Short Sellers Are Changing Up Their Strategies For 2025
The first part of May has been a particularly terrible period for short sellers, who lost $69.4 billion through May 9, according to data from Ortex. However, short sellers are having an outstanding year overall, gaining $63.1 billion year to date through May 9. March was a particularly good month, with short sellers gaining $86 billion, although they were down $14.7 billion for January.
Now with more than half the year left, some short sellers are anticipating a good year for the practice, while others remain a bit tentative on the topic. Nonetheless, at least two notable short sellers are adapting their practices to today's market environment.
NEW YORK, NY - NOVEMBER 23: (L-R) Byron Mann, Finn Wittrock, Michael Lewis, Jeremy Strong, Steve ... More Carell, Adam McKay, Ryan Gosling, Brad Grey, Brad Pitt and John Magaro attend "The Big Short" Premiere at Ziegfeld Theatre on November 23, 2015 in New York City. (Photo byfor Paramount Pictures)
Gabriel Grego of Quintessential Capital feels the current environment is favorable versus past years like 2021, although he admits there are causes for concern.
'Higher interest rates, political and trade uncertainties, and elevated valuation multiples have made investors more cautious and receptive to well-supported short theses,' Grego said in an email interview. 'On the regulatory and legal side, however, the landscape is less clear. Recent policy shifts under the current administration have introduced some uncertainty, and it's still too early to conclusively determine their full impact on short selling.'
He added that while regulators seem more market friendly in principle, practical enforcement, like the Federal Trade Commission's stance on antitrust issues, hasn't yet shown consistent support.
Grego expects these regulatory issues to continue which means it's critical for short sellers to remain well informed and act prudently.
'Additional barriers include heightened litigation risk, limited stock borrow availability, the scarcity of reliable hedging instruments (crucial in today's environment of frequent short squeezes), and occasionally hostile or indifferent media,' Grego adds. 'Despite these obstacles, short selling is inherently specialized and challenging, attributes that simultaneously make it uniquely rewarding.'
Danny Moses of The Big Short and Flash Boys fame notes an important regulatory change. The Exchange Act Rule 13f-2 with related form SHO, which was due to go into effect this year, is a key regulatory barrier for short sellers, he believes. It requires certain institutional managers to report short-sale information to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Investors have been given a year's reprieve as the SEC provided a temporary exemption from compliance with the rule, extending it to 2026.
Moses agrees that short sellers may not be entirely out of the woods yet. He noted in a recent interview that they have many more factors to consider now when shorting stocks versus in the past.
'Investors have to consider the Reddit crowd and the 'animal spirits' on social media,' Moses explains. The movement towards not lending out securities as a way to force shorts to cover. How politically connected a certain company might be regardless of fundamentals. Will regulators turn a blind eye? Lastly, the PR associated with being a short seller can be stressful.'
Many short sellers have turned their back on the practice over recent years for a variety of issues. One of the more recent was Nate Anderson, who decided in January to wind down his Hindenburg Research after finishing the pipeline of ideas they were working on.
Moses cited a few reasons he thinks some are causing the slowdown.
'First of all, the size of hedge funds these days inhibits single-stock short selling given economies of scale and inability to build a meaningful short position in any small/ mid-cap name,' he said. Most of the time, the best short-selling opportunities might be in less trafficked, more obscure stocks that are not covered by dozens of Wall Street analysts.'
Moses also pointed out that information today travels at the speed of light, making opportunities more fleeting.
'Short sellers can't afford to build a position as time is not on your side,' he said. 'I have seen data that suggests the most heavily shorted stocks are the worst performers over a long period of time.'
Amid all the uncertainties, Moses and Grego are both adapting their strategies. Although Moses doesn't manage other people's money anymore and only trades for himself, he's much more likely to use options, mostly put spreads, to express his short positions because of how the market dynamics have changed and due to the regulatory landscape.
Grego has adopted a more cautious stance over the last few years because of the growing regulatory uncertainty and greatly increased litigation rises.
