the 'smell' of the doubts expressed above make me highly suspicious that I am just a pawn in the city boy's game.

Regards

AdAstra

Dhahran2001 20 Sep 2008 , 8:20am

"But I get to keep the £20 in my bank account that I have made in the intervening period!"

I don't believe you do! Please tell me where we can borrow shares without having to pay on delivery. In the author's example the 'shorter' is £1 out of pocket at the beginning of the process and £19 in profit at the end. This maths is really quite simple.

stevotte 20 Sep 2008 , 9:04am

Calm down Starsee777 - she did say that shorting didn't cause it but only 'contributed to the downfall' But, as you say, shorters had nothing to do with it did they. In which case the FSA have completely wasted their time 'p*ssing on the wrong tree', haven't they?

MalcolmXtra 20 Sep 2008 , 9:06am

When the chips are down, find a scapegoat. This is the latest ruse put forward by the banks to distract attention from the fact that they entirely caused this mess themselves.

Banks believed they were bulletproof. That their 'business models' couldn't fail. Well for many years smoke and mirrors have kept the private investor in the dark and the mortgage holders and savers thinking that all was well and all was solid. Nothing like this current climate has happened since the 1930's and we are all much smarter now, aren't we?

It was all nonsense.

Blaming short sellers is like blaming waves for sinking an overloaded oil tanker on the high seas. Even if shorters had any affect (which is highly doubtful) the fault lies with tanker owners who got greedy. The banks had poor and insecure business models. End of. The herd mentality ran deep in the City. To get big bonuses you took big chances and banks did so in fear that to not do would mean leaving them vunerable to preditors who do. A few smart ones backed off from the herd as it ran headlong towards the cliff. LloydsTSB played a blinder and are now the 'staid bank turned master of the universe'.

Shorters didn't cause or effect this crisis. The number of shorts on HBOS didn't increase in the two weeks before the takeover. That is just a myth propogated by bankers - because it couldn't simply have been their fault now could it?

And the FSA? Well they would ban short selling wouldn't they. It distracts from the fact that this toothless organisation should have been regulating banking and stopping anything like this being possible. So now they avert the blame too.

The bankers did it, in the City, armed with the consent of the FSA. And you can put that in your Cluedo pack for a guaranteed winner.

marktheharp 20 Sep 2008 , 9:09am

Thanks for the article. I can see how people get drawn in to the excitement of buying / selling / betting on shares. However, isn't it all just a huge structure built on sand? There's nothing being produced, just money being moved around. Ultmately that can't be sustainable as no net wealth (or anything else) is being produced - so surely it shouldn't come as a surprise when it goes t!ts up.

billstheboy 20 Sep 2008 , 9:43am

Actually I didn't think you had to even borrow the shares you wish to sell and pay a fee to the lender! I believe you merely sold shares you don't own on say on Day 1 and if the price fell buy them back on Day 2 to deliver to the buyer. And if you did this within the SE account you would be quids in.

joesop90 20 Sep 2008 , 10:52am

The problem started when Margret Thatcher's government gave the "free for all " i.e building societies became banks and vise versa. They were reluctant to close branches...far too many of them on the high street.Internet banking too off and the bank managers do not want to manage "call centers"
But ce la vie

jollster 20 Sep 2008 , 11:38am

I understand short selling, but still don't get what the people lending the shares get from the deal, are they purely gambling on them going up and being extra greedy by getting a fee for lending them? Also, how can you lend shares, surely you own them or you don't! No wonder they've created such a mess.

philostat 20 Sep 2008 , 11:46am

Donna,
May I take minor exception to the title of your article. To be labelled by someone (and, going by the recent pic of contributing staff) who was still at schoool when I became a member here & judging by the expertise & knowledge already demonstrated in the replies above, please note that we are not all Idiots, and as asst ed you should know better. Don a Fool's cap & go stand in the corner.
"Fool's guide.. (as in "to the banking crisis") is thoroughly acceptable, in the sense to which we have come to love & respect the F word.

shudderbin 20 Sep 2008 , 12:01pm

It all boils down to one thing - GREED

Funkyalfa 20 Sep 2008 , 12:11pm

So then - what I need to do now if hope that the Fed dosn't bail out Morgan Stanley and go buy (borrow) some short posistions and wait a month?

