# Short Selling - Education



## aussieshort.com (8 September 2008)

*What is Short Selling?*

Short selling is one of the easiest ways to profit from a falling share price.  The profit/loss moves dollar-for-dollar with movements in the share price.  

As you are aware an investor is able to buy a stock and make a profit when the share price rises in value.  However not many people know that you can profit from the share price falling.

Short selling involves the sale of a share that the investor does not own with the view of buying it back at a cheaper price.

For an investor to sell shares that they do not own they must first borrow them from their broker.  The broking firm will then enter into an arrangement to borrow the shares from an institution (e.g. Macquarie Bank).  The shares are then given to the investor to sell with the intention of buying them back at a lower price in the future. 

If the price falls as anticipated the investor is able to purchase the shares at a lower price and make a profit on the difference between the purchase and sale price.  Once the shares have been bought back they are then delivered back to the institution.

*Things to consider:*
*Margins: *These are the costs required to hold the trade
*Stock Lending charge:* Fee to borrow the stock from the broker
*Dividends:* You must pay the lender of the stock any dividends, franking    credits and rights declared during the course of the loan.
*Brokerage: *You need to take into consideration transaction costs. 
*Time Frame: *Short selling is generally a short term trading strategies. 

Stay tuned for part two; When to short and Stop loss.


----------



## nioka (8 September 2008)

Short selling is a blight on the investment market. Investment in shares should be investing capital in a company for productive purposes. Gambling in the value of those shares does nothing at all in the way of productivity. All it does is transfer wealth for someone to someone else and has that wealth diluted in the process. It confuses the value of an investment and , in many cases reduces the capacity of a normally productive business to compete and produce profitably. Short trading should be controlled and each trade should be reported as a trade so that the general investing public know the extent that shares are short traded. I'd be happy to see it banned completely.  

 In short selling education there should be education in the consequences of the practice before any other education in the process itself.


----------



## Trembling Hand (8 September 2008)

Nioka that really surprises me. REALLY!!

You are not an investor but a speculator just like 98% of people on this site. I mean how many put money up at the IPO or capital raising stage?? Those that do how many can say that that is mostly there investment process. Very Very few.

From what I can remember of your trading it is no different than from mine or any other punter. Pure speculation. That is the money you put up doesn't go to "investing capital in a company for productive purposes" but rather just another gamble. Just because you only play on the longs side doesn't make you any better than the rest of us gamblers.

please could you provide some facts to the rubbish that you provide investment capital in a company for productive purposes.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (8 September 2008)

Trembling Hand said:


> Nioka that really surprises me. REALLY!!
> 
> You are not an investor but a speculator just like 98% of people on this site. I mean how many put money up at the IPO or capital raising stage?? Those that do how many can say that that is mostly there investment process. Very Very few.
> 
> ...




TH,

I am annoyed by the comments of Nioka too. 

Nioka,

Forget the sensationalist news stories in the media.


----------



## nioka (8 September 2008)

Trembling Hand said:


> Nioka that really surprises me. REALLY!!
> 
> You are not an investor but a speculator just like 98% of people on this site. I mean how many put money up at the IPO or capital raising stage?? Those that do how many can say that that is mostly there investment process. Very Very few.
> 
> ...




 I'm happy to admit to trading in shares but I'd like to think that I am also investing in companies that are productive. Hedge funds are destructive and not productive in many cases. The system allows them to have the capability to destroy the financial viability if a company. 

 You ask for an example; ADI, an oil prospector, recently had an SPP to raise additional funds for oil drilling expenses. It is not rubbish to suggest that was one example of investment for productive purposes. There are examples of these each day if you look for them.

The transfer of shares from one owner to another keeps the funds in a company for productive purposes. That is productive share trading. I can find little in the way of productivity in short or long selling as such.


----------



## nioka (8 September 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> TH,
> 
> I am annoyed by the comments of Nioka too.
> 
> ...




Truth hurts!!!!!!


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (8 September 2008)

nioka said:


> Truth hurts!!!!!!




No, bigotry hurts.


----------



## Trembling Hand (8 September 2008)

nioka said:


> I'm happy to admit to trading in shares but I'd like to think that I am also investing in companies that are productive.



