Short Sellers: The Unsung Heroes of the Financial Crisis
Last year, as the collapse of the housing bubble was threatening to turn Wall Street into a pre-industrial economy, many leading financial commentators were blaming short-sellers for the meltdown. They argued that the fundamentals of the financial industry were essentially sound. The only problem was that evil short-sellers had teamed up to push the price of the stock of Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG and the rest into the toilet. In response this outcry, the Securities and Exchange Commission actually took steps to limit the shorting of financial stocks.
As should be very clear in retrospect, the problem was not the shorts. The problem was that the clowns who ran these institutions somehow failed to see the largest asset bubble in the history of the world. As a result, they made huge bets that went bad, and drove their companies into bankruptcy.
The shorters were actually performing a valuable public service in calling attention to the bad financial state of these companies. At a time when Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson were insisting that everything was fine, and the bond rating agencies were blessing every piece of crap in sight with an investment grade rating, the shorters were telling the public that all hell was about to break loose. And of course, they were right.
There has been insufficient appreciation of the positive role that shorters played in this story. They were the ones that effectively brought the speculative party to an end. By dumping bonds and buying up credit default swaps on the sick financial giants' debt, in addition to shorting their stock, the shorters made it impossible for these companies to continue their reckless ways.
Of course the shorters were not trying to perform a public service. They were trying to make money. However, in pursuing profits, they did what the Fed failed to do: they brought the dangerous inflation of a housing bubble to an end.
This is important to understand because shorting continues to be held in disrepute even though last year's shorters have been entirely vindicated by events. Shorting is often confused with stock manipulation - deliberately trading in a way to move the market.
Stock manipulation is illegal and should be punished, but there is no reason to believe that it is any more prevalent on the short side than the long side. In other words, there is no reason to believe that big traders use short selling any more frequently to manipulate stock prices than they use buying to manipulate stock prices. This is just superstition. And an over-valued stock price is no more desirable than an under-valued stock price. Traders inflating a stock's price through manipulation are doing every bit as much harm as those who depress the stock price through short-side manipulation.
When it comes to the economics of shorting, it is not just the image of shorters that is at issue. Part of the story of the bank rescues engineered by the Bernanke, Paulson, Geithner crew is that they have made shorting sick financial giants a dangerous exercise. By using the taxpayers' dollars to keep these behemoths afloat, they have made a bet against Citigroup, Goldman and the rest far more risky.
As a result of the bailouts, if a trader recognizes that Goldman has filled its books with bad bets or that J.P. Morgan stands to take a beating on commercial real estate, she may still not want to short the company's stocks because of the risk that Bernanke and Geithner will hand them the cash needed to make up their losses. This is another aspect of the moral hazard problem created by the rescue. It helps to undermine one of the few market mechanisms that could prevent or at least limit another dangerous bubble.
When the collapse of Lehman put the country's financial system on edge, the government had two concerns. One was to keep the financial system operating in order to limit damage to the economy. The other was to protect the interests of the major banks and their top management. The country had no reason to protect the wealth and power of this clique: these were the people who brought us this disaster.
Unfortunately, the Fed and Treasury focused on protecting the major banks. As a result, the banks are still run by people who are immensely wealthy and, if anything, they are probably better situated to promote speculative bubbles in the future. And the market forces that could in principle rein in speculative excesses, like short-selling, are weaker than ever.




















I listened to the NPR/BBC radio dramatization of the Lehman meltdown weekend, and it was strangely sad and moving. Almost made you feel for Richard Fuld, that you had witnessed the death of a person. Short-sellers were the prime movers behind those events.
The failure of the Treasury to rescue Lehman would seem to have been due to Bush officials being intimidated by Republican Congressional yahoos loudly protesting the Bear Stearns and Fannie/Freddie rescues.
At the end of the day you can trace almost everything that has gone wrong in modern America to the Republican Party.
September 15, 2009 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, now it is Obama officials being intimidated by fewer but louder Republican Congressional yahoos.
So, which Republican party do we blame now -- the Southern-fried overt one or the Copperhead covert one?
September 15, 2009 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Everything due to the Republican Party? That's very funny.
The primary reason for Lehman's failure was that they went hog wild buying mortgage related assets of very poor credit quality. And to make it worse they levered themselves up to fund those purchases.