Funkyalfa 20 Sep 2008 , 12:12pm

Mmmm, what colour shall I have my new Range Rover in do you think?

DerekC777 20 Sep 2008 , 1:12pm

I don't take exception from this being called an idiot's guide because even an idiot can understand it, although, fortunately, most of us are Foolish enough to know better, otherwise we wouldn't even look at this site! ;-)

(BTW, the BBC also has a good guide to short selling here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7519190.stm.)

I do, however, take exception to people blaming HBOS's miss-selling of mortgages for its low share price. First, we did not have the very low interest rates that led to the expansion of the sub-prime mortgage sector like the US, which consequently lead to the defaults on payments and the "toxic" debt that spread through the banking system by inter-banking loans and bonds.

Secondly, HBOS's balance sheet was sound. It did not over stretch itself like Northern Rock and has just re-mortgaged 1,000s of loans at higher rates bringing more money into the bank making its balance sheet even sounder. I know, I'm one of those who has recently re-mortgaged.

So why did it fail? It seems that the surprise that 158 year old Lehman Bros was going bankrupt sent jitters through the markets (not mention AIG or Morgan Stanly). Rumours about other banks start, particular about the largest UK mortgage lender, HBOS, which has 20% of the UK market. However, HBOS is sound, but markets believe the rumours.

Now this is where short-selling comes in. Rumours make the share price go down. The short-sellers see an opportunity to make money and sell high. This forces the share price down further and others, who do own stock, follow suit, and other short-sellers join in.

Now HBOS does have a problem. Investors are unwilling to lend money to HBOS that it needs for its mortgage business, because, on paper, it is not worth enough, which weakens HBOS further making the share price fall further. The rumours have now become a self-fulfilling prophecy. HBOS still has the same balance sheet, is still sound, but because of the low share price investors don't believe it. The share price only increases when Lloyds TSB seizes the opportunately to buy HBOS on the cheap - and the short-sellers buy back the HBOS shares.

Did short-selling cause the take-over of HBOS by Lloyds TSB? No. But it certainly did not help, and in markets driven by rumours where traders will sell stock based on hearsay, short-selling can be the straw that breaks the camel's back, or more likely, the shout that causes an avalanche of snow to fall on the innocent.

So, well done FSA! It's about time you did your job and started regulating... And well done traders, for excepting that you need more regulation.

YiamCross 20 Sep 2008 , 1:24pm

Well, puner2008, I expect the oiks being turfed out of Lehmans are laughing at you a lot more loudly than you are at them because they've got millions in bonus payments stashed away in places where the current financial turmoil will never hurt it. In fact they'll probably still be laughing loudly in a year or two when they mop up the bargains because they're the only ones with the cash to buy them. The people you're laughing at are probably staff on simple salaries who now have no job, no redundancy money and are probably owed a month or two in back pay. As is usual in these situations, the people who have no control over what's happening are the ones who pay the price whilst those who did the damage are sipping champagne in a high-class resort on a tropical island waiting for things to calm down a bit before they come back to pick up where they left off. Thank you America for confirming for them that nothing they do will ever have adverse consequences for their indefensible behaviour. Remember, if you're going to screw someone over make sure you do it on a grand scale so no one can ever allow the consequces of your actions to crystalise.

ponddigger 20 Sep 2008 , 2:31pm

That still does not explain why anyone would lend say a million quids worth of shares to say a hedge fund, knowing that when one got them back they might only be worth say half a million quid?, or if they were in Fannie or Freddie, maybe nothing.
If one actually owned them oneself you would want them to be worth more, or maybe that is what is wrong with the remains of my pension fund, it is bad enough to have management fees gouged out of it, but maybe they just think it is all a game.

Sungeipatani 20 Sep 2008 , 2:40pm

Whilst "short selling" may have had a marginal effect on HBOS and other shares, the real reason for the collapse in share price was just plain selling. People or institutions who held them sold them. This of course forced the selling price down which made people panic who then sold more and so on.

It was not greed that caused the collapse but fear.

janesk 20 Sep 2008 , 4:16pm

I think that if all the banks/financial institutions etc, called all the overseas debt in, we wouldn't be having a "credit crunch". We seem to carry on giving loans to these countries with no real chance of repayment ever. Why do they do that ??? I cannot see them giving me a few million on a non-repayment application, so why do it with countries that have no chance of ever repaying us, and putting these same countries into more & more debt ?? Makes no sense to me or millions of other Britains.

