A less publicized and more sinister version of short selling can take place on Wall Street. It's called 'short and distort' (S&D). It is important for investors to be aware of the dangers of S&D and to know how to protect themselves.

Nothing is inherently wrong with short selling, which is permissible under the regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). However, the 'short and distort' type of short-seller uses misinformation and a bear market to manipulate stocks. S&D is illegal, as is its counterpart, the pump, and dump, which is mainly used in a bull market.

Key Takeaways

  • S&D traders manipulate stock prices by taking short positions and then using smear campaigns to drive down the price of the targeted stock.
  • A short-and-distorter's scheme can only succeed if the S&D trader has credibility.
  • A 'short and distort' is the inverse of the better known 'pump and dump' tactic.

Short Selling vs. Short and Distort (S&D)

Short selling is the practice of selling borrowed stock in the hope that the stock price will soon fall, allowing the short seller to buy it back for a profit. The SEC has made it a legal activity for several good reasons. First, it provides the markets with more information. Short seller's often engage in extensive, legitimate due diligence to uncover facts that support their suspicion that the target company is overvalued. Secondly, short selling adds to market liquidity as it fulfills the supply component of the supply/demand paradigm. Finally, short selling also provides investors who own the stock (have long positions) with the ability to generate extra income by lending their shares to the shorts.

S&D traders, on the other hand, manipulate stock prices in a bear market by taking short positions and then using a smear campaign to drive down the price of the targeted stock. This is the inverse of the 'pump and dump' tactic, whereby an investor buys stocks (takes a long position) and issues false information that causes the target stock's price to increase.

Generally, it is easier to manipulate stocks to go down in a bear market and up in a bull market. The 'pump and dump' is perhaps better known than the 'short and distort,' partially due to the inherent bullish bias built into most stock markets, and because of the media's reporting of the extended U.S. bull market that has been in play for the better part of three decades. For example, the U.S. stock market has been in a protracted uptrend since the mid-1980s, which provided ample fodder for pump-and-dumpers to deploy their corrupt schemes.

An S&D trader's main goal is to profit by shorting a stock prior to smearing the stock publicly. The theory is that frightening the stock's investors will cause them to flee en masse, thereby causing a decline in the stock's price. A short-and-distorter's scheme can only succeed if the S&D trader has credibility. Therefore, they will often use screen names and email addresses that imply they are associated with reputable entities, such as the SEC or Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). The thrust of their message is to convince investors that regulatory authorities have serious concerns about the company and that they are contacting the stock's investors as a gesture of goodwill.

'Short and distort' traders clutter message boards, which makes it very difficult for an investor to verify the claims. "Get out before it all comes crashing down" and "Investors who wish to enter a class action lawsuit can contact …" are typical posts, as are their projections of $0 stock prices and 100% losses. Any individual or entity that attempts to contradict their claims becomes the target of their attacks. In other words, the market manipulator will do everything in his or her power to keep the truth from coming out and keep the targeted stock's price heading down.

Movies like 'Wall Street' (1987) and 'Boiler Room' (2000) brought these types of stock market manipulations to the fore and helped educate investors on the risks of playing the markets.

The Net Effect of Short and Distort

When a 'short and distort' maneuver succeeds, investors who initially bought stock at higher prices sell at low prices because of their mistaken belief that the stock's worth will decrease substantially. This selling pressure drives the stock price lower, allowing the S&D traders to cover and lock in their gains.

During the chaos that enveloped some prominent bankruptcies, such as Enron in 2001 or Nortel in 2009, investors were more susceptible to this type of manipulation in other stocks than they would have otherwise been. During downturns, the first appearance of impropriety could easily cause investors to run for the hills. As a result, many innocent, legitimate, and growing companies are at risk of getting burned, taking investors along with them.

Identifying and Preventing Short and Distort

Here are some tips for avoiding being burned by a 'short and distort' scheme:

  1. Do not believe everything you read—verify the facts.
  2. Do your own due diligence and discuss it with your broker.
  3. Hypothecate your stock—take it out of its street name to prevent short sellers from borrowing and selling it.

The best way to protect yourself is to do your own research. Many stocks with great potential are ignored by Wall Street. By doing your own homework, you should feel much more secure in your decisions. And, even if the S&Ds attack your stock, you will be better able to detect their distortions and be less likely to fall prey to their spurious claims.

How to Identify Good Research

Ask yourself these questions to spot the key characteristics of a good research report:

1. Is there a disclaimer?

The SEC requires that everyone providing investment information or advice fully disclose the nature of the relationship between the information provider (the research analyst) and the company that is the subject of the report. If there is no disclaimer, investors should disregard the report.

2. What is the nature of the relationship?

Investors can get good information from pieces published by investor relations firms, brokerage houses, and independent research companies. Using all of these sources will provide information and perspectives that can help you make better-investing decisions. However, you need to evaluate their conclusions in light of the compensation (if any) that the information provider received for the report.

Can a Wall Street analyst, who is even partially compensated by the performance of the stock in their analysis, be more objective than a fee-based research firm that is paid a flat monthly rate with no performance bonus? The answer to this question is left for each investor to decide, but both types of reports are typically available for evaluating a potential investment. The nature of the compensation will provide information to help you evaluate a report's objectivity.

3. Is the author identified and contact information provided?

Generally speaking, if the author's name and contact information are on the report, it is a good sign because it shows that the author is proud of the report and provides investors with a way to contact the author for additional information.

Research reports from legitimate brokerage firms post the author's name and contact information near the top of the front page. If the author's name is not given, investors should be very skeptical of the report's contents.

4. What are the author's credentials?

Letters after a name do not necessarily mean that the author of the report is a better analyst, but they do indicate that the analyst has undertaken additional studies to expand his or her knowledge of finance and investing.

5. How does the report read?

If the report contains grandiose words and exclamation points, beware. This is not to say that good analysts are boring, but good reports don't read like a tabloid headline. A reputable analyst would never use exaggerations like 'sure things' or 'rockets' and would never suggest that you mortgage your home to buy a stock.

Objective research reports provide reasoned arguments to buy or sell a stock. Key factors such as management expertise, competitive advantages, and cash flows are cited as evidence to support the recommendation.

6. Is there an earnings model and target price with reasonable assumptions?

The bottom line for any recommendation is the earnings model and target price. The assumptions upon which the earnings model is based should be clearly stated so the reader can evaluate whether the assumptions are reasonable. The target price should be based on valuation metrics—such as the price-to-earnings (P/E) or price-to-book (P/B) ratio—that are also based on reasonable assumptions. If a report lacks these details, it is generally safe to assume that the report lacks a sound basis, and should be ignored.

7. Is there ongoing research coverage?

A commitment to providing ongoing research coverage (at least one report per quarter for at least one year) indicates that there is a solid belief in the company's fundamental strengths. It takes a lot of resources to provide this type of coverage, so a firm providing ongoing coverage is a sign that it legitimately believes in the long-term potential of a stock.

This contrasts with one-time reports that are used to manipulate stocks. In these cases, supposed research firms will suddenly issue 'reports' on stocks they have never reported on before. Generally, these reports can be identified as an attempt at stock manipulation because they will not contain the attributes of a legitimate research report, as discussed above.

The Bottom Line

Unscrupulous S&D tactics can leave investors holding the bag. Fortunately, high-quality stock reports are relatively easy to spot and needn't be confused with stock manipulator's dramatic, false claims. Keep your cool when analyzing a stock, and avoid getting caught up in online hype. By analyzing potential investments carefully and objectively, you can protect yourself from falling prey to S&D players—and make better stock picks overall.