September 15, 2009 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're almost there, just a little more:
- why did they go hog wild buying mortgage-related assets
- why were the mortgage-related assets they bought of very poor quality
- why did they leverage themselves to do so
September 16, 2009 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Having worked in the industry and traded with Lehman, I think I have a good grasp of it. So in response to your questions:
- why did they go hog wild buying mortgage-related assets
Because the Fed injected so much liquidity into the market post 9/11 and the dot-com crash that all of a sudden housing became the investment that everybody thought "couldn't lose". So Lehman and others underwrote securities for which there was incredible demand in 2004, 2005 and 2006. Lehman (and my ex-firm) knew that there would be plenty of buyers for this paper. So if you could sell it and unload a lot of risk while at the same time collecting big underwriting fees, life was good. People like Lehman even held on to some of the higher rated (aka AAA tranches) on their own books because those returns were a lot better than something comparable like Treasuries.
- why were the mortgage-related assets they bought of very poor quality
The firms doing the securitizations like Lehman and Bear bought every mortgage they could get their hands on. They needed supply and they could re-package it. The buyers of the securitizations got really lazy and relied on the Moodys and S&P ratings rather than doing their own credit analysis. Everybody's credit standards went to hell because people forgot about the 1980's and started believing the myth that real estate always went up. So Countrywide started making more and more subprime loans. Lehman bought them because it knew it could repackage and sell them to Fannie, Freddie and a bunch of dumb commercial banks.
- why did they leverage themselves to do so
Why not. Why raise more equity when instead you could borrow? Why buy a house with money down if instead the bank tells you that you can do 100% debt? Remember - real estate always goes up!!
The investment banks had been running very high leverage ratios for decades.
We ran risk models thinking that the 1% probability at each tail end would never happen. Unfortunately, we saw the 1% scenario actually happen and some banks like Lehman didn't live to tell about it.
September 16, 2009 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Back in the day, at the height of the Cold War there was a popular doctrine in BoWash/Londinium called "convergence". It held that the US and the USSR had to emulate each other, each compromising its "capitalist" or "socialist" principles, respectively, in order to pursue (a) the arms race and (b) proxy wars around the globe.
As a result, the USSR freed its ordnance sector executives to operate like 19th-century capitalist factory owners while the Pentagon pursued Stalinist giantism and mediocrity.
We, of course, still denounced the Soviet 5-year plans as a "command economy", even though the ordnance sector was exempt and the KGB ran the Soviet "hard currency" external economy like a bunch of late nineteenth-century imperialists.
But, lo and behold, even though that is all, presumably, over, the Anglo-American economy is burdened with a 7x GDP "derivatives book" that, in effect, straps the whole of the real economy to OTC price-bets among our nomenklature of finance-commissars.
What is next? Will the Davos Comintern send the short-sellers to Siberia.
September 15, 2009 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seems safest to assume that most of what I have to say about this item would seem off topic to others.
But still, Dr. Baker does, rather implausibly, take for granted that everybody wants to know the full awful truth well in advance, does he not?
Happy days.
September 15, 2009 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is an idiotic post. I don't have time to go into full detail, as I am actually working on issues related to the Lehman bankruptcy in a professional capacity.
Briefly, to suggest that there was enough "toxic waste" in the overall portfolio to mandate the implosion of the company doesn't seem supported by available evidence. Lehman was no more under water with these assets than any of the other major investment banks save Goldman. What basically killed Lehman were the short sellers and market panic (which, of course, was largely fed by the shorts).
Short-selling is a leveraged activity, so the shorter takes very little initial risk. You may argue that much buy-side stock is bought on margin, so the longs are infected by leverage as well.. But assets inflation is not as immediately and irrevocably destructive as a panciked run to the bottom. Once you hit zero, you've got nowhere else to go.
It is the relentless focus to demonstrate earnings growth on a quarterly (now often monthly or less) basis that is the underlying problem. The idea that a hedge fund can destroy a decades-old company (not referring to Lehman here) through manipulation of its stock price should disgust anyone interested in the sustainable functioning of the "real economy." In that hedge funds and large-scale short sellers give greedy stock manipulators the ability to disrupt and even destroy that ability to function effectviely, they should be regulated to the point of putting them out of business.
September 15, 2009 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lehman was no more under water with these assets than any of the other major investment banks
That is a defense? Just because all the other kids were playing with matches it is not fair just because my house burned down first that I should be blamed.
September 15, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not defneding Lehman. I just think the argument that short sellers are somehow heroes in all this is absurd.
September 15, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely! Shorting should be simply illegal. They 'borrow' stock from an investor, who receives nothing in exchange, with the goal of destroying the value of the stock and causing the investor to lose his money. The short makes money, the broker makes money, the investor loses. It is similar to allowing people to sell other people's houses without their approval, hoping that by putting massive numbers of homes on the market the price will crash and people that need to sell will be wiped out. Who would support that? With hedge funds and the internet, shorts can now destroy any company, and they should be stopped. It is not investing, it is anti-investing.