YiamCross 20 Sep 2008 , 4:31pm

You lend shares you have no intention of selling because you get a fee for doing what you were going to do anyway- keep the shares. If you thought they were going to go down, then you'd be selling them. I imagine it's hard to borrow shares to short if everybody believes they're going down the pan. As you say, why would anyone lend shares they know are going to be worth a lot less by the time they get them back?
That's the thing about the future, nobody knows what it's going to be, everything is so obvious with hindsight. Even when if you were sure you knew what's going to happen, would you have the guts to swap your savings for a short position that might cost you your house as well if things don't go the way you thought they would?

Share prices drop like a stone when the market makers can't find anywhere to place shares they're being offered, when everyone is selling and nobody wants to buy. Shorting doesn't have a lot to do with that.
Rumour must influence who wants to sell and who wants to buy but there's no smoke without fire and I'm sure not everyone dealing shares is that stupid. Let's be honest, it's more to do with being able to (or not!) trust what these companies report about their situation when it's obvious they've been playing a game they can't win once conditions have changed against them.
If these people had been doing the right thing all along there'd be no reason to believe there's a real risk they might be insolvent. I just think it's shameful that those at the top who should be looking 5-10 years ahead get a handsome payoff for steering their company onto the rocks just because that's where everyone else was heading.

zaplutus 20 Sep 2008 , 5:42pm

I just do not understand how you all can be so blind as to our own part in this "melt-down"! Before this crisis came about was it not the norm to walk away from any institution which would not give you the most instant, cheap, long term mortgage with minimum (if any) deposit? This very site (only one of many) is still urging its members to constantly "shop around" for cheaper and cheaper mortgages, loans, savings, current accounts et al.

What can the financial institutions do but quietly retire the prudent management and employ the "salesman" with promises of hugh rewards!

The consumer "war cry" for more than two decades via Television, Radio, Press and Internet has been "give me what I want or I walk".

For more than ten years now we have been witnessing a mortgage feeding frenzy - people who should have saved for a deposit on a home eventually thought it was their right to demand a 110 per cent, thirty five year mortgage!

It takes a very strong and confident bank to step back from a feeding frenzy like this and watch some of their market share walk away when they try to argue prudence. Thankfully there were a minority of banks which did take a long view despite the majority and the government constantly throwing fuel on the fire.

Most property owners have done very nicely up to now - lovely house, maybe two!, nice car from a second mortgage sometimes! All this because the public, government and media made it their mission to bring it all about. Now that we all find that we overstepped the mark and have to make adjustments we are so blinkered that we really believe the fault lies in only one place.

We all played our part in creating the current situation and we all benefitted on the journey - yes especially the obscene bonuses in the bank boardroom! But come on - open your eyes, the banks couldn't have busted themselves without us, the consumer.

jamesunsen 20 Sep 2008 , 6:45pm

houses in this country are overvalued by a factor of 2 to 3. Until this is rectified, ie. the bubble bursts, mortgage lenders are continuing to be at risk. Further hard times ahead?

Fingered 21 Sep 2008 , 4:28am

It ain't really the Shorters .....that's just too easy. Google this and have fun reading: " Alternative Net Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers That Are Part of Consolidated Supervised Entities"

Fingered 21 Sep 2008 , 4:43am

Forgot to add........ The regulators just shut down Ameribank. That's the 12th U.S.one this year. Seems the Bailouts-R-Us plans of the Fed and Uncle Sam are working just fine and the whole financial nuclear winter will soon be sorted out.

kensutton 21 Sep 2008 , 10:40am

If you are a long-term holder of an share say an index tracker, then you could make extra money by loaning out your shares, even if you agree with the shorter that the price was heading lower. However in efficient markets ( is the such a thing?) for every buyer who thinks the price is heading down another expects it to rise and would be happy to get the extra money from the hedger.

4beatlefans 22 Sep 2008 , 1:14pm

My (lack of) understanding of the money markets may be apparant, but this is my perception; when there are big profits, the greedy take them, then when it all goes wrong, they go bleating to the government and then the taxpayer bails them out...

Cookie83 22 Sep 2008 , 1:40pm

Hi,

Great article. The stumbling block I find is getting people to understand the part of selling something you don't own...

