29.03.2013 Views

SEC Follow Up Exhibits Part C SEC_OEA_FCIC_001760-2501

SEC Follow Up Exhibits Part C SEC_OEA_FCIC_001760-2501

SEC Follow Up Exhibits Part C SEC_OEA_FCIC_001760-2501

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

The perceived inability of short sellers to borrow securities for settlement is one of the<br />

primary reasons cited by others for constraints on short selling in IPOs. We test whether short<br />

sellers are avoiding regulatory constraints on locating and borrowing shares for shorting (i.e.<br />

engaging in “naked” short selling) by examining whether IPOs with greater short selling are also<br />

more likely to have failures to deliver. While we document that most IPOs have failures to<br />

deliver on the first settlement date and approximately 30% of IPOs in the sample qualify for the<br />

Regulation SHO threshold list on the first possible date, our findings do not indicate that the<br />

level of short selling on the offer date is related to fails to deliver or to the qualification for the<br />

threshold list. In fact, the factors that are correlated with increased short selling are uncorrelated<br />

with fails to deliver.<br />

Instead, we argue that fails to deliver are potentially related to underwriter price support<br />

activities and present evidence that the level of failures to deliver are related to a variable<br />

indicating a high probability of underwriter price support. Thus, we conclude that the observed<br />

short selling is not due to an avoidance of short selling constraints and therefore, short selling<br />

constraints might not be as onerous as presumed.<br />

Prior literature has documented a significant role of market makers in the aftermarket trading<br />

of IPOs. Using the “exempt” indicator on the short sale transaction as a proxy for potential<br />

market making activity, we test whether our results may be due to the presence of market makers<br />

and find no evidence that market makers are the primary driver of our findings.<br />

Finally, we present evidence that the magnitude of short selling (after removing market<br />

maker activity) on the offer day has a weakly negative statistical relation to subsequent price<br />

movements. Once loan fees are considered, however, there is no relation between short selling<br />

and profitability. While it appears that a small fraction of short sellers make substantial profits,<br />

32<br />

<strong>SEC</strong>_<strong>OEA</strong>_<strong>FCIC</strong>_002483

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!