Top Lib Dem donor short-selling bank shares

Late last week, there was a small flurry of media interest in hedge fund Lansdowne Partners:

A hedge fund run by two Tory donors made a £12million killing in days by exploiting the collapse of Barclays shares, it was revealed yesterday. Financiers Paul Ruddock and David Craigen have donated more than £300,000 to the party, most of it since David Cameron became leader. Within hours of the ban on the controversial practice of short-selling being lifted last Friday, their company Lansdowne Partners sold shares in Barclays worth £28.4million. They were bought back on Wednesday, by which time the bank’s value had nose-dived by almost £1 per share, netting a handsome profit for the financiers’ investors.

LibDem Treasury spokesman Lord Oakeshott was quick to condemn the practise:

Short sellers like Lansdowne make millions betting British banks will go down. The Financial Services Authority shouldn’t let them – and the Tories shouldn’t take their dirty money.”

Strong words and stirring stuff. One problem, not hard to foresee: top Lib Dem donor Paul Marshall of hedge fund Marshall Wace confirmed in front of the Treasury Select Committee yesterday that his firm has made money by short-selling shares in banks. To be fair, the party was quick to note its “clear and unequivocal position” in opposing short-selling: “We do not change our policies and principles in response to the wishes or interests of our donors.”

Still, I don’t suppose it will stop us taking Paul Marshall’s ‘dirty money’ (c) Lord Oakeshott. Nor do I see why it should, either. Fundraising for political parties is difficult enough without declining money obtained perfectly legally.

Read more by or more about , , or .
This entry was posted in News.


  • Sorry disagree with that – reason: because it allows the gambling against an organisation that is an essential service and can be bailed out by yours truly.

    I think we should say `thanks but no thanks` to Paul Marshall.

  • Why is his money unacceptable if it was made on falling prices, but acceptable if it was made on rising prices?

  • Oh and if “the Tories shouldn’t take their dirty money.” where does that leave us on Michael Brown?

  • There is rather a tendency towards intemperate knee-jerk populism among some of the party’s parliamentarians at the moment.

    Russians are warmongers, bankers are evil, short-sellers are scum, the BBC is a disgrace, the Labour peers should be expelled and so on.

    Oakeshott’s rash hostage to fortune illustrates one of the dangers of this approach.

  • David Allen 28th Jan '09 - 2:12pm

    Short selling is normally and rightly legal, and arguably beneficial to market operation, for the reasons Rob Knight gives. There is an argument that in extreme market conditions it can be harmful, which is why the FSA temporarily banned it.

    Did Marshall, or anyone else, break the rules of that ban? If so, but only if so, they deserve the brickbats.

  • I didn’t realise that the press had already accused Oakeshott of hypocrisy over his previous condemnation of the Tories for accepting money from short-sellers. The FT’s Jim Pickard drew attention then to the fact that Marshall Wace had held short positions in HBOS. This all happened last September:

    The party was certainly made aware of the accusation at the time, as Pickard quoted a response from a party spokesman.

    For Oakeshott to be falling into the same trap by coming out with this stuff about the Tories and their “dirty money” four months later really is astonishing.

  • Andrew Duffield 28th Jan '09 - 3:09pm

    Short-selling involves the effective counterfeiting of a share holding – normally borrowed, but increasingly a “virtual” holding of a company’s stock, in order to profit from a fraudulently induced fall in share price.

    Insofar as such counterfeiting mirrors the daily counterfeiting of banks loaning money created from nothing to profit from the interest they can then levy, it is of course all perfectly legal.

    Whether these legitimised forms of plunder at minimal risk (zero risk in the case of those infallible banks) is either moral or economically sustainable is highly questionable.

    The current debt-based money mess should provide answer enough I would have thought. What ever happened to equity investment and governments issuing their own currency, with interest recycled for the public good?

  • Alix Mortimer 28th Jan '09 - 7:07pm

    Oakeshott has been a twerp and deserves to be called out on it if what Anon says is true.

    Incidentally, has Vince now let go of the notion that short-selling is the root of all evil? I am interested to know whether he confined that assessment to the critical few weeks when (as my poor understanding has it) it may have been genuinely dangerous.

  • “… if what Anon says is true”

    It’s all there in the link I gave.

    It seems that Cable viewed the ban on short-selling as a short-term emergency measure, whereas Oakeshott said at the time of the ban “The Government and FSA must think long and hard before ever allowing short sales of British bank shares again”:

  • Hasn’t the stock exchange always allowed people to sell shares they didn’t own? pre Big Bang you just had to settle up by the end of the trading period.

    Providing mechanisms for people to make money by selling falling stocks is an important part of having a liquid stock exchange I thought.

  • Matthew Huntbach 29th Jan '09 - 9:16am

    OK, I’m trying to get my head round this.

    I have a cow, I lend it to Tom, Tom sells it to Dick. I say “Hey, Tom, where’s my cow?”. Tom buys a cow from Harry, says “Here it is”, and we’re all happy.

    Where’s the problem in that? Tom was hoping he could buy a cow from Harry at a cheaper price than what he charged Dick and even have enough left over after he pays me for the loan of the cow. Isn’t that just Tom proving he’s a better trader in cows than I am?

    OK, but did we need a real cow to play this game? Let’s try again.

    I have a cow. I lend the cow to Tom. Tom lends the cow to Dick. Dick lends the cow to Harry. Tom, Dick and I say “We’ve all got a cow, temporarily on loan, yes, but a cow nevertheless. That makes three cows”.

    The cow dies. Harry says “Sorry, I can’t give that cow back to you”.

    Tom, Dick and I all say “We’ve got a cow-shaped hole in our accounts, and we’re in trouble. Someone please give us three cows to share out to save us from going under”.

  • Would an investigation of Lord Oakshott’s finances reveal a reported history of involvement in a plethora of tax haven based companies?
    Should not dirty money associated with corrupt off shore tax havens not also be rejected by political parties including the Lib Dems?

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • David LG
    It's quite ridiculous to act as is lower inflation by itself means that things are getting better it just means things are getting worse more slowly. Things won...
  • David Warren
    Looks like the right decision in the circumstances. Hopefully there will need to be a further special conference to debate a confidence and supply arrangemen...
  • Mick Taylor
    Oops. I meant Facebook not twitter....
  • Mick Taylor
    @johnhall. Have you even read what Ed Davey says about Gaza? On twitter today, he supports the ICC, calls for weapons sales to Israel to be stopped and for an i...
  • Paul Barker
    Bring it on, it would improve the mental health of the Nation & we would get our Conference back....