 It could be argued that the shorts are very productive in quickly finding the real value in a company and not wasting investors time & that includes letting crappy companies continue to use their too high share price for destructive capital raising....... Think ABC Learning....BNB....CNP shall I go on!!


nioka said:


> Hedge funds are destructive and not productive in many cases. The system allows them to have the capability to destroy the financial viability if a company.



Bloody hell when will the punters stop and think?? Hedge funds are Net long MOST of the time. As the saying goes..... they don't pick the fight they just finish it!!


nioka said:


> You ask for an example; ADI, an oil prospector, recently had an SPP to raise additional funds for oil drilling expenses. It is not rubbish to suggest that was one example of investment for productive purposes. There are examples of these each day if you look for them.



 Yes But honestly how much of your trading is in this form?? 1% 2% 10%?? What about the overall market? Probably less than 1%.


nioka said:


> The transfer of shares from one owner to another keeps the funds in a company for productive purposes. That is productive share trading. I can find little in the way of productivity in short or long selling as such.




Its all the same. Value discovery. whether its buy first then sell or sell first then buy. It all comes out in the wash......


----------



## Aussiest (8 September 2008)

nioka said:


> Short selling is a blight on the investment market. Investment in shares should be investing capital in a company for productive purposes. Gambling in the value of those shares does nothing at all in the way of productivity. All it does is transfer wealth for someone to someone else and has that wealth diluted in the process. It confuses the value of an investment and , in many cases reduces the capacity of a normally productive business to compete and produce profitably. Short trading should be controlled and each trade should be reported as a trade so that the general investing public know the extent that shares are short traded. I'd be happy to see it banned completely.
> 
> In short selling education there should be education in the consequences of the practice before any other education in the process itself.




In a way, i tend to agree with this. Hedge Funds can almost destroy a price. It does interfere with the growth of a company seeing as though short sellers are eager to see the price go down. I don't agree that short selling simply exploits a price that is already going down, i think in some cases, it can cause the price to go down, which is counter to why companies list in the first place.

I don't think that short selling should be banned, i think it needs to be regulated, eg, capped, and that it should be disclosed, as it does provide a slightly unrealistic view of market sentiment on a certain share.

Having said that, i have taken a few short positions. 

Short selling is merely a vehicle us traders can use in order to exploit the market. It doesn't provide any real foundation towards company growth!


----------



## cuttlefish (8 September 2008)

As an aside the first post in this thread looks like an advertisement for aussieshort.com to me.


In relation to short selling - I'm not a great fan of it though I do accept some of the arguments that support it.  

My biggest issue with it is not so much that it is allowed to occur but more the lack of consistency and transparency around the way it is implemented.   

Stock 'lending' is a misnomer - it is really a title transfer - so the lender is exchanging security of title for counterparty risk against the borrower.  The second part is there is very little transparency as to how much of a particular stock has been 'lent' (title transferred to another party).   The Opes prime, Chimaera and other situations have highlighted the impact this lack of transparency and disclosure can have.  

Title of stock greater than 5% of company value can be transferred via 'stock lending' without being disclosed to the market.  This creates a situation that can be exploited to manipulate the market - in the same way that not requiring substantial shareholder notices on the long side would allow for a manipulation situation.  There is a reason both for substantial holder notices and also the 20% takeover threshold.   

The other question is on the lending side - how much transparency is there in the lender as to how much stock lending they are doing and how much risk that is creating for that institution.

If a super fund is lending stock to a short seller - how does an investor in that super fund know that this is occurring and how does that fit in with the investment funds goals and guidelines as communicated to the investor in that fund.   e.g.  Does a retiree thats invested in an 'aussie income' fund know that their income generating stocks might be being lent to a hedge fund of unknown financial status?   What would the impact of a hedge fund collapsing have on that super fund?

Its this lack of regulation and transparency that is the bigger issue and contributes heavily to the level of distrust surrounding short selling.


----------



## Trembling Hand (8 September 2008)

Aussiest said:


> I don't agree that short selling simply exploits a price that is already going down, i think in some cases, it can cause the price to go down, which is counter to why companies list in the first place.



 No doubt you have evidence for this


----------



## Aussiest (8 September 2008)

Trembling Hand said:


> No doubt you have evidence for this




Do you have evidence for half the things you say?! Lol. (meant with respect, just asking).