September 15, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think you really understand the dynamics of short selling. Shorting a healthy stock will not cause the demise of that company. In fact, if shorts must be covered, it can have the effect of driving the price up. In Lehman's case many big players realized that they were basically insolvent and cashed in on the opportunity. The real scandal is that the other insolvent banks were allowed to continue.
September 15, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Equally absurd is the argument that the shorts are the reason Lehman went under.
September 17, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's absurd is that you insist on acting as if you know what you're talking about:
"By September 11, 2008, according to the SEC, as many as 32.8 million Lehman shares had been sold and not delivered – a 57-fold increase over the peak of the prior year. For a very large company like Lehman, with plenty of “float” (available shares for trading), this unprecedented number was highly suspicious and warranted serious investigation."
From "Wall Street's 9/11": Did Lehman Brothers Fall or Was It Pushed?"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15103
September 18, 2009 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Test
September 18, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Assuming your right and all those fails were due to naked shorts, how does shorting approximately 5% of Lehman's float on a "naked" basis make the company go under?
I've been through all of Lehman's real estate holdings as part of due diligence and it was so toxic that nobody wanted to buy them. The top management team had no clue what was going on and the risk management systems failed them.
They were a dead man walking well before September of 2008.
September 18, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I've been through all of Lehman's real estate holdings as part of due diligence and it was so toxic that nobody wanted to buy them."
Nope. The problem was that nobody wanted to buy them at the price Lehman was offering. Fuld continued to avoid the writedowns that were necessary to move assets that needed to be moved.
You're generally right about the macro reasons for Lehman's fall. But the liquidity issues they faced were being faced by every financial institution. Lehman's stock had been subject to manipulation for about a year-and-a-half prior to their bankruptcy, and the drop in their stock price was the precipitating factor in their collapse.
September 18, 2009 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK - fine. People wanted to buy them at 10 or 20 cents on the dollar and Fuld thought that was too low. You know what? He screwed up. Thain saved Merrill in the same circumstances.
But to get back to your original point - about the 33 millions shares sold but not delivered - how does shorting 5% of the open interest cause them to go under? You cited that quote as if that was supposed to explain why Lehman failed. And now you're saying that the manipulation was more than just on 9/11/08 but somehow for the last year and a half? C'mon, pick an argument and stick to it.
The liquidity issues were NOT being faced by every financial institution, only those that made poor decisions with respect to their balance sheets, credit and their risk models.
I'm not sure what your background is but you claim to be on the inside. Which makes your comments even more surprising
September 18, 2009 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you can't understand the argument that there might be more than one cause precipitating an event the magnitude of Lehman's failure, there's really no point in discussing it further. As late as July 2008, rating agencies were wondering why the market was so down on Lehman stock. What changed in the three months before Lehman delcared BK?
"Thain saved Merrill in the same circumstances"
Really? Your are aware that Paulson threatened Ken Lewis with removal of him and his BOD if they didn't buy Merrill, and that Merrill is still an albatross around BofA's neck, right?
September 18, 2009 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am open ears to your argument but I just don't agree with it. You said "what basically killed Lehman is the short sellers." You brought up the naked shorts showing a spike of 33 million shares. My question is how the shorting of only 5% of the float on that day could have caused their demise. You then went on with another "factoid" - that their stock price was subject to "manipulation for a year and a half". That is also hard to swallow.
Lehman went under because nobody wanted to lend to them any longer. An old fashioned "run on the bank". But that would have happened even if people weren't shorting the stock. The other banks knew how screwed up their balance sheet was. There are other market signals which show a company is not healthy, such as their credit spreads.
I bet a lot of traders shorted GM and Lyondell too, but it wasn't the shorts that caused them to go bankrupt either.
I would love to know what your "professional capacity" is that makes you so certain that is was the short sellers that killed Lehman.
September 18, 2009 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Last fall regulators were engaged in an attempt to put a halt to the loss of confidence that sophisticated investors and speculators were exhibiting in respect to the pricing of structured/securitized instruments.
Or to say it differently, regulators worried that no one was going to loan money to an enterprise that had a large amount of this "toxic waste" (that is, assets of unknown value) on the asset side of its balance sheet. No loans -- credit crunch.
I've never understood why people thought (if they did) that the collapse of the market value of certain high-profile FIRE stocks was anything other than a second order effect -- or that holding the market values of these stocks up would increase confidence in the values of structured products.
Anybody?
