CRASHING THE MARKET: Short Selling Shares That Don't Exist For Fun and Profit.

(Foreword - In the following, the words “stocks” and “shares” mean the same thing and are interchangeable. Similarly, “share scrip” and “share certificates” are interchangeable. I have assumed, too, that you, the reader, are familiar with Credit Creation or the way money comes into existence through banking practice. If you are not familiar with this foundational piece of corruption in Western society, you can read about it here – Warring Worlds pt4b )

If I were to tell you that you had been 'shorted' in a deal you made, most people would ordinarily take that to mean you had been cheated. Being shorted is being dudded. So 'shorting the market' or 'short selling' is a very aptly named practice because basically it is cheating the market, i.e. it's fraud. Too many years ago, I worked for the Melbourne Stock Exchange in Australia and 'short selling' was banned there then for this reason because it involves selling something you don't have and that's illegal most places I know. It's really, really simple. (What the situation is now at the MSE I don't know). Back then when delivery of scrip was a lengthy process it was my understanding, and also of everyone I knew, that the short sellers simply took advantage of this lengthy delay. I heard no one talking about 'borrowing' share scrip (certificates) to deliver and replacing them at a later date. The 'borrowing scrip' idea is a relatively new explanation to my ears, at least, and this explanation is, no doubt, necessary now because of the much faster electronic settlement times. But, it still leaves many questions.

So how and why does it operate and how is it all explained away by the industry? The explanation goes like this: a trader considers a stock to be overvalued and expects the price to fall in the near future. So to profit from the situation, the trader borrows shares from someone to sell into the market. When the stock falls in price, the trader buys back the shares to give back to the compliant lender and everybody is happy. That's the story and I don't believe it. I have never believed it because it never made sense; and it still doesn't! Who's going to lend the trader his shares to do this especially when it is perfectly obvious that selling the 'borrowed' shares on the market is going to help depress the price? Why would anyone lend a trader their shares so this 'borrower' could devalue them? It's nuts, of course.

So how do they actually pull it off? Until fairly recently, I didn't know. But then I came across the following articles on the net and all was revealed. The conclusions that I will state presently are not stated in the articles but their reality is undeniable once they are highlighted.

Here are the articles in question and to save my fingers from Repetitive Strain Injury, would you, gentle reader, go have a Bo Peep at them before reading on?

Links-
You don't really own the shares you think you own

The unknown 20 trillion dollar company

WSJ: Blame the 'Stock Vault'?

Okay, so now you know that most stockholders never get their name on their stock certificates. Indeed, they never even sight their share certificates. They instead have an account with their broker that says they are the 'beneficial owners' of the stock. It's remarkably like the situation of having money in the bank; you have an account in their computer and that's all. The name that is actually on the stock certificates is “Cede & Co” (or similar) as in you cede ownership to Cede & Co. Ironic, no? Cynical, more likely. The similarity with a bank doesn't end there. It seems from all the preceding information that it is reasonable, even unavoidable, to conclude that the short sellers 'borrow' shares in exactly the same way a person 'borrows' money from a bank and both come from the same source; thin air. These borrowed shares are invented and exist temporarily in a double entry type bookeeping system until the short sellers buy back shares to cancel these 'virtual' shares. It is essentially the same method whereby banks lend money that doesn't exist and this extra money has a life until the loan is paid back and the extra virtual money disappears again. This seemingly fraudulent practice has been legitimised through the passing of laws allowing this banking practice. It is called 'Fractional Reserve Banking' overseen in the US by the Federal Reserve Board. The same practice involving shares, stock brokers, the New York Stock Exchange in particular and the Depository Trust Company, is not likewise legal as far as I know.

Cede and Co (the registered name on almost all stock) is the nominee company used and owned by the Depository Trust Company (DTC) otherwise known as the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC).
Who owns DTC?
Answer, the New York Stock Exchange.
Who owns the New York Stock Exchange?
Answer, the same Federal Reserve Board mentioned above.
Who owns the Federal Reserve Board?
Answer, American and European banks.
Who owns these banks?
Answer, a very good question!

What is known for sure, though, is that they are not your friends.

So the shares remain in the name of Cede & Co no matter who buys and who sells thus making it impossible to trace particular share certificates through transactions and which shares in the total are pre-existing shares and which ones are the extra 'virtual' ones and which shares disappeared when the short sellers bought back shares to cover those they sold and even the fact that there were extra 'virtual' shares at all. Facilitating this further is the fact that there are no certificates for the shares thus held. They are merely book entries or, more accurately, computer entries.