'Companies are more aggressively pursuing lawsuits against short sellers, regardless of the merits, raising the inherent risks of this strategy,' he explained. 'Nonetheless, we remain convinced that ethical activist short selling continues to play a valuable role and, when carefully managed, can still yield successful and rewarding outcomes.'
Although the U.S. hasn't made any moves to ban short selling recently, other countries have recently. Turkey banned short selling about a month ago, as did Thailand. South Korea recently lifted a short-selling ban that began in late 2023.
Grego believes bans on short selling often result from populist pressures and 'political optics' instead of sound, economic reasoning.
'In my view, banning short selling is unequivocally misguided and detrimental, primarily harming retail investors in the long run,' he said. 'Extensive academic research consistently demonstrates that banning short selling exacerbates market inefficiencies, promotes speculative bubbles, and enables fraudulent activities, all of which inevitably lead to greater financial instability. Short selling serves as an essential market stabilizer, and removing it deprives markets of an important protective mechanism.'
Moses agrees with Grego, saying that while countries ban short selling in an attempt to stabilize their markets, it removes liquidity and 'raises more alarm bells.'
'I have lived through that during the GFC, and I wouldn't rule out it happening again in the U.S.,' Moses added.
Despite the international bans on shorting securities, Grego and Moses agree that the benefits of the practice outweigh the risks. Moses pointed out that short sellers often draw attention to problems at companies that regulators overlook.
'If you believe that a company is overstating their profitability with accounting gymnastics or overly optimistic forecasts, it's hard to depend on either regulators or research analysts to police that type of activity,' Moses explained. 'The idea that you need SEC/ DOJ enforcement to expose either fraud or hold companies accountable can't be your thesis.'
Similarly, according to Grego, the fundamental benefits of short selling have remained the same over the years.
He noted that short sellers 'provide crucial skepticism and realism to financial markets, facilitating efficient price discovery and helping to contain speculative bubbles.' 'Properly executed — ethically, professionally, and prudently — short selling acts as an essential market corrective mechanism,' Grego adds.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
19 minutes ago
- Forbes
Why We're Dodging These 3 Gold CEFs (Even With Gold Soaring)
A lump of gold on a stone floor getty Here's a surprise from a die-hard closed-end fund (CEF) fan like me: Sometimes CEFs aren't your best bet. I'll admit, that's tough for me to say—especially when the average CEF yields a historically high 9.1%. (CEF yields are usually around 8.5%). That high yield partly reflects the fact that many CEFs are trading at steep discounts to their net asset value (NAV). Translation: The fund is trading for less than what its underlying portfolio is worth. That, in turn, has resulted in lower prices among some CEFs, along with higher yields (as yields and prices move in opposite directions). All of this simply means that CEFs are generally out of favor right now, which is an opportunity for us. But not every CEF is ripe for buying. We especially want to avoid the three top performers among CEFs with market caps over $200 million: ASA Gold and Precious Metals (ASA), the Sprott Physical Gold Trust (PHYS) and the Sprott Physical Gold and Silver Trust (CEF). The fact that these funds have booked strong runs this year shouldn't come as a surprise: They're all gold funds, and gold has taken off due to rising economic uncertainty (the usual fuel for the yellow metal). Even so, as you can see, there are some clear differences in performance here, and those are worth unpacking. Gold Funds Ycharts Above we see that the Sprott Physical Gold and Silver Trust—with the somewhat confusing 'CEF' ticker, not to be confused with CEFs in general (in purple)—and PHYS (in blue) have similar returns to the benchmark SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) ETF (in green), at around 25%. Then there's ASA (in orange), which has more than doubled even the best of these three other funds. There is some logic at work here. For starters, PHYS and GLD really should track each other, since they both devote almost 100% of their portfolios to physical gold (both own gold bars that are locked up in vaults), and both have similar expense ratios (0.4% for GLD, 0.41% for PHYS). The lower performance of 'CEF' is also not surprising, given that the fund also holds silver, and the 'poor man's gold' hasn't done as well as its yellow counterpart