Jump to content

ASIC to probe short selling of shares


frankmal

Recommended Posts

In reply to: jfgao on Tuesday 23/09/08 05:33pm

The problem is transparency - in particular, the lack of timely disclosures and the different tiers of informedness within the marketplace. Implementing the declaration of all positions, including short sales, is a good start. This does not necessarily indicate a threat to anonymity. Disclosing a position doesn't require a violation of personal privacy.

=======================================================

 

now you nailed it!!

shorts has been around since we have the stock market, and we have many bull and bear market along the way.

 

as wolvy point out --it should be fair play feild! long or short all should be decleared.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 498
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (early birds @ Tuesday 23/09/08 05:56pm)

Covered net Short Sale positions and Naked net Short Sale positions, which

result from the exercise of ASX ETOs, as at end of day 22-Sep-2008

(inclusive of net short positions prior to 22-Sep-2008)

 

No responsibility is accepted for any inaccuracies contained in the matter published.

 

ASX Company Name Product/ Reported Short/ Short Sell % Short/

Code Class Borrowed Volume Limit Borrowed

 

NOTE THEY CHANGED THEIR PREAMBLE, a touch.

 

Much ado about nothing much

 

according to asx approved shortsell statistics (which are sporadic in the interests of an opaque market)

 

on Friday there was about $4.547B approved lent shares

close of market yesterday that was reduced to about $2.064B

or $2.141B worth of shorts were covered

incredibly, 29 shares actually increased their lent shares (ON REPORT)

like about $10M worth of WDC, PRY,CSL, MAH etc... don't know how this can be.

 

biggest beneficary of the short squeeze was NAB, where about $572M worth

(or 0.72% of issued capital) was covered from $868M lent out. Other big winners were

WES, SUN, BHP, WPL, TOL & CBA where ~$100M worth of shorts was covered.

 

The short pressure was removed from a further 29 shares.

 

besides, if you still want to express your bearish sentiments you can still do so via

derivatives, futures and options. You can write some puts etc.

just not on broker borrowed equites,

nor with direct market CFDs

(what the betting shops do is their business)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: early birds on Tuesday 23/09/08 05:56pm

 

Why doesn't ASIC simply say we want a complete ban on buying commodity stocks!

 

ASIC eases shorting ban for dual-listed stocks

Chris Zappone

September 23, 2008 - 1:49PM

 

In another display of the confusion wracking the local share market, the corporate regulator has announced it will allow investors trading the difference between share prices on dual-listed stocks to make covered short sales.

 

The move by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission largely affects funds trading in the dual-listed shares of top miners BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto.

 

The majority of Western stock markets have a ban on shorting financial stocks - those stocks that are basically insolvent, mis-managed, swam in excess and perpetrate most of the manipulative short selling (even against each other!).

 

Now ASIC has back-flipped on its complete short selling ban (great free economy we have going here to put the complete ban in the first place) and now decided they will be selective. Given 99% of stocks that are dual-listed are mining stocks (TSX or AIM with the ASX) they are now saying these are exempt ie. you are only allowed to short mining stocks.

 

When these stocks are punished as they have been (thru manipulative short selling to de-lever fund holdings) will the Government then complain that the Chinese are buying Australian assets on the cheap?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: thirty8south on Tuesday 23/09/08 07:25pm

thanks for the info t8s

 

made good profit from NAB's short cover rally. if we be able to see real short position by every end of session would be a big help.

 

oh by the way, wright put option means your bullish for the stocks, buy puts or wright calls means you are bearish.

 

wolvy is an expert with option market.

 

really, no point to crying for banning shorts, a true bear still can go to option market buy necked puts if you think market will tank.

 

no point to jump up and down for bulls either, if banning shorts can get bull market going forever, then have look at shanghai market!!

 

last thing, soon ASEC banned shorts, ASX price took a dive, it tells the story about volume and liquidity.

 

cheers

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: forrestgump on Tuesday 23/09/08 08:48pm

Hi Forrest,

 

Liquidity is determined by market participation (how many investors buying and selling) and transaction volume (how much money has being bought to the table). Note that both the RATE of participation as well as the dollar VOLUME of subsequent transactions are required in the provision of a liquid market.

 

A market consisting of only a few players, ie. an oligopoly, is not much fun and nor is it liquid. Even if the traders are loaded with cash and flood the market with their orders, the exclusivity of that setup means that price action will most probably be choppy and impetuous. Actually, an oligopoly is the wrong expression to use. It refers to a situation like a monopoly where a small number of sellers (buyers) are able to exercise a greater extent of bargaining power over a more numerous subset of buyers (sellers) due to the effect of supply/demand asymmetry. Oligopoly does not infer illiquidity; in fact, the opposite may occur. In a low participation (illiquid) exchange market, the illiquidity is very much due to the influence of dis-synergy - like football with all the players sent off and only two goalies remaining to finish the match.

 

A market with a surfeit of participants would offer much smoother and more "logarithmic" price/volume action. This is simply because there are more unique instances of bid/ask quotes being submitted to provide a more normally distributed function of trade (Wiki Definition of ND). However, a populous market may still demonstrate signs of liquidity constraint if for example the price range between bid and ask is narrow; an occurrence not uncommon during tense sessions of uncertainty such as the period just prior to a critical price sensitive announcement. So even if participation is high, a tightening of the price spectrum across transactions committed will also increase the risk of surprises and things coming out of left field.

 

Anyone or anything capable of providing a counteractive buy (sell) acceptance to an existing sell (buy) offer with due consideration would be able to enhance market liquidity through their inclusion in the usual price-action dynamics. This is the case regardless of whether one's reference is to the spot market, futures/forwards, options, shorts or any other imaginative derivative/hybrid business lawyers come up with. If the instrument creates a position with a value fixed to it, then that itself is a unit of liquidity (the promise to settle through cash or delivery). All these separate, distinguishable and distinct instances of order placement in aggregate cumulation define the market's liquidity.

 

And of course there's a caveat - an important one:

 

LIQUIDITY != RATIONALITY

 

This is where the argument for and against short selling, and derivatives in general, comes in. Pumping excess liquidity into the market for the purpose of beating/lifting SP below/above sound fundamentals is a highly distortionary anomaly. That's why an increase in the COMPLEXITY of trading instruments require (or rather demand) a commensurate and proportional revision to the public DISCLOSURE requirements of useful price-relevant information - the provision of which are essential towards ensuring market TRANSPARENCY and sound decision-making.

 

nuf sed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Monteverdi @ Tuesday 23/09/08 06:21pm)

me two http://www.sharescene.com/html/emoticons/tongue.gif

 

correction: make that "me three" as jfgao just beat me to the punch http://www.sharescene.com/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...