Naked short: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 24: Line 24:
===[[Finbar Saunders]]===
===[[Finbar Saunders]]===
I know what you’re thinking: are you seriously telling me you’re passing up the opportunity to make some sort of louche ''[[double entendre]]'' in an article about naked shorts? I bet you ''[[never knew’d]]'' that kind of thing could happen. I call it a ''[[cut-off]]''.
I know what you’re thinking: are you seriously telling me you’re passing up the opportunity to make some sort of louche ''[[double entendre]]'' in an article about naked shorts? I bet you ''[[never knew’d]]'' that kind of thing could happen. I call it a ''[[cut-off]]''.
{{c3|Stock Lending|Equities|Regulation}}

Revision as of 19:34, 30 December 2020

GMSLA Anatomy™


2010 GMSLA: Full wikitext · Nutshell wikitext | GMLSA legal code | GMSLA Netting

Pledge GMSLA: Hard copy (ISLA) · Full wikitext · Nutshell wikitext |
1995 OSLA: OSLA wikitext | OSLA in a nutshell | GMSLA/PGMSLA/OSLA clause comparison table
From Our Friends On The Internet: Guide to equity finance | ISLA’s guide to securities lending for regulators and policy makers

Navigation
2010 GMSLA 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · Schedule · Agency Annex · Addendum for Pooled Principal Agency Loans

2018 Pledge GMSLA 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · Schedule · Agency Annex

Stock lending agreement comparison: Includes navigation for the 2000 GMSLA and the 1995 OSLA

Index: Click to expand:

Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter.

Adapted from an enlightening Reuters blog:

These have been significantly affected by the EU Short Selling Regulations introduced in 2012.

Uncovered or “naked” shorts

“Naked” shorts are positions whereby a firm sells shares that they do not own or have not borrowed. Instead of buying or borrowing the shares before selling them on, the seller will hope to purchase the shares prior to delivering on its sale or in some cases will just fail to deliver those shares.

Example

Seller X sells shares in A at $50 each for delivery on T+3. X hopes that the value of A’s shares fall in the interim period so that X can purchase A shares at less than $50 before delivering them to the buyer whilst pocketing the difference.

Naked short selling can lead to “failed to deliver” notices whereby the short seller is unable to obtain the securities and therefore fails to deliver them to the buyer. Such fail to delivers were suspected of having created market volatility and sharp decreases in share values.

Short Selling Regulations

The new regulations largely do away with naked short selling by requiring firms to have either borrowed or be able to borrow shares to cover their short positions (or in the case of sovereign borrowing to have some corresponding hedge).

In respect of company shares the regulations require either that a firm has:

  • Borrowed sufficient shares to settle the short trade;
  • Entered into a binding agreement to borrow those shares; or
  • Has an arrangement with a third party (known as a “Locate”) under which the third party has confirmed that the shares have been located and there is a reasonable expectation that they will be delivered.

The guts of the short selling notices are here

Finbar Saunders

I know what you’re thinking: are you seriously telling me you’re passing up the opportunity to make some sort of louche double entendre in an article about naked shorts? I bet you never knew’d that kind of thing could happen. I call it a cut-off.