More

Stiglitz And Chanos Argue For Short Selling (WATCH)

The Huffington Post   First Posted: 07/05/09 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 02:25 PM ET

Stiglitz

Scroll down for video

Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Jim Chanos, president of Kynikos Associates, one of the largest short selling firms in the world, agreed today that short selling, which has been demonized by financial leaders and pummeled in the press, was not actually a major contributor to the economic decline.

"Short-selling is part of the correction. You don't want just the optimists to be reflecting their views of what the true price is," said Stiglitz. "So, in all this [financial institutions] weren't asking the deeper questions of what do we want financial markets to do, they were asking how do we make more profits."

This comment came during a conversation on short selling and the current economic crisis hosted by the Roosevelt Institute. The forum, called, "Selling Us Short: The Limits of Markets (and Governments)" focused on the failings of traditional financial models and the need for aggressive change to fix the market. Short selling is when a seller borrows a stock that he believes will fail and sells it, only to buy it back at the lower price and return it to the lender, keeping the price difference as profit.

For Chanos, short selling is vital to a healthy market, and the attacks from the financial sector are evidence of a broken mindset among political and financial leadership. "What's really disturbing, from my perspective, is a real attempt to squelch financial criticism, as Professor Stiglitz said," Chanos argued. "Because there hasn't been one major financial fraud in the last 25 years in the U.S. markets that was uncovered by anyone other than a journalist, an internal whistleblower, or a short seller." Chanos went so far as to defend naked short selling, the practice in which a trader sells a stock that he has not yet received. Congress has vowed to aggressively regulate this method, which Chanos said was not part of the problem at all.

Watch the video:

The forum, which was part of the Roosevelt Institute's New Deal 2.0 speaking series, also looked at the continued influence of financial leaders who contributed to the economic downturn. "It is stunning to me that after all that has happened, the banking industry still holds the power it does in Washington," said Chanos.

"The same guys who drove the Titanic into the iceberg may put it into reverse and take another run at it in another few years. Not much actually has been changed," he added.

Stiglitz went on to argue that currently, the government is focused on the largest banks in a vast financial network that also includes credit unions, regional banks, and other smaller lenders. While the larger banks are receiving the bulk of the stimulus package, they are not the ones directly responsible for keeping Americans working, which falls mostly to the smaller institutions.

Both men agreed that the financial downturn allowed for the possibility of change, but worried that the opportunity would be squandered without a serious change in mindset in both political and banking circles. They shared a concern that the continued influence of the revolving door between lobbyists and government positions, as well as the intransigence of bank leaders, would keep the market operating under a failed paradigm that would hurt American taxpayers. Stiglitz emphasized the importance of "distance between the regulators and the regulated." Chanos ended the panel by quoting a French economist he had spoken to recently as warning, "Self-regulation is to regulation as self-importance is to importance," which drew laughs from the crowd.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS

Scroll down for video Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Jim Chanos, president of Kynikos Associates, one of the largest short selling firms in the world, agreed today that short selli...
Scroll down for video Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Jim Chanos, president of Kynikos Associates, one of the largest short selling firms in the world, agreed today that short selli...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 42
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PhilipTaylor
Legalized Bribery is an Oxymoron - must END
11:43 PM on 06/07/2009
Chanos is the Chainy of leveraged short selling!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PhilipTaylor
Legalized Bribery is an Oxymoron - must END
11:33 PM on 06/07/2009
Chanos is, of course, a L 1 E R! On a GRAND Scale!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PhilipTaylor
Legalized Bribery is an Oxymoron - must END
11:41 PM on 06/07/2009
I can NOT understand if Stiglitz was going along for the ride with the creep, or he has sold out to the corrupt leveraged Short sellers who chose a target and don't let up until every last drop of life is sucked dry.

These people prevent any hope of recovery and therefore cause Taxpayer Bailouts, bankruptcy, or near it like LEH, BSC, and Wachovia. They do it with so much leveraging the time is cut to weeks or in some cases days.
07:39 PM on 06/06/2009
As an individual investor, the idea that you can bet for or against something that you don't own and in effect move the market based on that action is market manipulation...for which you want to be rewarded is wrong. Naked short selling is in the process of being regulated. If you actually own the stocks, isn't that also stock manipulation...and you are willfully manipulating the price of a stock for you own well being and not the stock holder?

When all the markets crashed last fall, why was short selling stopped? Because there were lots of greed oriented individuals who would have made the market go even lower...to their own betterment, while most Americans would have lost considerably more than they already lost.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jeffp26
12:04 PM on 06/06/2009
I personally enjoy shorting stocks. And when I do so because I believe a company is committing fraud, I always tip the SEC. I tell them I am short, and why.

I have done this perhaps 20 - 25 times in the past 15 years. I have had conversations where the SEC examiner admits my evidence is proper, and that the company in question is likely defrauding the public.

But the SEC has NEVER done anything to stop these companies. Never.

So who is the villain in this story? And who abets the fraud?
09:11 AM on 06/06/2009
You gotta love people who strive to weasel money from doing absolutely nothing, and are even proud of how wonderful it is. .. It's impressive. Just the kind of people the country needs.

