Wow... Crazy Day... SEC Limits Naked Shorting on Fannie, Freddie, Lehman, Morgan, and Goldman

Wildest day--and I'm not even a day trader :) In what seems like an unprecedented move, SEC is limitting naked shorting of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the primary dealers (Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and Lehman Brothers):

Christopher Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, said on Tuesday that the regulator will try to limit so-called naked shorting of shares in Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and primary dealers including Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. The SEC will issue an emergency order stating that all short sales of shares in these companies will be subject to a "pre-borrow" requirement, Cox explained. This will last for 30 days, he added. The SEC is also planning more rule-making focused on the broader market, Cox said.


I'm not sure what this means for shorts who took positions in the last few weeks, such as William Ackman and others, if they can't deliver the shares. I suspect it probably applies to new positions and it only applies to naked shorting. Naked shorting, for those not familiar, is when you sell short a stock without actually borrowing a physical share. Naked shorting is generally not illegal and some, such as Patrick Byrne of Overstock.com, have argued that it hurts businesses.

The problem faced by financials is that a lot of people (generally the efficent market crowd) perceive market prices as being reality when in fact it may or may not be. In other words, financials depend on trust which comes from the share price. This is one reason some are suggesting that Lehman Brothers should go private. Even though the fundamentals won't change if Lehman were private, it won't be subject to rumours like it is facing now.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Thoughts on the stock market - March 2020

Image
Right now, DJIA has a P/E of 16.8 and forwand P/E of 15.1, whereas S&P 500 is at 20.1 with forward P/E of 15.8. Source: WSJ market Data If you ignore interest rates and inflation expectations--both of these influence valuations but depends on your macro call-- the market is not cheap. Long-term P/E is around 15. Trailing P/E is around 20% (Dow) to 40% (S&P500) higher than average. Forward P/E is in line with long term average but that assumes a strong V recovery. Consensus forecast is for profits to drop 1.2% in 2020. In 2008, it dropped 25.4% so current forecast is a very mild recession. Covid-19 coronavirus is not going to last more than a few months but these forecasts are still too rosy in my opinion. So I wouldn't rely on forward P/E. The richly valued (mostly tech or high quality) have not fallen much but the distressed ones have. So if you want to outperform in the long run, I think one’s choice right now is to: • Wait for market to fall another, say
✖ READ MORE >>>

Warren Buffett's Evolution and his Three Investment Styles

Image
A Young Warren Buffett In a comment to one of my posts , Mark Carter, who incidentally appears to have a  good blog worth checking out , asked: "Buffett Prime is 1970's to early 1990's" Could you elaborate? I have vaguely indicated how I view Warren Buffett in the past, but I thought I would detail my view of his investing behaviour. This is more of an opinion piece and many others would disagree with me (if you do, I'm curious to hear your thoughts). I don't follow Warren Buffett as closely as many value investors so I may get some facts wrong. My view is that Warren Buffett went through three different phases, with each consisting of different investment techniques. The overall investment theory remained the same—what people call value investing—but his execution, tactics, and strategy differs across the three phases. Some people may break up his career into additional periods but my feeling is that the three I will describe essentially capt
✖ READ MORE >>>

Hugh Hendry discussion at the Alternative Investment Conference

Thanks to Value Investing World for bringing this Hugh Hendry interview to my attention. I may not agree with all the things—short-term orientation of hedge funds is actually worse IMO; the sharp pencil effect doesn't always work—but Hendry is a true contrarian and worth listening. Like Marc Faber or Jim Rogers, you also can't take everything Hugh Hendry says seriously. I had always felt Hugh Hendry was firmly in the deflation camp but I get the feeling that he is now opening up to high-inflation possibilities. Otherwise, his stance appears to be similar to past opinions.
✖ READ MORE >>>