Opinion: The futility of short selling restrictions |
Date: Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Author: COO Connect
As short-selling restrictions in several eurozone countries are nearing their
end, COO Connect looks at the pointlessness of these temporary bans.
Pursuing short-sellers during financial crises in the interests of political
expediency has always been a useful tool for governments. The concept whereby a
trader holds negative opinions on a stock has always been viewed with contempt
ever since short-selling began in the Netherlands more than four centuries ago.
However, history has repeatedly shown us short-selling is an essential market
activity. It helps liquidity, price discovery and the facilitation of risk
management. In 2008, US and European short selling bans on financial
institutions ultimately exacerbated illiquidity and financial stocks still
continued their nosedive. Even Christopher Cox, chairman of the US Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) during the crisis, acknowledged the three week
short selling ban was the biggest mistake of his term. Countless 2008 autopsy
reports by academics and regulatory bodies have agreed. In August, the EDHEC
Risk Institute said short-selling bans damaged liquidity and aggravated the woes
of struggling stocks. The UK’s Financial Services Authority (FSA) and the
Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR), the precursor to the
European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), said short-selling was often a
force for good and helped mitigate market risk.
Quite why France, Belgium, Spain, Italy, South Korea and the perennial economic
basket-case that is Greece imposed temporary restrictions on short-selling their
banks is astounding. Banning short-selling does not solve problems. It hurts
more people than it helps. Pension funds, for example, routinely short stock not
because they hold an opinion on it but because they want to hedge their risk.
Furthermore, the supposed beneficiaries of the bans – the banks – are still
being pummelled in the market. Take some of France’s main banks. Moody’s reduced
the credit ratings of Credit Agricole and Societe Generale from Aa1 to Aa2 and
Aa2 to Aa3 respectively. BNP Paribas’ rating is currently under review. These
downgrades reiterate the sheer futility of short-selling restrictions. These
banks are not suffering because hedge funds are ruthlessly betting against them.
No, these banks are stumbling because long-only and long-termist investors are
pulling out their capital.
Perversely, these restrictions might actually have the opposite effect of what
the politicians intended. Only five out of 27 eurozone countries imposed the ban
indicating divisions within ESMA. The UK flatly refused to follow suit. Even
among those eurozone states which adopted bans, there was inconsistency. French
short selling restrictions applied only to shares and convertibles while the
Spanish ban extended to derivatives. Not only was there regulatory arbitrage but
the bans proved totally ineffective. Perhaps this might herald some new thinking
in the European Union (EU)? It could even undermine the case for the EU’s short
selling directive or at least temper some of the more onerous aspects of it.
However, assuming common sense will prevail among politicians is often a tough
ask. The likely reality is these bans will continue in dribs and drabs during
periods of market volatility for years to come.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.