Let's see, what kind of product can we make that the entire world will want to buy?...Oh, I know, short selling. Banks will never be transparent. Never.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
SCG
07:29 PM on 06/05/2009
That Titanic analogy was perfect.
05:28 PM on 06/05/2009
Short sellers really like to justify their actions, but the truth is revealed next week in a movie release called: Stock Shock-the short selling of the American dream
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
ThatOne4Me
06:34 PM on 06/05/2009
you don't buy something that you should be shorting unless you're inept.

short, buy, the aim is to be on the winning side, going with the trend.
12:39 PM on 06/05/2009
those of you against short selling (legal vs. illegal naked selling) are clueless. wouldn't it have been nice if the shorts were more active during the dot com boom? most americans wouldn't have lost as much money.

if the short sellers were more active with financials back in 07 or early 08, your 401k wouldn't be 201ks right now.

being opposed to legal short selling proves that you have no financial or economics background whatsoever. please educate yourselves and read about short selling.

ps....for disclosure, i go long and short, makes no difference to me.
photo
Yank in France
Thomas Paine, expat in France 1792-1802
09:34 AM on 06/06/2009
I agree with you 100%. Short-selling is a needed part of a balance financial system. I wish I had the knowledge in 2001 to short-sell on stocks everyone knew were oversold.
Equity analysts and traders just kept on pushing their clients to BUY, BUY when dot.com stocks were already priced over 100 times next year's earnings.
Instead of picking on people who intelligently played the downturn, short-selling critics should be blasting their equity analysts and assorted side-kics on the markets and in local bank branches!!
11:50 AM on 06/05/2009
What would you expect these two miscreants to say??!! Duh
Have your say - put an end to this nonsense at
http://www.petitiononline.com/shortNOT/petition.html
10:59 AM on 06/05/2009
There will always be ways to profit during a declining market, whatever it is (equities, commodities, foreign exchange). When short selling of equities is not allowed, only brokers and derivative traders will profit from the down moves. As it is now, a private investor / trader can can see a spike (like Qualcomm to 200) and understand that it is an overshoot, and short it. Or select weak stocks during a bear market, and have a portfolio of both short and long positions. That doesn't force price down, since "usually" short interest is a small percentage of the number of traded stocks. I too think there should be limits on short interest (like a circuit-breaker), but I don't want to see a situation where only the big-money folks can profit in bear markets. If we have a bear market, and rising inflation, how does the small guy increase his net worth? And bears can last decades.
10:04 AM on 06/05/2009
Just more finger pointing from, Chanos, another collusive part of the mess.
photo
RedneckDem
The top 1% stole my made in china bootstraps
09:47 AM on 06/05/2009
A huge corporation could, conceivably, short sell a smaller competitor into oblivion and make money doing it. Hmmm... that doesn't scream for regulation. OR...

A company can short sell more stocks than the shorted company has in market. Lets say a publicly traded company has 10 million shares outstanding, yet, thru some magical application, there are about 100 million shares of their stock being shorted. WTF you ask? its called naked short selling. By all means, lets allow this one to continue too. Looks like we traded one titanic captain for another, all while the ship was sinking...
09:12 AM on 06/05/2009
God they think the American public is stupid.

"Short selling is when a seller borrows a stock that he believes will fail and sells it, only to buy it back at the lower price and return it to the lender, keeping the price difference as profit."

I see no valid purpose for this practice except price manipulation.
09:21 AM on 06/05/2009
The short seller must pay interest to the stock's owner until they cover.

Short selling can be very risky. If the stock price suddenly increases the short seller can be squeezed with an infinite potential loss.

Short selling also provides liquidity to the market and is valuable as a hedge against long positions.
11:09 AM on 06/05/2009
"Short selling also provides liquidity to the market and is valuable as a hedge against long positions."

Bull hickey.

Short selling does not "add liquidity" to anything. It drains it. There is no liquidity added by a single short sale.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
joebhed
Greenback Revolutionist
08:22 AM on 06/05/2009
Is the market due for a correction down to 5 or 6K?
I think so.

If so, then all the money that is going in now is headed for the crapper.
The bulls want as much of the people's dough back in there as possible.
Look at all the money that has been made since the last bottom.

How much can they get in to take back in the selloff?
The sellers define those limits.
Short-selling enables sellers to have leverage to signal a market correction.
Not too unlike margin buyers on the way up.

We'd be better off, and have much more stable markets, without all that stuff.
But the presence of short-sellers will provide a trigger to the coming collapse of the equity markets, one that will prevent the losses to that last group of folks who couldn't resist getting in because the market is getting really hot.

I haven't watched the video yet.
But if Stiglitz had any more praise than enabling market corrections for shorts, I am curious as to what that is.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
DiogenesOfAlaska
Mitt Romney for president - of the Cayman islands!
07:04 AM on 06/05/2009
Here's the answer to Prof. Stiglitz' question of how to call that entirely new form of capitalism in which shareholders of banks are sacrosanct: it's called feudalism.

I think he said it all in his final statement on why market discipline presupposes transparency and disclosure, including derivatives.

The large banks and the highly levered investment banks were too big to be monitored long before they were too big to be saved, too big to fail or too big to be worried about.

Chanos' statement that the FDIC was one of the biggest financial innovations in the 20th century was fun, too. Puts all that fancy talk about financial innovation into some perspective.