The only thing that changes are the broker's accounts and brokers, as you would have read at the links, are allowed to fudge things in the name of prompt settlement i.e. behave as if they have them in one of their accounts when they don't at all – fraud, in other words; shares created out of thin air. If this were not the case, then shareholders would notice that shares would disappear from their accounts and be replaced at a later date. This doesn't happen, of course, just as money doesn't disappear from your (or anyone else's) banking account when the bank lends someone money. The banks create new 'virtual' money whenever they lend and stock brokers and the DTC must, by all appearances, do exactly the same thing with shares to cover short positions.

Getting back to our 'borrowed' stocks and their accommodating owners, we can now see that they can not be borrowed at all but must be newly created. Who can do this? Who are they. They have to be none other the stock brokers who are allowed to do so to a limited degree under the NYSE rules but also the DTC and Cede & Co which is its nominee company that owns most of the real shares on behalf of the 'beneficial' or real owners, the ones that put up the money to buy them. The stocks are sort of held in trust, if you like. Except the trustee is acting against the interests of the rightful owners and without their knowledge whenever they conspire with large short sellers by creating fictitious shares and selling them to deliberately drive down the value of that stock. They can go on creating and selling these fictitious shares until they achieve their desired result; a low share price and driving legitimate owners of stocks that find themselves in financial straits to sell their shares on to a falling market and lose money. These shares are then purchased by the short sellers to cover their sale of fictitious shares at the previous higher prices and the loss suffered by the legitimate owners forced to sell becomes the profit of the short sellers. How is this not theft on a grand scale?

As I noted previously, an individual broker can cover for an individual short seller but this individual trader is unlikely to have the clout to crash the market under a wave of selling all by himself. To do that you need numbers and volume and co-ordination. And to cover the stock and share certificates for that necessarily involves the DTC itself because they are the ones that can 'supply' (actually, invent) that amount of scrip to cover the accounts that allows it all to happen. So the owners of DTC, the NYSE and the Fed have to be involved in, if not directly directing, any crash involving substantial short selling into the market. And they can do it any time they like and there's no one to blow the whistle on them. There's no one to say, “Oi, you pinched my share certificates to sell into the market without my permission!” More to the point, there's no one to say, “Oi, there seems to be a whole lot more “Ajax Hot Air Balloons” shares on issue today than there was yesterday!” If anyone on Wall Street wants to maintain that share scrip is really borrowed from existing shareholders, let them name them and show documentation to prove it.

Yes, folks, shares are created out of thin air when they are 'lent' just like money is created out of thin air when it is lent into existence. Because no shareholder's account at his brokers is suddenly missing shares to cover the short selling before they are bought back, extra shares have to come into existence for the bridging period. When the shorted shares are bought back (at lower prices), the extra ones, the virtual ones, the thin air ones, disappear into the ether from whence they came leaving no trace for investigators to find (assuming they would ever be appointed and also assuming they would be granted access to the DTC's or Cede & Co's books). Neat, huh? It's just like the banks and your money which they issue and control.

So next time there is a major stock market crash, you will know what is going on, who is doing it, how they're doing it and why they're doing it. This leaves the question of what to do about it? Given that these 'wise and honourable men' are the experts followed by the regulators, not much can be expected in the way of reform of these institutions and certainly not of their owners. Public education is the only recourse really, that I can see.

So spread the word and tell anyone who will listen that 'short selling' is fraud and why. And if you have shares (and/or have friends who have), insist on receiving your stock certificates in your hand and registered in your name or the name of your own nominee company. If this is not possible, consider selling those shares and buying others where you can be the 'registered owner' and hold actual share certificates instead of being the 'beneficial owner' as suggested in one of the above links.
The sooner the practice of short selling is eliminated the sooner the economy, which means everybody including non share holders, will be better off.

Comments

McJ's picture

Wow James!

Wow James! Unbelievable.
I will pass this info around to those who will listen however, many around me already think I am a some kind of conspiracy kook so not much chance I will have any luck. smiling

What about things like Registered Retirement Savings - I can't imagine you could get stock certificates in hand for them?
What happens in the opposite situation when the seller has to buy the stock back for more money than they paid? Where does that money go?

It's looks increasingly to me like we are FUBARed. One hopes they will be a special place in hell for these thieves.

"The most unpleasant truth in the long run is a far safer traveling companion than the most agreeable falsehood." Emerson

Registered Retirement Savings

I don't know what these are, McJ! So not much help to you there. My impression from my recent reading is that there aren't many 'non-book' share registers left. My chief focus at this point has been the exposing the mechanics of the scam.

