政治学与国际关系论坛

 找回密码
 注册

QQ登录

只需一步,快速开始

扫一扫,访问微社区

查看: 352|回复: 0
打印 上一主题 下一主题

Phantom menace

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
1#
发表于 2008-8-21 22:28:46 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |倒序浏览 |阅读模式
Aug 14th 2008
From The Economist print edition

An SEC campaign backfires

NOT all short lists are worth being on. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced rules on July 15th to restrict short-selling of 19 financial stocks. Many suspected that America’s market regulator wanted to resuscitate the shares of these firms, especially those of Lehman Brothers, an investment bank, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two quasi-official mortgage agencies. The temporary regime, which expired on August 12th, banned naked short-selling—the sale of shares one has not yet borrowed. The SEC also indulged in some blood-curdling rhetoric against market “manipulation”. From a simplistic perspective, its actions worked. The market value of the nine American companies on the list rose by 30%, after adjusting for capital raisings.

Yet on closer examination the picture is very different. The 19 stocks have not outperformed their peers. Nor did the SEC’s action result in hordes of dishonest short-sellers scurrying to cover their positions by buying shares. Far from it. As the chart shows, for the nine American firms on the list, aggregate short positions fell only slightly: from 4.5% of shares outstanding on July 15th to 4.3% on July 31st. (For the market overall, short positions represent about 5% of shares outstanding). The net change represented an insignificant part of trading activity in these stocks over the 17-day period.

The SEC’s action was not only pointless; it may have had a perverse impact. Arturo Bris, a professor at IMD Business School in Switzerland, points out that the 19 stocks had higher risk profiles than their peers, so should have bounced back more strongly than they did. He also reckons trading in the 19 stocks became less efficient. Their prices took longer to react to bad news than other firms’, perhaps reflecting the red tape that short-sellers faced under the regime.

The SEC has promised a post mortem of its experiment. At this stage the conclusion looks pretty clear: the regulator picked the wrong target.


本帖子中包含更多资源

您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有帐号?注册

x
分享到:  QQ好友和群QQ好友和群 QQ空间QQ空间 腾讯微博腾讯微博 腾讯朋友腾讯朋友 微信微信
收藏收藏 转播转播 分享分享 分享淘帖
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

Archiver|小黑屋|中国海外利益研究网|政治学与国际关系论坛 ( 京ICP备12023743号  

GMT+8, 2025-7-21 18:27 , Processed in 0.062500 second(s), 28 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3.2

© 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表