July 28, 2025 — The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has long been tasked with protecting investors and maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient markets.
However, growing concerns among retail investors and market observers suggest that the agency has failed to adequately address the issue of naked short selling—a practice that can distort markets and harm individual investors.
While foreign countries have taken decisive steps to curb this manipulative practice, the SEC’s perceived inaction has left U.S. retail investors exposed to significant financial risks, raising questions about the agency’s commitment to its mandate.
What is naked short selling?
Naked short selling occurs when an investor sells a security without first borrowing it or ensuring it can be borrowed, resulting in a “failure to deliver” (FTD) when the shares cannot be provided to the buyer within the standard settlement period.
Unlike traditional short selling, where shares are borrowed before being sold, naked shorting can artificially increase a stock’s supply, potentially depressing its price and disrupting market fairness.
The SEC’s Regulation SHO, enacted in 2005, was designed to address this by requiring broker-dealers to have reasonable grounds to believe shares can be delivered before facilitating a short sale.
However, enforcement gaps and loopholes have allowed the practice to persist, to the detriment of retail investors.
The SEC’s Failure to Protect Retail Investors
Retail investors, who often lack the resources and influence of institutional players, have been particularly vulnerable to the effects of naked short selling.
The practice can lead to significant price manipulation, as seen in the 2021 GameStop saga, where an SEC report noted that 140% of GameStop’s shares were shorted, with 40% likely involving naked short sales.
This created an environment where hedge funds and other large players could profit at the expense of retail investors, who faced significant losses when trading was restricted by brokerages.
Critics argue that the SEC has not done enough to enforce Regulation SHO or close its loopholes.
For instance, the regulation allows market makers to engage in naked shorting under certain exemptions, which some claim creates opportunities for abuse.
A 2008 SEC emergency order removed these exemptions for 19 financial firms deemed systemically important, but the broader market remains exposed.
Posts on X have echoed this sentiment, with users claiming the SEC has turned a blind eye to naked shorting, potentially facilitating “crony capitalism” that benefits wealthy and connected players.
While these posts are not conclusive evidence, they reflect growing frustration among retail investors.
The SEC has taken some steps to improve transparency.
In 2023, new rules were adopted requiring institutional investors to report gross short positions monthly and companies lending shares to report that activity to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).
These rules aim to provide a fuller picture of short-selling activity, but retail investors argue they fall short of addressing enforcement failures.
The SEC’s own data shows persistent FTDs, with a 57-fold increase in Lehman Brothers’ FTDs in 2008 compared to 2007, suggesting naked shorting played a role in market disruptions.
Yet, a 2014 study by University at Buffalo researchers found no evidence that FTDs caused price distortions during the 2008 financial crisis, highlighting the ongoing debate over the practice’s impact.
Foreign Countries Take Action
While the SEC has been criticized for its inaction, other countries have implemented stricter measures to combat naked short selling.
South Korea, for example, banned short selling entirely until at least March 30, 2025, following investigations into naked shorting by institutional investors.
In early 2023, South Korean regulators fined five foreign companies, including Credit Suisse, for engaging in the practice, signaling a zero-tolerance approach.
China, meanwhile, imposes stringent regulations and temporary bans on short selling during periods of market volatility, limiting the practice to a select list of stocks.
These measures aim to protect investor confidence and prevent market manipulation, particularly in less liquid markets.
In contrast, the U.S. maintains a more permissive stance, reflecting a belief in minimal market intervention.
The SEC’s rules, such as the uptick rule and Regulation SHO, are designed to prevent abusive practices, but enforcement has been inconsistent.
Former SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt, speaking in 2008, criticized the agency for not doing enough, stating that naked shorting allows traders to “gamble without skin in the game.”
Despite tightened rules in 2008 and 2009, including requirements for short sellers to deliver securities within three trading days, the practice persists, with retail investors often bearing the brunt of the consequences.
The Cost to Retail Investors
Naked short selling poses significant risks to retail investors.
By artificially increasing the supply of shares, it can depress stock prices, undermining the value of retail portfolios.
Companies targeted by naked shorting may face difficulties raising capital, leading to layoffs or reduced operations, which further harms investors.
Overstock.com, for example, has been a vocal critic of naked shorting, filing lawsuits against major U.S. brokerages for alleged market manipulation.
Robert J. Shapiro, a former economic advisor, estimated that naked short selling has cost investors $100 billion and driven 1,000 companies into financial distress, though the SEC disputes claims of “counterfeit shares” increasing outstanding stock.
The lack of robust enforcement has fueled distrust among retail investors, who feel the SEC prioritizes institutional players over individual ones.
Posts on X have accused the SEC of aiding and abetting abusive practices, with some users alleging that the agency’s inaction allows clearing firms and foreign entities to engage in unchecked naked shorting.
While these claims lack definitive evidence, they underscore the perception that the SEC is not doing enough to protect the average investor.
The U.S.’s reluctance to impose stricter regulations may stem from its commitment to market efficiency and liquidity.
Short selling, including naked shorting, can provide liquidity and help hedge funds manage risk, which some argue benefits the broader market.
However, this approach has drawn criticism for prioritizing institutional interests over retail investors.
In 2009, the SEC charged traders and broker-dealers with naked shorting violations, and in 2012, it targeted optionsXpress and five individuals for similar schemes.
These actions demonstrate some enforcement, but critics argue they are insufficient to deter widespread abuse.
Meanwhile, foreign regulators have prioritized investor confidence and market stability over unfettered market freedom.
South Korea’s ban and China’s restrictions reflect a belief that unchecked short selling can undermine economic stability, particularly during volatile periods.
The U.S.’s failure to adopt similar measures has left retail investors feeling abandoned, as evidenced by ongoing complaints on platforms like X, where users demand stricter enforcement of trade settlement rules.
The SEC’s inaction on naked short selling has created a perception of regulatory capture, with retail investors bearing the consequences of a system that appears to favor powerful financial institutions.
While the agency has introduced measures to increase transparency, such as the 2023 short-selling reporting rules, these steps have not addressed the root causes of naked shorting or restored investor trust.
Foreign countries like South Korea and China have shown that decisive action can curb abusive practices, but the U.S. continues to lag behind, leaving retail investors vulnerable to market manipulation.
To protect retail investors, the SEC must strengthen enforcement of Regulation SHO, close loopholes that allow market makers to engage in naked shorting, and impose harsher penalties for violations.
Until then, the agency risks further eroding investor confidence and perpetuating a system where retail investors are left to fend for themselves.
But I’m curious to know what you think — leave your thoughts below.
Also Read: Citadel Securities Is Now Warning The SEC About Using Blockchain
Visit the Homepage for our extensive library of news, or read news for you below.
About The Author
