By Lawrence Delevingne, Simon Jessop Jonathan Spicer
Nand
ew moves to curb short-selling in some countries have set the stage for a renewed battle between free market advocates and authorities aiming to check investors they see as profiteers who destabilize major companies.
Turkey’s regulator banned shortselling of seven domestic banks last month after US prosecutors charged state lender Halkbank with Iranian sanctions violations.
South Korea is considering restrictions while European authorities are investigating short-sellers over alleged market manipulation – part of a nascent trend that Carson Block, founder of US short-seller Muddy Waters Capital LLC, decried to Reuters as a “global war against truth.”
Meanwhile, as Brexit looms, authorities in Frankfurt, Rome and Amsterdam could temporarily curb short-selling of companies to counter price swings triggered by the European divorce, officials have told Reuters.
The effectiveness of such bans has been questioned by some academics and institutions including the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. But the global mood may be increasingly turning against short-sellers, who borrow shares and immediately sell them, betting the price will fall before they buy back the shares and return them, pocketing the difference.
Brexit and the US-China trade war are among political and macroeconomic forces that have buffeted markets, posing new conundrums for regulators. South Korean officials, for example, cited the trade conflict as a reason for their possible shorting curbs.
Such prohibitions have declined significantly since 2008-2012, when authorities moved to buttress tumbling markets during the global financial and European debt crises.
The former saw about 20 countries ban shorts of a total of more than 7,000 stocks, while the latter triggered bans of around 1,700, according to a 2018 study from the European Systemic Risk Board, which oversees the EU financial system.
“While short-selling can be a valid trading strategy, when used in combination with spreading false market rumors this is clearly abusive,” the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) said in 2011 as short-selling bans swept Europe.
The EU agency said countries instituted the bans to restrict the benefits of spreading false rumors or to achieve a regulatory level playing field.
Critics of bans, however, say they undermine free markets, as well as limiting accurate asset-pricing and dampening trading volumes, raising transaction costs for all investors.
Richard Payne, a professor at London’s Cass Business School, said that research suggested “the real effect of these bans is simply to increase trading costs and reduce trading activity.”
A New York Fed review of more than 400 US financial stocks over the 14 days that short-sale bans were in effect in late 2008, for example, showed they did not have the intended effect.
Those shares had a average price decline of 12% during that period, largely in line with non-financial stocks not subject to restrictions. Meanwhile, trading costs for those stocks are estimated to have risen more than $600 million against averages, according to the 2012 report.
“Our analysis...suggests that the bans had little impact on stock prices,” it said, acknowledging that the specific causes of the price movements were unclear. “At the same time, the bans lowered market liquidity and increased trading costs.”
A 2017 analysis of short bans by ESMA also found there was no statistically significant impact on share prices or liquidity.
The EU agency, however, remains committed to select interventions. This year, it backed Germany’s twomonth short sale ban on payment firm