FUBARed!? Well it is like sitting on a trapdoor if the only evidence of share ownership you have is a statement from your broker.

When a shorter has to buy back at higher than he sold, then he suffers a loss and someone out there made a profit. Ultimately, the Stock Exchange only ever takes money out of one pocket and put it in another. It does not create wealth in any way though brokers would disagree. But then they would, wouldn't they!

An individual shorter runs this risk but not our well connected major players. They are the first to sell and they know when they and their cronies are going to start buying back. So they are buying on a still falling market. It's too hard to buy substantial quantity when the market bounces. That's when the individual lone shorter gets (rightly) shafted himself.

i wouldn't waste any time on a shareholder that brushes you off, McJ.

admin's picture

It does not create wealth in any way

but would you say that it enables the creation of wealth by getting money from people who have too much to people with ideas and ambition but not enough money?
As I was reading all of this last night, I was thinking that a solution to this particular situation would be to return to paper shares and let them take 3-5 days to settle, so that people are truly investing in businesses for the long term because they see it as a good investment rather than a speculative short-term opportunity.
anyway gotta run now but I'll be back later.
-NJT

Wealth creation

The practice of capitalising people with ideas etc. is productive and stock brokers often play the part of Underwriters (organisers and guarantors) in facilitating this initial 'floating' of the company; the initial issue of shares. The Stock Exchange/Market itself plays no direct part in this and only comes into play when the initial shareholders want to sell their shares to someone else. This secondary trading does not involve the company whose shares are being traded: nor does it affect the wealth being created by the company; nor does it create wealth on its own account. It merely takes money out of one pocket and put it into another. It's a 'zero sum game' in other words. Not a bad thing in itself, but not the 'dynamo driving capitalism' that it presents itself as, either. Far from it.

If short selling was banned by law and the various companies with publicly issued shares kept their own share registers, then this practice of short selling would cease, I would think. It would also have the effect of severely curtailing speculation as well.

If shareholders were issued with certificates with their own names on them and would not be able to sell them without presenting these same certificates to their broker, then I think this would go a long way to almost stopping speculation altogether. Speculating accounts for well over 90% of trade in all financial markets. How anyone can claim these markets to be 'efficient' under these circumstances is beyond belief.

These are just my ideas on your Q's NJT and I'm sure there are better solutions out there.

McJ's picture

Thanks

Registered Retirement Savings are I think what they cal 401K's in the US. They are a way we have in Canada that we use to save money and to defer taxes until retirement. Some of these are group funds similar I believe to pension funds. Others are self administered, meaning that you have control over how the money is invested.

"When a shorter has to buy back at higher than he sold, then he suffers a loss and someone out there made a profit"
And the 'borrowed' shares disappear?

FUBAR - Fucked Beyond All Reason smiling

"The most unpleasant truth in the long run is a far safer traveling companion than the most agreeable falsehood." Emerson

"And the 'borrowed' shares

"And the 'borrowed' shares disappear?

Yep. It doesn't matter at what price they are bought back at, just that they eventually are.

When somebody buys the borrowed/lent/shorted/virtual/fictitious shares there is a new owner of shares and so the total number of shares held by all the owners has increased but the seller has no real shares to surrender so the total number of real shares that are in existence cannot be diminished or subtracted from the total and thus returning the total number back to the correct level. So the total of shares held by all the buyers now exceeds the total number of shares that particular company has issued.

When the short seller eventually buys shares the reverse happens. The real seller (the person the shorter buys from) ceases to be a stock holder so his number of shares sold are subtracted from the total number of shares held by all buyers. But when the shorter buys, he is not recorded as being an owner of shares because he had a minus number of shares in his account to start with so he end up with a zero balance. So the total number of shares in all the share owners accounts again equals the number of share originally issued.

I hope I'm explaining this well and not 'over explaining' it and confusing you, McJ. It is hard to think and talk about things that actually don't exist without giving them some sort of existence in the mind.

admin's picture

oh yeah

one more thought i had as i started reading this, is, what happens if an individual keeps shorting and shorting a particular stock until he has shorted more than the number of shares in existence, even 10 X the number of shares in existence! Is this even possible? Could he then corner the market??
Maybe I need to finish reading to the end of your article before I keep commenting! OK, sorry - see you soon smiling
-NJT

Cornering the Market

"one more thought i had as i started reading this, is, what happens if an individual keeps shorting and shorting a particular stock until he has shorted more than the number of shares in existence, even 10 X the number of shares in existence! Is this even possible?"