this year. ASA, however, is the clear outperformer. That's thanks in part to its ownership of several gold-mining stocks. Its largest position, G Mining Ventures Inc., a Canadian firm that explores for precious metals, has nearly doubled year to date. ASA's fast short-term gain is, of course, great, but it's unlikely to last. Here's why. Note that, if we go back to 2010, the year the last of these funds, PHYS, launched, we see that GLD (again in green) outran all three of the CEFs. This shows that CEFs were poor options in the case of gold. Moreover, ASA (again in orange) was actually the worst performer, returning just 53% over 15 years, and being in the red for most of that time. ASA Underperforms Ycharts In terms of key takeaways, there are a few here. First, if you want to hold gold, this is a rare case where an ETF, not a CEF, is the better choice. Second, gold is not a great play for income, given that the highest yielder among these funds is ASA, with a puny 0.2%. Third, gold itself is a poor play for the long term, no matter how you invest in it. To see why, all we need to do is splice the S&P 500's performance (in pink below) into that last chart. Gold Underperforms Ycharts It doesn't get much clearer than that! This, however, is where the good news ends for ETF investors. Because when it comes to investing in stocks (or pretty well any other asset class, for that matter), you're far better off with CEFs. Let's take a look at the Adams Diversified Equity Fund (ADX), a CEF we've held in my CEF Insider service since its earliest days: We bought ADX in July 2017, just a few months after CEF Insider's launch. Here's how the fund—current yield: 9% (and in orange below)—has done since, as compared to the S&P 500 index fund SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY), in purple, with dividends reinvested: ADX Outperforms Ycharts This chart says it all: CEFs like ADX can crush the S&P 500 and pay us generously while doing so. Plus they give us access to top-notch management and upside-generating discounts to NAV, too. Those are strengths no index fund can match. Michael Foster is the Lead Research Analyst for Contrarian Outlook. For more great income ideas, click here for our latest report 'Indestructible Income: 5 Bargain Funds with Steady 10% Dividends.' Disclosure: none
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge approves NCAA House settlement, changing the landscape of collegiate athletics
Very late on Friday afternoon, we got a massive end-of-the week news dump when a judge officially approved a settlement in the NCAA v. House case. With the ruling, the landscape of college athletics will soon look very different than it has prior. The goal of the settlement is to provide structure to the NIL landscape in college football, which is currently effectively a free-for-all. Following the ruling, On3 discussed some of the ramifications of the ruling. 'Since the NCAA was founded in 1906, institutions have never directly paid athletes, On3's Pete Nakos wrote. 'That will now change with the settlement ushering in the revenue-sharing era of college sports. Beginning July 1, schools will be able to share $20.5 million with athletes, with football expected to receive 75%, followed by men's basketball (15%), women's basketball (5%) and the remainder of sports (5%). The amount shared in revenue will increase annually. Advertisement 'Power Four football programs will have roughly $13 to $16 million to spend on rosters for the 2025 season. Many schools have front-loaded contracts ahead of the settlement's approval, taking advantage of contracts not being vetted by the newly formed NIL clearinghouse . . . ' . . . The settlement also imposes new restrictions on college sports. An NIL clearinghouse will be established, titled 'NIL Go' and run through Deloitte. All third-party NIL deals of $600 or more must be approved by the clearinghouse. If not approved, the settlement says a new third-party arbiter could deem athletes ineligible or result in a school being fined. In a gathering at the ACC spring meetings last week, Deloitte officials reportedly shared that 70% of past deals from NIL collectives would have been denied, while 90% of past deals from public companies would have been approved.' It remains to be seen exactly how the new rules will affect USC specifically. Given the Trojans' recent hire of Chad Bowden and the subsequent revamping of their recruiting operation, USC seemingly has the right people in place to bring the program into college football's new era. This article originally appeared on Trojans Wire: NCAA House settlement approved, as college sports braces for impact
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
GOLDSTEIN: Carney can't fix Canada's underperforming economy on his own
