Short selling lies

esbo

baby_boomer wrote: »

Large scale selling makes a share go down.

This is geared gambling, and the gambler has an edge if the stock is a bank and the times are scary.

If your fund manager is lending out these shares, adding to management income, you have to ask if he is acting in your best interests. Are short term fees more important to him than the value of your equity holdings?

Of course he is not acting in your interest, he is effectively robbing you by devaluing your shares and pocketing the profit himself, you don't get any of that profit whatsoever.

It is no wonder our finiancial system is bankrupt when it stuffed with such criminals.
I would take the lot of them out and line them up against a wall.

purch

The bottom line is that someone owned stock in a failing Bank group, that was a mere shell of the once proud Halifax Building Society founded in 1853, and Bank of Scotland, the first Bank in Scotland, founded in 1695. Two grand old institutions raped and pillaged by greed, who were reduced to offering mortgage deals to people on overvalued assets, with no way of paying them back, and 0% credit cards to all and sundry in the vain hope of achieving 'market share'

A company that too easily forgot it's prudent and long standing methods to chase the 'quick buck' using an already failed and discredited business model.

Now if I was stupid enough to hold that Stock I'd want to blame someone else for my loss.............and the 'faceless' short sellers of the gossip blogs are a prime suspect.

Anything to avoid facing up to your own shortcomings.

It is no wonder our finiancial system is bankrupt when it stuffed with such criminals

Yes you are right....the Board and Executives of HBOS have a lot to answer for......

cvd

Yes you are right....the Board and Executives of HBOS have a lot to answer for......

I suggest the real culprits are the directors of the old Halifax Building Society who made a large amount from demutualisation and all the silly members who were bribed into voting for it.

I voted against and sold my shares for about £8.50 a long time ago.

esbo

However the owners of the stock are entitled to hold onto it to mainitain it's value, its called supply and demand. It is not for other people to have their stock stolen and sold behind their backs to create a false market and devalue it.
Sure I have nothing against people selling stock they own but you have to buy it first.
But for people lend stock they don't own so that it can be sold against the true owners interest is just plain criminal as are those lending it.
Hence they have to dream up a special name for it 'short selling' because the real name 'theft', well that just kinda sounds like the kind of thing people get thrown into
jail for isn't it?
And yes I agree the Board and Executives of HBOS are crooks too but is not quite the same issue. A criminal leglistuer(?) allows them to get away with it.

purch

But for people lend stock they don't own so that it can be sold against the true owners interest is just plain criminal as are those lending it

You can't disagree with that sentiment.........but in my honest opinion blaming the short sellers is just a smoke screen that hides the real story behind the demise of HBOS

esbo

purch wrote: »

You can't disagree with that sentiment.........but in my honest opinion blaming the short sellers is just a smoke screen that hides the real story behind the demise of HBOS

I don't think so I think their shares would have recovered in the long term but the
short sellers ensured there was no long term. But either way it is not right that someone
can sell someone elses shares without their permission into the worst possible market.

poppy10_2

esbo wrote: »

either way it is not right that someone
can sell someone elses shares without their permission

Oh !!!!!!. How many times! They don't sell the shares without permission, the owner of the shares agrees to lend them the shares for a period of time and gets paid a fee in return.

esbo

poppy10 wrote: »

Oh !!!!!!. How many times! They don't sell the shares without permission, the owner of the shares agrees to lend them the shares for a period of time and gets paid a fee in return.

I have already been through this who in their right mind would be lending out shares so their value could be trashed? It was pretty clear there was going to be no recovery in the short term.

sdooley

I saw big adverts splurged all over the Tube on my last trip to London for iShares, an exchange traded fund which promises to 'totally defray management costs through stock lending' saying 'not all index trackers and ETFs are the same' - or something very similar.

Apparently that's part of Barclays.

It's a prisoner's dillema - like Martin's problem this week - stock lending causes the long positions you hold to be weakened more on average than the income you get from lending the shares out - but if everyone else is doing it the shares will be weakened anyway and you won't get that income.

The efficient outcome for the market as a whole and the efficient outcome for each individual investor can conflict. Market's aren't perfect, on earth at least.

Debt_Free_Chick

esbo wrote: »

I have already been through this who in their right mind would be lending out shares so their value could be trashed? It was pretty clear there was going to be no recovery in the short term.

Institutional investors - fund managers and pension funds