----------



## Trembling Hand (8 September 2008)

Aussiest said:


> Do you have evidence for half the things you say?! Lol. (meant with respect, just asking).




Well kinda. I know the only way to get short volume is by selling at highs when everyone else wants in and the only way to buy volume is by buying when everyone else wants out.

Hedge funds don't short at the bottom!! No one who moves volume does.

So how about it? When did they "make" a company SP go down that didn't have some sort of fundamental or speculative reason to it?


----------



## nomore4s (8 September 2008)

lol, all this crap about short selling makes me laugh.

You all carry on about how the hedge funds manipulate the market by short selling and how it's not fair on the retail investors etc etc.

Who do you think the markets are for? Retail investors?

Get a grip, the markets are for the big money players, they control the market and if they didn't there wouldn't be a market. Whinging that it's not fair is a joke, we all know (or at least should) the risks before we enter.

Short selling didn't cause companies lke BNB, ABS, CNP, AED, MFS to collapse. Poor management and business practices like loading up on debt with no thought about the consquences did. 
Even if you couldn't short sell these companies would have had exactly the same problems.

I didn't see anyone whinging when the big money was pushing prices up by the same practices when the bullmarket was in full flight.

When are you guys going to realise that market conditions have changed and risk is being priced in now? Until people realise this and change thier investing/trading to suit people are going to get burnt.


----------



## Aussiest (8 September 2008)

Hm, example: if share price looks weak, short sellers get in there and place lots of sell orders. This creates impression that share is being dumped, rather than being sold off (no, they are not the same thing. Dumped = sell off at a faster rate, panic selling). This may cause panic in the market, which results in more sell orders. Confidence in long positions may dwindle, therefore eroding share price unnecesarily. Whether this price fluctuation is temporary or more enduring may vary from company to company.

From what i've read, ABC Learning and BNB were 'attacked' by short sellers, and i reckon that MQG was recently attacked, cause of the number and frequency of sell orders a few weeks ago.

I don't have evidence, but do you have evidence to the contrary?

It seems to be common sense that if there are more sell orders than buy orders, that the price will be pushed down.

Saying that short selling does not effect the market is like saying that technical analysis is the only thing to consider when buying shares. Recent bad news and it's affect on share prices is evidence of that.


----------



## Aussiest (8 September 2008)

nomore4s said:


> Whinging that it's not fair is a joke, we all know (or at least should) the risks before we enter.
> 
> Short selling didn't cause companies lke BNB, ABS, CNP, AED, MFS to collapse. Poor management and business practices like loading up on debt with no thought about the consquences did.
> Even if you couldn't short sell these companies would have had exactly the same problems.




I don't think people are whinging, i think they are taking a critical, objective look at how short selling does or may affect the market! Big difference. As i said before, i have short traded a few times, but i think it should be disclosed for various reasons that have been mentioned here.

In relation to BNB, wasn't it the gas explosion that affected BNB Power, that drove the price down?


----------



## Trembling Hand (8 September 2008)

Aussiest said:


> From what i've read, ABC Learning and BNB were 'attacked' by short sellers, and i reckon that MQG was recently attacked, cause of the number and frequency of sell orders a few weeks ago.
> 
> I don't have evidence, but do you have evidence to the contrary?




Well there you go. Stop reading the populous crap that you are reading....It does you no favours. It sounds like Today/Tonight journalism.

As far as evidence goes I move more volume per week than most do in a life time of trading. Have shown this from time to time on ASF. If I have learnt anything from this is you can ONLY sell volume when the desperate want in (thats up trends) and you can only buy volume when the desperate want out!!


----------



## Aussiest (8 September 2008)

Trembling Hand said:


> Well there you go. Stop reading the populous crap that you are reading....It does you no favours. It sounds like Today/Tonight journalism.
> 
> As far as evidence goes I move more volume per week than most do in a life time of trading. Have shown this from time to time on ASF. If I have learnt anything from this is you can ONLY sell volume when the desperate want in (thats up trends) and you can only buy volume when the desperate want out!!




I don't really listen to what people write, i take it into consideration.

I see what you're saying that you can only 'sell' when people actually want 'in', but what happens when multitudes of people sell with few buyers lined up. The price would be pushed down. So, if somebody has inside knowledge, they can place multiple sell orders, thus pushing the price down and creating the impression that many want out, which would erode optimism on the stock.