An individual can't crash the market by himself. It needs the participation of 'the club', in my view; the owners of the major broking companies, the DTC and the NYSE at least. This is where Hedge Funds come in handy for them as it can include them all, give them anonymity and co-ordinate their collective raid.
Having said that, I don't see any reason why what you ask couldn't happen except for two limitations. One is the limitation of finding that many buyers and then being able to buy that many shares back later without creating a boom in that market and end up suffering a financial loss. In other words, the limit would be the judgement of the conspirators as to what they can profitably get away with.
The second problem or limitation is returning the share register to the correct number of shares (buying back the excess shares) before the next dividend is issued by the individual companies. There is a certain amount of money issued by the company to be divided amongst all the shares and each shareholder is expecting a certain amount for each share. There will be a shortfall if there are more shares owned than there should be. But the DTC may have a way around this that I haven't thought of.

Could he then corner the market??
Cornering the market happens when someone dominates it to the extent that they govern the price the shares or commodity is traded for. When these hedge funds crash the market, they are in effect cornering it.

McJ's picture

it's ok

Well I have a hard time wrapping my mind around all this nonexistent stuff they are selling and it is late night here - the mind is a little dull. smiling

"It is hard to think and talk about things that actually don't exist without giving them some sort of existence in the mind."

smiling Agreed and thanks, I'm off for some zzzz's

"The most unpleasant truth in the long run is a far safer traveling companion than the most agreeable falsehood." Emerson

admin's picture

Thanks James

I got about halfway through (including associated reading) last night but started getting too tired - I appreciate your efforts putting this together and looking forward to reading the rest today.
-NJT

admin's picture

and finished

and i see that you did get to my thought after all / already.

So in my scenario, you've flooded the market and dropped the price as low as possible, then you buy back enough "real" shares at the now very low going rate and you might own voting control of the company in question!?

So do the shorts always have to be settled by a certain point (maybe before the annual shareholders meeting when the shareholders get to vote on the companies highest decisions)?

I'm going to see how it works with my retirement fund; I'd guess there's no way to get those shares into my name... but it can't hurt to ask and see what my options are.

great read - thanks James!
-NJT

share numbers

"So in my scenario, you've flooded the market and dropped the price as low as possible, then you buy back enough "real" shares at the now very low going rate and you might own voting control of the company in question!?"

First of all you have to buy back the excess number of shares to cancel out your short position. Or, in other words, return your negative balance in you share trading account at your brokers to zero. The negative balance says you own a minus number of shares, if that makes any sense! Presumably, you have bought these shares back at a lower price than you sold them for so you now have a profit. With that profit, if you wished, you could buy more shares which you could now own and keep. The company share price is depressed and good value so you might (with your mates) buy up as many shares as you can and end up controlling the company for a lot less dollars than you would have had to spend had you not short sold all those fictitious shares and crashed the price. This is what happened to Nanopierce Technologies Inc.
From the WSJ article linked above. -
In a lawsuit filed in Nevada state court, Denver-based Nanopierce Technologies Inc. contended that DTCC allowed "sellers to maintain significant open fail to deliver" positions of millions of shares of the semiconductor company's stock for extended periods, which helped push down Nanopierce's shares by more than 50%. The small company, which is now called Vyta Corp
This article refers to what I have been talking about as "phantom shares". I probably should have used that term, too. The article needs a little decoding. Perhaps in the next few days . . . .

"So do the shorts always have to be settled by a certain point (maybe before the annual shareholders meeting when the shareholders get to vote on the companies highest decisions)?"

I would think so. There may be an embarrassing moment, as you indicate, NJT, when it comes to voting time as there may be more votes than shares (supposed to be) on issue. The second awkward moment comes at dividend time when there are more shares expecting dividends than have been provided for by the company.
Keep coming back, NJT, if this still leaves questions.

Article along the same vein

Found the article below over at Charles Smith's "Of Two Minds" blog.
Can't improve on the above writing by James but this piece by Zeus Y distills much of the
shenigans occurring and offers some competent responses:

Dave

http://www.oftwominds.com/blogmay10/market-unhinged-from-reality05-10.html

Good article, Dave.

Good article, Dave.
Twenty years ago here in Oz, the amount of foreign exchange needed for the facilitation of a whole year's international trade in goods and services could be covered by twenty days turnover on the fx market. So the turnover from the other two hundred trading days was effectively totally devoted to speculation/gambling. It's far worse than even that now. Talk about parasites.
A 1% turnover tax would fix all that up.

