Live data from Hacker News

Counterfeiting Stock – Explaining illegal naked shorting and stock manipulation

counterfeitingstock.com

361–370 of 403 posts

Re: Counterfeiting Stock – Explaining illegal naked shorting and stock manipulation

#361
post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Options are bets in a way that actual sales aren't. Notably, a put explicitly a contract to sell something at a given price in the future. Nobody buying or selling a put has any intention of stock trading hands -- and the option can even be written as cash-only, where stock never actually does. So while selling a put is the same fundamental idea as a short ("I think the price will go down"), it's mechanically very di…

I agree on the mechanism. If the objection is that someone can influence the price of an instrument without owning it (like in short selling (although in short selling you can borrow the instrument and then short it)), then should the argument be that put options should also not be allowed without ownership of the underlier too?

My objection is that synthetic stocks are weird, negative ownership is weird, and every time we have to actually count how much stock we have we come up too high. This doesn't happen with puts.

Re: Counterfeiting Stock – Explaining illegal naked shorting and stock manipulation

#362
Since it seems not a lot of the top replies actually read the paper and just seem to have read the title and dismissed it, I've summarized some of the fraud claims in the paper below.

The paper is NOT just claiming that regular shorts are stock manipulation. It outlines a series of tactics and loopholes in detail that involve the use of shorts among other market tools to sell people stocks that don't exist, but were counterfeited through book-keeping tricks.

Their claims of counterfeiting stock involve the use of naked shorts(a.k.a where a share is sold, but never borrowed) Naked shorts must be attached to a real share within 3 - 21 days, not doing so is illegal. They outline a series of loopholes which are used to sell shorts w/o ever borrowing a real share, effectively diluting the actual stock issued by the company with extra counterfeits to drive the price down. The goal is to drive the price to 0 and bankrupt the company, so that the shorts don't have to be covered anymore, netting a large (tax-free) profit.

Below is not an exhaustive list of manipulation tactics, just a selection of examples:

1. SEC rules left a loophole allowing naked shorts to be covered with naked calls. No actual instance of stock has to actually be borrowed in this case, but it's not marked as a fail-to-deliver in SEC reporting. The naked call option is not tied to any stock issued by the company, it's just an option to buy at a future date, but it can now be repeatedly borrowed out for shorts as if it were a stock.

2. The SEC keeps track of fail-to-deliver in the SHO list and has requirements of 3 days for brokers and 21 days for market makers to borrow an actual stock. Another fraud claim is that brokers/hedge funds collude to pass around naked shorts between offshore shell companies in order to indefinitely reset the 3 day SEC requirement to keep naked shorts indefinitely and keep it off of the SECs fail-to-deliver list. They also use a similar technique to allow 8 - 10 shorts to borrow the same shares and then just move them around in time to meet SEC reporting deadlines. During any audit by the SEC, the SEC calls ahead and they move all naked shorts to offshore accounts where they can't be seen and then move them back once the investigation is over.

This means for every fail-to-deliver marked on the SECs books, there will be several times (10 - 20 according to the whitepaper) more counterfeit shares being sold by shorts that are not tied to any real shares.

3. The third fraud claim involves the clearing house (a.k.a a broker for brokers) the DTCC (we care about two of its subsidiaries DTC and NSCC). When a broker sells a short and fails to deliver an actual share in 3 days, before 1981 they would be forced to buy it back. After 1981, they can borrow one from the NSCC Stock borrow program. The NSCC will then go to the DTC which holds all the stock certificates and find a broker with a surplus of shares and borrow the necessary amount of shares.

Now here's the fraudulent part. When the shares are borrowed only the net amount is deducted from the surplus, but no actual shares are actually removed from the individual accounts of the broker. Now both the lending broker and the borrowing broker have real shares in their account, but they're the same real shares. Since the borrowing broker has real shares now, these same shares can again be lent out by NSCC to another borrowing broker and again no shares are removed. Now 3 investors have the same shares in their account. Since transactions are done as net transactions (instead of individual stocks) between brokers, the fact that 3 investors have the same share never has to be reconciled and two counterfeit shares have been created.

In regards to the GME short, even though only 71 million shares were issued by the company, currently institutions have reported to the SEC (13F filings https://fintel.io/so/us/gme) that they own more than 113 million shares (including 13% owned by gamestop ceo).

Additionally according to the SEC's fails-to-deliver list for December, Gamestop has nearly 1.8 million shares failed-to-deliver. Most companies have anywhere from 0 to a few thousand. Going by the whitepapers estimates the number of counterfeit shares would be 10-20 times that amount, indicating that ~ 40 million shares of Gamestop would be counterfeit.

In order to verify these accusations with concrete data, we would need access to the books/transactions of the DTCC. They are a private organization that is collectively owned by brokers and they are very secretive and have few disclosure requirements due to regulatory capture at the SEC.

Re: Counterfeiting Stock – Explaining illegal naked shorting and stock manipulation

#363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With normal shorting the number of shares being traded is no greater than the float. Only with naked shorting can there be more shares traded than float, as in the parent's example. Interestingly, in both cases the short interest can be greater than 100%. My understanding is that naked shorting can be used to artificially lower the stock price by increasing the supply with the ultimate goal of driving the company int…

> Only with naked shorting can there be more shares traded than float Why? Imagine there exists one share of GME, owned by Alice. Bob borrows it from Alice and sells it to Charlie. Now both Alice and Charlie own one share, and no naked short sale ever happened, as far as I understand that term.