There was something else i was going to say, but am busy at work, so will have to wait .

But, what i will say is, that on further consideration, perhaps short selling just interferes with the price short term, eg, causes short term fluctuations in price, rather than devalueing a company altogether . The jury is still out on that one for me.

One thing is for sure, i still think that short selling should be regulated somehow, eg, Hedge Funds are limited as to the volume they are allowed to move, and that stock lending should be declared.


----------



## nomore4s (8 September 2008)

Aussiest said:


> From what i've read, ABC Learning and BNB were 'attacked' by short sellers




The fact that directors had margin calls against them probably had more of an effect on the share price than short sellers, as these shares would have been dumped on the market at any price but short sellers of any decent volume as TH has stated will be done at the top of the market.

And remember short sellers have to buy back in at some stage.

Also I haven't seen these share prices rise after the shorts have cleared out, in fact they've continued to fall.


----------



## nioka (8 September 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> No, bigotry hurts.




 Please explain!!!!


----------



## Aussiest (8 September 2008)

nomore4s said:


> Also I haven't seen these share prices rise after the shorts have cleared out, in fact they've continued to fall.




Could that possibly be because the SPs have been so decimated nobody is game enough to touch them?

To be honest, i hadn't been following BNB or ABS's fundamentals, so not sure _how _it all unfolded, and over what time period, in terms of FA.

Still conjecture to me at this point. Interesting conversation.


----------



## nioka (8 September 2008)

nomore4s said:


> The fact that directors had margin calls against them probably had more of an effect on the share price than short sellers, as these shares would have been dumped on the market at any price




Exactly the point. These shares were targeted by hedge funds short selling BECAUSE the directors had huge margin loans and were vunerable to any downward pressure on their value. Any pressure caused selling which caused further falls which caused further selling all the time adding value for the short sellers. Nothing productive, only destructive. 

 I repeat ( without bigotry) Objectively "This is why short selling is a blight on the industry."


----------



## nomore4s (8 September 2008)

Aussiest said:


> Could that possibly be because the SPs have been so decimated nobody is game enough to touch them?




lol, nobody's willing to touch them because of the high levels of debt and therefore risk now associated with these stocks.

If a stocks share price is smashed for no good reason, watch the smart money and bargin hunters come in and drive it back to fair value, but to date we haven't seen that on alot of shares.

Risk is now being repriced for alot of stocks - like I said market conditions have changed. Even if short selling wasn't allowed we would still have had this "bear" market drive - world economic conditions are changing and whether we like it or not this is going to effect earnings and therefore the share prices of alot of stocks.

To blame short selling is a cop out imo.


----------



## nomore4s (8 September 2008)

nioka said:


> Exactly the point. These shares were targeted by hedge funds short selling BECAUSE the directors had huge margin loans and were vunerable to any downward pressure on their value. Any pressure caused selling which caused further falls which caused further selling all the time adding value for the short sellers. Nothing productive, only destructive.
> 
> I repeat ( without bigotry) Objectively "This is why short selling is a blight on the industry."




lol, what about the poor fundamentals and huge debt levels of these companies? Isn't this what enticed the short sellers in? Was that productive? 
Looked good while credit was cheap and the economy was powering along.

These companies would have been in trouble no matter what due to the greed and the shortsighted vision of the directors. 

Loading up on huge margin is very dangerous for any investor whether they are directors or not, imo this is more destructive than short selling is.


----------



## tech/a (8 September 2008)

nioka said:


> Short selling is a blight on the investment market. Investment in shares should be investing capital in a company for productive purposes. Gambling in the value of those shares does nothing at all in the way of productivity. All it does is transfer wealth for someone to someone else and has that wealth diluted in the process. It confuses the value of an investment and , in many cases reduces the capacity of a normally productive business to compete and produce profitably. Short trading should be controlled and each trade should be reported as a trade so that the general investing public know the extent that shares are short traded. I'd be happy to see it banned completely.
> 
> In short selling education there should be education in the consequences of the practice before any other education in the process itself.




A Capitalist with a conscious.

Your taking the "P" arent you!

This *IS* Robin Hood isnt it!


----------



## nioka (8 September 2008)

tech/a said:


> A Capitalist with a conscious.
> 
> Your taking the "P" arent you!
> 
> This *IS* Robin Hood isnt it!




