Retail investors across the world, including South Korea, were captivated recently with the revolt targeting short selling by Wall Street hedge funds, which jacked up the stocks of a few firms, video game retailer GameStop in particular.
Shorting refers to transactions when an investor
borrows stocks and sells them soon in hopes of buying back later at a lower
price, taking advantage of perceived arbitrage opportunities.
In the case of GameStop, institutional short sellers
got very greedy. They bet against the game retailer and hoped its price would plummet
by shorting more stocks than were available through its float.
Frustrated at watching the manipulations by big
fish to rake in moolah, retail investors banded together -- through online
brokerage apps and anonymous social media messaging boards -- and drove the
price higher through a short squeeze, in turn pocketing windfall profits. The
financial institutions were forced to unwind their short positions, losing an
estimated $20 billion.
Although a course correction is widely anticipated
-- GameStop stocks have cooled down from a high of 140 percent two weeks ago --
with calls for a probe by regulators rising, the David vs. Goliath battle that
rattled the US and European stock markets has now spread to Asia.
The uprising caught the attention of White House, even
as retail investors, celebrities and lawmakers have decried
any move to impose restrictions. Meanwhile, the Securities and
Exchange Commission has vowed to protect individual traders and also promised
to scrutinize the unfair actions of large brokerages.
This showdown between retail investors and FIs, which
has peaked now, is not something new. Korea is no exception, and is in fact turning
out to be the new battleground for this face-off.
During the global financial crisis in 2008, more than
half the financial markets tightened their regulations to restrict shorting.
The measures included a ban on naked shorting -- transactions without borrowing
the asset from someone else or ensuring that it can be borrowed -- and short
selling of financial companies’ stocks, and strengthened disclosure rules
related to the practice.
When stock prices sharply fell, Korea
banned covered and naked shorting of all stocks from Oct. 1, 2008.
This followed vehement opposition by many retail
investors who stated that shorting increased unfair practices and would
increase market volatility.
The stock market in Korea is perceived as being asymmetric
due to the limited market access of retail investors. While foreign and
institutional investors can borrow stocks for a year with lower fees, retail
investors must pay hefty fees and sell borrowed stocks within 90 days, leading
to an unleveled playing field.
As the financial crisis subsided, most countries eased
or lifted their restrictions and Korea followed suit, allowing short selling of
all stocks with exceptions.
Since then, the Financial Services Commission has continued
to tighten regulations. However, retail investors have pointed out flaws in the
system and the situation finally came to a head last year.
As a result, one of the world’s longest
bans on shorting was imposed in March last year. Following a six-month
extension which lapses on March 15, the financial regulator
has announced that the temporary ban will be lifted in May, while pledging a stringent
monitoring system to detect illegal shorting.
This has sparked an intense debate between FIs that have
been severely hit by the ban, academicians, market analysts and retail
investors. While retail investors are pushing for a total ban on shorting, the
move does not find much support from other market players and experts.
The debate on shorting has political implications too.
With interest in trading equities growing and
retail investors being the primary force for the bullish trend during the COVID-19
pandemic, more than 203,000 people have signed a petition imploring President
Moon Jae-in to make shorting illegal -- a threshold of 200,000 compels him to
officially respond.
The country’s benchmark Kospi hit a historic 3,000
points earlier last month, continuing a yearlong upward trend. Retail investors
purchased a net 67.7 trillion won ($60.5 billion) worth of stocks on the
country’s main Kospi and secondary Kosdaq markets last year.
A market crash would bode badly for the ruling
party in April by-elections to elect mayors for Seoul and Busan. But the FSC
sees little justification to continue the current ban as the stock market has
continued to outperform. The regulator has vowed to improve market transparency
by enhancing monitoring and establishing additional safety nets by the time the
cap is removed.
The regulator, meanwhile, plans to level the
playing field and invite more retail investors to take part in shorting
activities as they are mostly carried out by foreign and institutional
investors now.
Even the International Monetary Fund has pitched
in, urging Korea to end its shorting ban, saying it risks making the market
less efficient.
Most economists are of the view that there is
nothing wrong with shorting. They insist that a ban not only undermines market
efficiency and quality, but also causes overpricing and substantial
deterioration of market quality.
It is a vital investment strategy that responds to
market fundamentals, facilitates efficiency, mitigates price bubbles and promotes
risk management activities.
In fact, shorting is not all that bad and is a
very useful scheme for individuals who know how to use it to their advantage. It
can be an opportunity for retail investors to earn a profit when stock prices decline.
They should equip themselves with sufficient know-how about the market and
utilize the system for gains when appropriate.
As they say, the stock market is not for the
faint-hearted. Unfortunately, in Korea most of the retail investors are ignoring
the accompanying risks. And when they get blindsided they look for convenient
scapegoats like shorting.
A total ban on the practice goes against international
capital market practices and a more prudent approach is required for devising
shorting regulations and setting the level of restrictions in the future.
0 comments:
Post a Comment