From CHS's article-
"Normally short sellers add rationality to a runaway marketplace," says Charles Smith, who oversees $1 billion at Fort Pitt Capital Group.

Short sellers add nothing but chaos to any functioning market.It is fraud under any circumstances. Selling something you don't have is fraud, period!

Good article. Just a few

Good article. Just a few points.

- the DTCC is owned by the US brokerages and the original owners of the DTC (private individuals, NYSE, etc.) The DTCC was formed when the NSCC and the DTC merged and those two companies continue to act as subsidiaries.

- the DTC subsidiary keeps track of the beneficial owners of the shares on behalf of the actual registered owner, Cede & Co. (could mean CEntral DEpository, not cede).

- no one knows who owns Cede & Co. or even its juridiction. It is a private partnership company and is not owned by the DTC. It is nominated by the DTC (their nominee) to own the shares, but no one has been able to show me those shares aren't pledged in some way.

- the NSCC runs the "continuous net settlement system" which nets trades. Imagine these trades from three investors:

Buy 1500 MSFT
Sell 13000 MSFT
Buy 5000 MSFT

This nets to a net delivery obligation to deliver 6,500 shares of MSFT to the NSCC at the end of the day. For each symbol, there is either a receive or delivery obligation. 98% of traded net to no obligation.

- the industry regulary "fails to deliver" shares. The buying brokerage has your money and they get to charge the brokerage that isn't delivering interest, so they both laugh at you.

- the beneficial owner at the DTC is not you. It is a participant which can be a clearing brokerage, a brokerage or a foreign depository. Much of the hankly panky is hidden at the clearing brokerage. On Sept. 11th, Adnan Khasshoggi, the Egyptian arms dealer tied into BCCI and Iran Contra was caught behind a daisy chain that brought down 76,000 brokerage accounts because the shares weren't there. Nice coverage by the mainstream media, right?

- brokerages can also enter into x-clearing agreements where they sell shares and agree to repurchase them at a future date (not a loan, get it) or swap obligations on different symbols. Both the buyer and seller of a repurchase are owners because one has an effective call option.

Thanks for the added info,

Thanks for the added info, Anonymous. Much appreciated.
"- the NSCC runs the "continuous net settlement system" which nets trades. Imagine these trades from three investors:
Buy 1500 MSFT
Sell 13000 MSFT
Buy 5000 MSFT
This nets to a net delivery obligation to deliver 6,500 shares of MSFT to the NSCC at the end of the day. For each symbol, there is either a receive or delivery obligation. 98% of traded net to no obligation."

I take it that this means that a lot of short selling "phantom shares" is hidden 'in house' at brokerage houses?

"- brokerages can also enter into x-clearing agreements where they sell shares and agree to repurchase them at a future date (not a loan, get it) or swap obligations on different symbols"

And you're saying here that brokers enter into explicit agreements between themselves to not deliver thereby taking much of the risk out of shorting and acting blatantly illegally in contravention of SEC regulations?

Righteous. Patrick

Righteous.

Patrick Byrne
Journalist, DeepCapture.com

Thanks, Patrick

Praise, indeed. I'm working my way through your story at the moment. Full marks to you, sir.

newjesustimes's picture

Indeed, honored

to be blogging on the same page with you, Patrick.
I finally made it to page 28 and I am suddenly feeling much less guilty about never giving wikipedia a penny. not that I felt very guilty to begin with.
IMO the parallels with the management & censorship at 911blogger are striking.

McJ's picture

Ditto

Ditto for me as well. I too am making my way through the story. I can't say I am shocked because we know this is going on but it is somewhat surreal to read the inside details.

"A couple of years ago, Dave began invoking the Freedom of Information Act to compile reams of trading data. This data, combined with research published by the securities industry itself, suggests that there is now around $12 billion of phantom stock in just one corner of the system. There is an unknown amount - perhaps $100 - $150 billion - in a part of the system that is not monitored by any regulatory body. Just as a spill of $1,000 of radioactive waste costs much more than $1,000 to clean up, a certain dynamic of the stock market (named, “short squeezes”) means that to clean up $100 billion of phantom shares would cost much more than $100 billion: it could easily cost over $1 trillion."
http://www.deepcapture.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/deepcapture-the-st...

I think we need new words to describe this - 'crime' just doesn't seem to cut it.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.