 There is nothing wrong with being a capitalist and having a conscience. I'd like to think that I am an "ethical" investor. I have no desire to end up the richest person in the cemetary. Nor do I suggest that I am Robin Hood or anything like him. And I am not taking the "P". I am serious about the matter. I believe that all trading should be "up front". There should be no deception. There should be no cheating. The system with hedge funds and short selling includes hidden agendas, deception and cheating.

 I believe that education in short selling should include an examination of the failings in the process as well as just the "how much can I make out of this" angle. 

 I have no objection with someone taking a hedge position as insurance against a loss as the system is supposed to do. It is the smart, shonky non productive deals that it encourages that I see as a problem. Operators within these funds are gambling with other peoples money, often their life savings. I have no problem with fast Eddy losing out with ABS but I do have sympathy for a lot of the holders of ABS that were relying on the company to help them in their retirement. There can be no doubt that the problem would not have been as serious as it turned out to be if there were no hedge funds. 

The greed of the directors was wrong. Using that wrong to justify another wrong is just as wrong.


----------



## tech/a (8 September 2008)

While I dont disagree with your idealistic views,personally I gave up living,Should be's/Could be's/Would be's years ago.

I cant change it so I'll use it to my advantage.
Life short---enjoy.


----------



## Trembling Hand (8 September 2008)

nioka said:


> There can be no doubt that the problem would not have been as serious as it turned out to be if there were no hedge funds.




What the hell . ABC were incorrectly reporting a profit when they couldn't make a dime. They now look to be on the wrong end of a class action suit from their own share & bond holders. The shorts kicked off what was inevitable, a bad company going broke AND in the process saving more share & bond holders from throwing good money into a inefficient company, and exposing a poor Gov policy.

There is a perfect example of a "productive" process. Killing the weak rewarding the strong.


----------



## Nick Radge (8 September 2008)

> I do have sympathy for a lot of the holders of ABS that were relying on the company to help them in their retirement.




Tell that to shareholders of Onetel, HIH, Sons of Gawlia, Bell Resources, Elders IXL, Qintex, Bond Corp and the other bunch of losers from the prior era (i.e. the era _*before*_ hedge funds)

I should also point out that short selling has been active in the US since 1947 and remains an active part of the markets even today.

I think its an ignorant 'blame game' that we're seeing. BNB wasn't driven from $30+ to zip by hedge funds, nor was ABS driven from $8.80 to $0.54 by the same. 

Of course we can't seem to to remember that hedge funds drove Qantas from $3.00 to $6.00 making a long term dog look okay for a brief period. What about Gold and Oil? Can't hear an argument from those that rode those mega trends complain, although they would be now because that love story has ended. 

Its called hot money and you want to be on the right side of it.


----------



## MichaelD (8 September 2008)

Some of those here in this thread blaming the evil hedge fund short sellers might want to actually look at some facts first.

Want to know what the big money is doing at the moment? You'll find out in a week or two as more and more substantial shareholder notices are lodged.

6 months ago, these were all selldowns. Now, they are accumulating. "Sell at retail, buy at wholesale".

Big money buys panic selldowns and sells into mania.

Put the blame for your losses where it belongs - on yourself.

Even better - learn to short sell yourself, giving you yet another way to take money from the lemmings.


----------



## Julia (8 September 2008)

I'm not getting into this argument but note that the original post is from a new member (first post) and appears to be backdoor advertising, as Cuttlefish has already noted.   Is this OK with you, Joe?


----------



## Joe Blow (8 September 2008)

Hi Julia,

I have removed the reference to the website in the first post.

My policy has always been that if people are prepared to contribute useful content to the forums then they should be entitled to have their URL in their signature. However, they are not entitled to promote their website, product or service within their posts. In my view that crosses the line and is considered spam.

The moderators and I will continue to enforce this policy and keep ASF spam free.


----------



## Wysiwyg (9 September 2008)

nioka said:


> The system with hedge funds and short selling includes hidden agendas, deception and cheating.




If indeed this is the case, though it would hardly be admitted if there is a dollar being made, then, as a small player, I turn to the third Newton Law :- 

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

As Nick Radge mentioned on another thread  







> Its called hot money and you want to be on the right side of it.