My understanding is that this leads to short interest greater than 100% but not more shares traded than float as there is still just one share.

In your example Alice doesn't own the share at this point, she owns an agreement that says she will be returned a share in the future and is paid interest on it in the meantime.

Re: Counterfeiting Stock – Explaining illegal naked shorting and stock manipulation

#364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Only with naked shorting can there be more shares traded than float Why? Imagine there exists one share of GME, owned by Alice. Bob borrows it from Alice and sells it to Charlie. Now both Alice and Charlie own one share, and no naked short sale ever happened, as far as I understand that term.

I don't know if there's a name for it, but while not naked, it's still a dubious situation unless Bob has secured some way to get the share back to Alice when Alice wants it back. Say Charlie has decided to go hold that share forever; how is Alice ever made whole? In the only-one-share-exists situation, there's no real way out of that. In a situation where more than one share exists, Bob could, say, obtain a call opt…

This results in a similar situation to GME where the short interest is > 100%. WSB wants to be Charlie. They want to hold the share that Bob is legally obligated to buy and can't purchase anywhere else. They can then demand whatever price they want for it.

Re: Counterfeiting Stock – Explaining illegal naked shorting and stock manipulation

#365
post #350
post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You and I can lend each other all of our money. The bank can lend more than they have.

If a bank is created and you deposit $1, the bank has $1. They can lend only $0.9 because they need to keep $0.1 as reserve (for example). From there different things could happen: a) if the borrower takes the $0.9 and takes it elsewhere the bank cannot lend a single additional cent until they get more deposits. The fractional reserve means they could only lend a fraction of the dollar. Maybe the money will be deposi…

Ah I see thanks, well explained

Re: Counterfeiting Stock – Explaining illegal naked shorting and stock manipulation

#366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All the people who are short the share have to buy it back in the future. Not if the company goes bankrupt though, right? Seems like a potential strategy hedge funds can use (and maybe are using) is to short a company a ton and collect a lot of money from that. They can short more than the float, so even collecting more cash then the market cap of the company. This drives the price down, because there is more suppl…

Yes but there's a counter to this and limit that is not there on the long side: Remember stocks are ownership in a company. If a load of "predatory shorts" jumped on and drove the market value of a company way below of where it should be, I could jump in with sufficient money and make a tender offer. Then I'd own a real company with real assets for a fraction of the cost and take it private. And the shorts would have…

An offer to buy the entire company would be information leakage and the price would rise.

Re: Counterfeiting Stock – Explaining illegal naked shorting and stock manipulation

#367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that is my understanding. But I'm asking in the case of naked short, which is what is being defended as "superior system" in this thread.

IMO, the best system would be to let anyone who's a beneficial owner cast a vote with the rest of the share class. So, if the float's 1 million shares, and 500 thousand are shorted, then there's 2 million shares held long. Let them all vote. Make this system a requirement for listing on a public exchange. Whether a long is synthetic/borrowed or primary, their interests are aligned. They both want the company to do as…

What effects would this have with regards to people buying voting power by lending their own stock to themselves?

Re: Counterfeiting Stock – Explaining illegal naked shorting and stock manipulation

#368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The price of anything is a result of its some intrinsic value and the volume of supply. No, it's the result of supply and demand not supply and “intrinsic value”. Demand is driven by subjective value, not “intrinsic value” which is a nonsense concept that misunderstands fundamentally how value and human action relate.

Demand for a stock is generally linked to the value of its future discounted cash flows, which is as close to a definition of "intrinsic value" as one can reasonably realize in the world.

> Demand for a stock is generally linked to the value of its future discounted cash flows

Tautologically so, in the sense that the market’s notional consensus of the expected future cash flow is inferred by those who are convinced of it's simplistic financial rationality from the stock price and assumptions of the proper discounting mechanism. Factually...that's a bit harder to argue.

There's some a-step-more distant proxies that people hold up as touchstones for that like P/E ratio, but those aren't consistent across stocks or, marketwide, over time.

Re: Counterfeiting Stock – Explaining illegal naked shorting and stock manipulation

#369
post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot reduce ownership of a stock to discounted cash flow. Owning shares (mostly) comes with shareholder rights like voting. To me it is pretty obvious selling more of those rights than exist is fraudulent.

In the simple short scenario, where A owns a share, lends it to B, then B sells it to C, the share in question only has one owner: C. A doesn’t have a share any more, they have an IOU from B for one share. B doesn’t have a share either. Only C has a share. Once the IOU comes due, B will need to acquire a share from D to give back to A, at which point both A and C own a share - but D no longer does. At no point are th…

Yes, but Gamestops was above 150% of float short. So that scenario doesn't matter and fraudulent stuff is going on. Shares were literally created from thin air.

Re: Counterfeiting Stock – Explaining illegal naked shorting and stock manipulation

#370
post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot reduce ownership of a stock to discounted cash flow. Owning shares (mostly) comes with shareholder rights like voting. To me it is pretty obvious selling more of those rights than exist is fraudulent.

Whoever lends shares to the short seller lends the voting rights attached to the shares as well, so as long as the short is covered, there's not actually any excess voting available. Moreover, sellers have up to two days to deliver the shares to begin with (the settlement period). If a naked short seller can secure the loan or the securities within that period, it all works out. (If they can't, well, it's fraudulent…

How does this work at 160% of shares shorted?
Post reply on HN