Anyhoo. My question, if anyone could answer it, is what happens if the shares are not available to be rebought...? Or is this something that would not occur in real life?

Cookie

DoctorPooh 22 Sep 2008 , 3:59pm

Great article - I now understand how SS works... a few queries though, as I understand it actual ownership of the shares lies with the holder of the share certificate so is it really possible to unoficially "rent" shares off someone for a few days? If the shorters are selling their rented shares then they are selling something that they don't actually own. If I was a landlord I'd be pretty irritated if a tenant sold a property I was renting him lol. Dubious practice all round.

Additionally what about the cost of each trade? should this not be put into the equation.

Fingered 22 Sep 2008 , 6:53pm

Cookie83, what you are describing is something called "Naked" short selling. Naked short selling, or naked shorting, is the practice of selling a stock short without first borrowing the shares or ensuring that the shares can be borrowed as is done in a conventional short sale. When the seller does not then obtain the shares within the required time frame, the result is known as a "fail to deliver". However, the transaction generally continues to sit open until the shares are acquired by the seller or the seller's broker, allowing a trade to occur when the order is filled. ......there's a ton of legislation in this area, not always effective.

crazybucks1 23 Sep 2008 , 5:45pm

I'm from the US and I like reading your comments. I'm trying to understand what happened because it doesn't make sense at all other than "the big boys got caught." Anyway, I checked my retirement account because I had it in a stable fund and right now there is no loss. What was interesting though, was when I came across a fact sheet that defined these various funds. Here's one of the funds:
Lehman Brothers US Credit Index: Is the US Credit component of the US Government/Credit Index. It consists of publicly issued US corporate and specified foreign debentures and secured notes that meet the wspecified maturity, liquidity, and quality requirements etc.
The US Government decided not to bail out Lehman Brothers, but decided to bail out AIG. So now, I'm curious about who the players are and why the collapse. I think the problem runs deep in the bowels of, some of those who rule and those that conduct business. Hands washing hands.

justb 02 Oct 2008 , 9:25am

We all know the market runs on rumour, fear and greed usually in that order.

Shorters are like the hyenas picking over the carcase after the management has done its worst and the true shareholders are left with the bones or worse. Shorting is not a problem in a stable market, they win some and lose some, but once the market becomes vulnerable they can create a run on shares which can kill a company completely. In this type of market it is the lenders of the shares who are the stupid ones. No point getting a fat fee if your underlying share value is wiped out.

The main reason I object to shorters is that they do just that hold shares for a short time and thus make the company's share price vulnerable. Companies want a stable share price to be able to value their business and raise any finance they need to raise. Shares should be held by those with a long term view in order to enable companies to grow and then return value to their shareholders through an increase in share price and dividends. But there will always be people who will gamble with anything.
Thank god I no longer work for a listed plc.

taikosan 02 Oct 2008 , 5:53pm

It's not the small short-sellers who cause the havoc - it's when the big bullies short-sell millions of pounds worth in one go that hits the markets. Once the share drops by say 5% or so, that sets up selling by the stop-loss group so it goes down more. This sets off fear of the unknown, by other investors, and before long it becomes a bloodbath. Stopping the market bullies can only be done by banning the practice altogether or limiting the amount anyone can short. This latter solution would be virtually impossible to control so banning it has to be.

captainbucks 02 Oct 2008 , 9:31pm

I like this article as the author/s do not seem to just automatically think one understands the concept of selling something you don't own. (like the BBC site does.) But can someone knowledgeable PLEASE tell me:

What happens if I cannot 'buy back' a share I have borrowed and then sold? I can understand that it may in reality be the case that there are always shares avaialble for a certain price, but what if I, the short-seller, have made a bad choice, the share price rises and then my own finances happen to be in such a state that I cannot afford to buy the share/ all of the shares back?

Who then actually owns the share? The person who I sold it to or its owner? What happens to me?

Join the conversation

Please take note - some tags have changed.

Line breaks are converted automatically.

You may use the following tags in your post: [b]bolded text[/b], [i]italicised text[/i]. All other tags will be removed from your post.

If you want to add a link, please ensure you type it as http://www.fool.co.uk as opposed to www.fool.co.uk.

Hello stranger

To add your own comment, please login.

Not yet registered? Register now.