It is simply another option to trading the markets that is available to all but not what I consider morally correct too.

One of those `if you can`t beat them join them` things.


----------



## fimmwolf (9 September 2008)

If you don't short then you are automatically reducing the potential number of profit making opportunities that are available to you.


----------



## GreatPig (10 September 2008)

The same could be said if you don't buy Lotto, don't play the pokies, don't visit the TAB...

GP


----------



## fimmwolf (14 September 2008)

GreatPig said:


> The same could be said if you don't buy Lotto, don't play the pokies, don't visit the TAB...
> 
> GP




Indeed, there is always opportunity cost in any financial decision.


I guess it wasn't really the point I was wanting to make. My intention was to respond to nioka's statement which sounded a little too moralistic for my liking.



> Originally posted by nioka
> Short selling is a blight on the investment market. *Investment in shares should be investing capital in a company for productive purposes. Gambling in the value of those shares does nothing at all in the way of productivity.* All it does is transfer wealth for someone to someone else and has that wealth diluted in the process. It confuses the value of an investment and , in many cases reduces the capacity of a normally productive business to compete and produce profitably. Short trading should be controlled and each trade should be reported as a trade so that the general investing public know the extent that shares are short traded. I'd be happy to see it banned completely.




perhaps my response should have read....

If we ignore completely the commonly accepted philosophy that sentiment,  and not rational decision making, drives the markets, then perhaps we can still seek solace in the notion that investors DON'T invest based on company XYZ's current productivity or financial status, but rather what their future expectations are of that company's results will be. 

Shorting doesn't tip the scales any more than any other position in the markets.

Taking a position (or not) is of course the traders prerogative. But telling others that you refuse do so based on your sense of what is right, or wrong for that matter, is of course completely irrelevant to the outcome of the market itself.


----------



## kam75 (14 September 2008)

Short Selling is the opposite of buying stock. When buying, we profit by selling at a higher price. Short selling involves borrowing and selling stock we do not own in order to profit by buying back at a lower price. It’s a strategy that can be used as a hedge or to capitalize during a bear market.

WHEN DONE PROPERLY, short selling carries no greater risk than buying stock. Profits will often be realized quicker because stocks tend to fall faster than they rise as the emotion of fear is stronger than greed.

Without doubt the best education I've ever read on how to sell short properly is in Stan Weinstein's book, "Secrets for Profiting in Bull & Bear Markets."

Regards
kam75
_____________________________
http://www.sharesmadeeasy.com


----------



## Wysiwyg (14 September 2008)

> WHEN DONE PROPERLY, short selling carries no greater risk than buying stock. Profits will often be realized quicker because stocks tend to fall faster than they rise as the emotion of fear is stronger than greed.





Excellent recent example is AUD/USD.my trailing stop hit at 93c and the pair now at 80c.Quicker....most definately.


----------



## James Austin (30 September 2008)

i wonder how aussieshort, the originator of the thread, is doing!

http://www.aussieshort.com/index.html


----------



## Panacea (30 September 2008)

James Austin said:


> i wonder how aussieshort, the originator of the thread, is doing!
> 
> http://www.aussieshort.com/index.html




Just had a look at the site out of curiosity. Under the 'About Us' link, was this gem...

"Aussieshort was created by Adrian Rowney and Giannis Pantelakakis, Private Client Advisors at *Tricom Equities*"

These guys can't take a trick.


----------



## fimmwolf (1 October 2008)




----------



## chops_a_must (1 October 2008)

Wrong character.


----------



## nomore4s (1 October 2008)

is that nioka?:


----------



## Herlequin (2 October 2008)

There is nothing wrong wit Ethical investment and on occasion you could applaud someone for having the strength to follow thier ethics when it comes to thier money. Kudos to you.

I'm not one of them. I'm a technical analysis. I look at the chart. 90% of the time i don't even know what the company i'm trading does and really i don't care. If the chart looks good that is all that matters. 

Short selling is an integral part of the market process and there is no 'hidden agenda', cheating and all that jazz. Short selling is as common and accept as trading long. People who are caught up in the myth that its only done by people/institutions who are trying to cheat people out of thier money just shows ignorance.

read this article by Daryl Guppy on the CNBC site. It shows why short selling is important especially in current market conditions. 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/26964122


----------