September 15, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regulators weren't engaged in attempting to put a halt to the loss of confidence, they were engaged in an attempt to prop up stock prices.
Kudos to Dean Baker for recognizing that in this case, the market was right and it was the government's intervention that was keeping the market from reflecting the true value of the underlying instruments.
September 15, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You say tomato, I say tomahto.
Actually, quelling a panic requires a restoration of confidence and is the regulator's primary goal.
Stock prices may reflect the current state of confidence. But savvy investors and speculators know that a bank's stock price -- especially when there's little accounting transparency -- doesn't tell them much about whether the bank can pay back its debts (and that's the source of the lack of confidence).
Why did SEC Chairman Cox think (if he did) that keeping Citigroup's stock price elevated would convince anyone that investing in Citi's short-term paper was wise?
September 15, 2009 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because he assumes investors aren't savvy? Or that at least, there are investors out there who are not savvy?
Also, the whole point is that shorting is no more manipulative than actually buying the stock. You're just betting that the market is overvalued, not undervalued. Without short sales, markets are less efficient (which of course was what the government wanted, since and efficient market would be politically inconvenient).
Besides, if it didn't work you could always blame the market for being irrational. The man in the street won't realize it was irrational because YOU ruined it...
September 21, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
More importantly, however, both short and long positions are attached to human emotions: fear and greed respectively. Of the two, it is hard to say if one is stronger, but it is quite clear that one operates on much shorter time scales: namely, fear. Greed can motivate someone to do something over time, but fear can motivate someone to do something immediately, in a panic. No one ever panics over greed.
Because fear operates on "fast time", manipulation based on fear is more effective than manipulation based on greed. This is why manipulators are more inclined to work the short side than the long side: it works better, on average. (This is again balanced out by the fact that the market goes up, on average, over the long term, which pushes manipulators toward the "greed" side of the equation. But that happens mainly during bull markets, when short and long manipulation are more nearly equal.)
September 15, 2009 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Plus, out of control long investing (greed, in your analysis) hurts primarily those who overinvest in a company. Short selling can harm the rational investor by pushing a stock below its "real" value.
September 15, 2009 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some interesting perspectives on how to protect yourself, no matter what some Wall St. wankers decide to do:
http://danielamerman.com/
September 15, 2009 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The real problem with short selling comes with naked short selling: the practice of selling a financial instrument short without first borrowing the security or ensuring that the security can be borrowed as is done in a conventional short sale. The buyer of these stocks typically is not even aware that he does not actually own the stocks, but merely has an IOU in his brokerage account.
At best, the practice is fraudulent in that the purchaser of the stocks actually believes that he owns the stocks, when in fact, he owns nothing but a promise. Of course, the purchaser may never learn this, unless the short seller defaults on his obligation to eventually purchase the stocks -- which may not even exist.
September 16, 2009 6:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that overlooking the distinction between naked and covered shorting is important, and that Baker should have made it. True, in daily practice by smaller investors, the difference may be a technicality, but when large players start shorting in large amounts, naked shorting is very different, isnt' it? One could short more stock of a company, for example, than is really in circulation. Under such circumstances, almost any company's stock can be driven down (selling more stock than there is in a short time will do so), leading to relatively safe profits for the shorter.
In contrast, while shares for conventional shorting are always available for loan, large holders might well refuse to 'loan' their stocks to the shorters in the quantities needed for large-scale market manipulation.
A second safeguard used to be the uptick rule -- as I understand it, roughly that a short sale cannot be initiated except at a moment when a stock's price has, at least momentarily, trended upwards. This protects against death-spiral shorting: if no one is willing to buy a stock, the price will never tick up, and shorting will be limited.
With the ability to naked short without upticks, almost any firm could be driven to zero. This is no defense of Bear, Lehmann, or the other finance stocks that crashed or nearly crashed: I think Baker's point about the role of (conventional) shorting of their stock is relevant.
Again, as everywhere else: markets work when they are structured, transparent, and set up to avoid manipulation. Markets are not 'natural', but human-created phenomena that depend on human regulation of one kind or another.
September 16, 2009 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is a remedy for naked shorts. It's called a squeeze. Volkswagen made several billion dollars that way a few years ago. And of course when the volume of shorts exceeds the actual volume of stock, the liability of short sellers is legally unlimited.
I think that a few tweaks in the regulations would have a salutary effect on manipulative shorting. A company that was monitoring short sales could, with the co-operation of its large investors, notify the SEC that the number of shares sold short exceeded the number currently on the market and commence mandatory buyin, largest transactions first.
September 16, 2009 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
September 16, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink