The long and the short of it It has been a curly week for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. ASIC has made a right hash of a decision about what to do about short selling of securities quoted on Australian securities markets. Setting aside the content free dialogue that has been going on for over 6 months in the media; prompted by throw away remarks from our Federal Treasurer, Wayne Swan, about the Government's forever imminent legislative crack down on "short selling"; now that the Government and ASIC have had their hand forced by international attempts to act in a co-ordinated way to stabilise markets and reduce panic, ASIC stuffed it up. A brief chronology:
In addition to the simply ham-fisted chopping and changing which makes them look like a bunch of badly informed and incompetent amateurs, it also looks like ASIC has also ended up getting it wrong anyway, with its general prohibition on all short selling on Sunday 21 September. If, as seems to be the case, ASIC felt the need over the weekend to change the position it had announced on Friday 19 September that banned only naked shorts, because of the broader position being adopted in the US, UK, Ireland, Canada, France and Germany, then why didn’t it do the same as they did, and just extend the prohibition to covered shorts over securities in financial sector stocks ? ASIC instead extended its prohibition to shorting of securities in all listed companies and managed funds, stapled products. ASIC seems to little explanation for this dramatic difference in its approach from the rest of the world other than the suggestion that the size of our market made us vulnerable to predatory shorters. Such an explanation is decidedly thin since it has been going on under ASIC's nose without intervention for years. In the circumstances it can be legitimately speculated that ASIC’s singular change over the weekend, occurred because it, or its masters in Canberra, were lobbied hard then by the likes of Macquarie and Babcock & Brown, who were vulnerable to shorters, and who also had a range of securities quoted on the ASX in addition to shares in themselves, such as hybrid, stapled, and managed fund combinations. ASIC was apparently unable in the time available to figure out an appropriate and logical mechanism to identify by category or by a list which stocks in quoted on the ASX were at risk from aggressive shorting and whose failure as a consequence might effect our financial system. ASIC accordingly seems to have resorted in the circumstance to just banning all short selling rather than try to finesse this important distinction. ASIC’s extended position otherwise doesn’t seem to have a good rationale. Some one needs to grab ASIC by the shorts to sort this mess out. It needs to be bring itself back into line with the rest of the free world at the earliest opportunity, presumably when the inital 30 day period of this general prohibition elapses. |
. Someone has to die for their beliefs to be a martyr . Drudge pointed to headlines last Friday saying that Jackson's was a " Death by Showbusines s". So in the sense that Jackson seems to have died for his belief in celebrity, yes, he might be called a martyr. I never got Michael Jackson. Thriller didn't thrill me at all ( Now Noel Coward, that's another story ). But I did get a bit of a kick from seeing others get him. He was boppy and catchy and slick, as well as monumentally fluffy and hugely impaired. What I struggle with is the apparently massive consequentiality of fluffiness and impairment like Jackson's. What is the fuss about the passing of a semi-talented song and dance weirdo from decades past? Boris Johnson, the London Mayor, has had a stab at explaining it to we mystified souls who struggle to get with the programme. He reckons it's just like Princess Di. And I agree, to the extent that I was almost as unprepared for and dumbfounded by th...
Comments