Existing users please login

 

Home / Markets

SEC to Extend Short-Selling Restrictions

 
Joanna Ossinger
FOXBusiness
     
    Chairman of the SEC Christopher Cox

    The Securities and Exchange Commission on Wednesday night announced that it was extending some of the temporary short-selling restrictions it had put into place in mid-September.

    Facing the imminent expiration of those measures on Thursday, the SEC issued the extension “to allow time for completion of work on the anticipated passage of legislation,” it said in a statement.

    The emergency, temporary orders include the prohibition of short selling in financial companies, a requirement that institutional money managers report to the SEC their new short sales of certain publicly traded securities and the easing of restrictions on the ability of securities issuers to repurchase their securities.

    A short sale is a bet that a stock will go down in price. Short selling has been criticized lately as a means for attacking stocks, in particular the shares of financial companies, which have been vulnerable of late.

    The SEC’s statement did stress that short selling wasn’t inherently fraudulent or malicious. “Short selling plays an important role in the market for a variety of reasons,” it noted, “including contributing to efficient price discovery, mitigating market bubbles, increasing market liquidity, promoting capital formation, facilitating and hedging risk-management activities, and importantly, limiting upward market manipulations.”

    Earlier on Wednesday, New York Stock Exchange (NYX) head Duncan Niederauer said on a conference call that the “uptick rule…is back on the table” as well. That rule, which was eliminated last year, forced short selling to occur on an uptick, or a transaction executed at a higher price than a previous transaction in the security.

    The uptick rule, which had been implemented to stop traders from driving down stock prices through heavy short selling and then picking up the shares for a big profit, has some heavyweight proponents, such as Muriel Siebert and Ted Weisberg.

     

    Fox Business Video


     

    FOX Translator

    Detach

    No data currently available.

    No data currently available.

    No-Load Funds

    Some mutual funds want you to pay for the privilege of them (or your investment adviser) taking your money to invest. It's called a load, and it works like a cover charge to get into a nightclub. Luckily, there are such things as no-load funds. As the name implies, shares of these funds are sold without a fee paid to a broker or investment advisor.

    The entire amount you invest in no-load funds goes to work for your returns. On the other hand, with load funds, right off the bat you're charged commission (not to mention other fees incurred over the life of the investment). Let's say, for example, you invest $25,000 into a load fund that charges a 5% commission. This costs you $1,250 off the top, bringing your actual investment down to only $23,750.

    The often-cited horse race analogy argues against investing in load funds. Here's the logic behind it: Would you place a bet on a horse that had to start a race 200 yards behind the others? Well, maybe you would if you got a tip from a sketchy, trench coat-clad man in a dark alley. However, under most circumstances, it's not smart to put your money on that handicapped horse.

    But some argue that at times that man in the trench coat (aka your broker) knows more about the horses than you do, and has a better shot at picking a winner. Also, sometimes these fees are unavoidable because some funds are available only through investment advisers.

    Cost-benefit analysis can help determine when a load fund is worth it (in other words, when it will score you a load) and when it is better to "do it yourself" and avoid the fees. Load-fund fees range depending on share class and can cover a variety of costs, such as paper work and fund management.