CNMV lifts short ban on the 19th; forum fears trap

CNMV reopens short selling on the 19th amid market suspicion of a trap

The ban on short selling in the Spanish stock market is lifted on Tuesday, the 19th. On Monday, the 18th, bearish positions remain prohibited: this is reminded by a forum user linking the CNMV document, and another participant confirms the calendar correction. Between these two dates lies a whole week of speculation, which is what the thread is about: a standoff between those expecting a rally that squeezes the shorts and those arguing the regulator will extend the veto, as it has done before.

One participant's forecast, presented as "personal bar-stool opinion," suggests small investors will open short positions as soon as they can, especially in stocks trading above €30 or €50. The scenario he paints afterwards is not a drop: it is an devastating bull run, a rise of at least 200 points in the Ibex that would leave those bears caught off guard. The author himself admits without shame: he has no studies nor has he crunched numbers, he has just seen this movie before.

What was expected for the 19th: a rise before the fall

One participant read the day as a prepared move: a strong early morning rise so shorts take positions, trinc immediately by water. His suspicion remained on the table that tape moves more freely when the regulator looks the other way.

A technical warning slipped into the thread: quick and sharp movements to break stops. The warning applies equally to those entering long in a hurry and those new to shorting with a light trigger finger. Another participant joked that, with betting houses closed, there is no need for the Federal Reserve to make headlines to move the market.

Vaccine and 7,000 points: the rumor that moved the market

Because the market moves before the prohibition is lifted. The insinuation of a vaccine —of [$]three trillion dollars[/], according to the figure circulating in the thread— was enough for indices to rebound in the afternoon, as one forum user recounted. The Ibex surpassed 7,000 points, surprising those who had been staring at the floor for weeks, as another participant noted.

That rebound fueled by a rumor served two purposes. First, to remind that price moves on expectations, not balance sheets. Second, to give arguments to those who claim the stock market has "a very high component of manipulation."

Extension of the ban considered likely by several

Part of the thread assumes the CNMV will close the door to shorts again. It would suffice for major banks to complain again for the regulator to extend the veto, once more, for another month. The financial sector remains the most punished on the exchange, and some argue the fall won't stop until Sabadell disappears from the board.

The sequence would be identical to the previous one: first the rumor, then the repeated insinuation, and finally the firm announcement. A script so repeated it already has its own name in investor conversation: the Groundhog Day.

From short to dividend: Allianz, BASF, Elecnor, and Prosegur

With the speculative window closed, analysis shifted to balance sheet details, always according to criteria exposed by one participant. Specific entry prices appear: BASF between €33 and €35; Allianz below €150, with a 6.54% dividend and a target of €200 in three years; Elecnor starting at €6, with €800 million debt and €700 million cash on the table; Prosegur, 50% below its June 2019 price, with the recommendation to wait for the third quarter. Iberdrola, with €6.5 in the crosshairs, closes the list.

The breakdown of each stock —debt, cash, dividend payment capacity, and timelines— comes accompanied by the warning that these are personal criteria shared by the poster, not consensus from analysis firms.

Publishing the portfolio: bravery, noise, and some snipers

At the opposite end of speculative shorting is the investor who shows their positions in detail. Few things generate more noise. Showing a real portfolio, with entries and errors, exposes the person to easy criticism from those who only appear when the trade goes wrong.

The defense made is simple: without portfolios in sight, any opinion is worth the same, and shouldn't be. Those who make mistakes and tell it contribute more than those who judge with hindsight while hiding their account.

With prices marked and tools distributed, disagreement remains at the starting point: whether the 19th was the starting gun for a fall or the nth trap that left bears without a portfolio. No one has closed the question.