Prime Minister Mark Carney's pledge to make the Canadian economy the strongest in the G7 is the equivalent of attempting to turn around the Titanic before it hits the iceberg. An indication of the enormity of this task is to look at the performance of the G7 countries in real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, which measures economic output per person, adjusted for inflation, and is a widely accepted metric of a nation's prosperity and standard of living. Low economic growth as measured by real GDP per capita has been a longstanding problem in Canada. Under Carney's predecessor, Justin Trudeau (who appointed Carney to chair his economic growth task force in September 2024), Canada recorded the worst record of economic growth since the government of R.B. Bennett in the depths of the Great Depression. According to Jake Fuss, director of fiscal studies for the Fraser Institute writing in The Hub last year, Canada's real GDP per capita grew by 1.9% in the Trudeau years. That was lowest in the G7, which includes the U.K., Germany, France, Italy, Japan and, most alarmingly, the U.S., our largest trading partner, where real GDP per capita grew by 14.7% during the same period. University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe, also writing in The Hub last year, noted real GDP per capita in the U.S. is now almost 50% higher than in Canada – unprecedented in modern history. LILLEY: Mark Carney offers words – Pierre Poilievre's words – but we need action EDITORIAL: Carney defies calls for a spring budget GOLDSTEIN: Carney's hocus-pocus plan to increase debt and balance the budget In the Liberals' 2022 budget, then-finance minister Chrystia Freehand warned that unless this trend is reversed, 'the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development projects that Canada will have the lowest per-capita GDP growth rate among its (38) member countries' from 2020 to 2060. Carney's announcement of proposed legislation on Friday – which he wants passed before Parliament adjourns from the summer – to reduce federal barriers to interprovincial trade, increase labour mobility and streamline government approvals for nation building infrastructure projects, are all aimed at increasing economic growth. But they all depend on co-operation by and among the provinces. And the reality is that decades of inaction on these issues has cost the Canadian economy an estimated $200 billion annually, increased the cost of goods and services to Canadians by up to 14.5% and reduced GDP growth by up to 8% annually. At the meeting between Carney and Canada's premiers and territorial leaders last week in Saskatoon to address these issues in the face of the threat posed to the Canadian economy by U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs, all the participants paid lip service to working together on these issues. But the one premier not present – B.C.'s David Eby, who was on a trade mission to Asia – promptly rejected any new pipeline crossing his province's territory, as did many Quebec politicians when it comes to their province. Any new pipelines will also be opposed by environmental organizations and some (although not all) Indigenous groups who, while they do not have veto power over such projects, must be meaningfully consulted under Canadian law. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has cited the enormous economic damage caused by Canada's failure to build pipelines. Had the Northern Gateway, Energy East and Keystone pipelines been built (Keystone was killed by then-U.S. president Barack Obama), she said, Canada would be producing 2.5 million more barrels of oil per day. 'That's $55 billion a year worth of GDP value, which is worth $17 billion to my government alone and about an equal amount to the federal government.' The Carney government does have more direct control of some issues it can move on to boost Canada's economic growth. For example, it can introduce taxation policies that encourage businesses to invest in new technologies that boost productivity, as well as increase competition. It can lower Canada's immigration levels so that increases in population do not exceed the rate of economic growth, which reduces GDP per capita. It can reduce government spending. On that issue, Carney says he intends to reduce the growth rate in the operational costs of the federal government under Trudeau from 9% annually to less than 2%. But Carney's election campaign platform also outlined $130 billion in new spending over four years with total deficits of $224.8 billion. While Carney says most of that will be spent on infrastructure, it's 71% higher than the $131.4 billion in deficit spending the Trudeau government predicted during the same period in its fall economic statement in December 2024. Finally, of course, Carney needs to negotiate a deal on tariffs with Trump. lgoldstein@
