Prof. Jayanth R. Varma's Financial Markets Blog

Photograph About
Prof. Jayanth R. Varma's Financial Markets Blog, A Blog on Financial Markets and Their Regulation

© Prof. Jayanth R. Varma

Subscribe to a feed
RSS Feed
Atom Feed
RSS Feed (Comments)

Follow on:

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

Powered by Blosxom

Sat, 20 Feb 2010

Short selling and public issues

When the Indian government company NTPC was conducting a public offering of share, it was alleged that many institutional investors short sold NTPC shares on a large scale (by selling stock futures). This gave rise to some talk about suspending futures trading in shares of a company while a public issue is in progress. Thankfully, the government and the regulators did not do anything as foolish as this.

The US has a different approach to the problem – Rule 105 (Regulation M) prohibits the purchase of offering shares by any person who sold short the same securities within five business days before the pricing of the offering. Last month, the SEC brought charges against some hedge funds for violating this rule.

Obviously, Rule 105 is a far better solution than shutting down the whole market, but it is necessary to ask whether even this is necessary. Take for example, the SEC’s argument that:

Short selling ahead of offerings can reduce the proceeds received by public companies and their shareholders by artificially depressing the market price shortly before the company prices its offering.

We can turn this around to say:

Short sale restrictions ahead of offerings can allow companies to sell their shares to the public at inflated prices by artificially increasing the market price shortly before the company prices its offering.

Why do regulators have to assume that issuers of capital are saints and that investors are the sinners in all this? Provided there is complete transparency about short selling (and open interest in the futures market), it is difficult to see why short selling with the full intention to cover in the public issue should depress the issue price.

The empirical evidence is that an equity issue has a negative impact on the share price. This is partly due to the signalling effect of raising equity rather than debt, and partly due to the need to induce a portfolio rebalancing of all investors to accommodate the new shares.

Now imagine that a hedge fund short sells with the intention to buy back in the issue. Since the short seller is committed to buying in the issue, a part of the issue is effectively pre-sold. To this extent, the price impact of an equity issue is reduced. While the short selling could depress prices, this would be offset by the lower price impact of the issue itself.

In short, the short sellers would not change prices at all. What they would do is to advance the effective date of the public issue. If there is a 100 million share issue happening on the 15th and the hedge funds short 20 million shares on the 10th, then somebody has to take the long position of 20 million shares on the 10th itself. For this amount of portfolio rebalancing to happen on the 10th, there has to be a price adjustment and this can be quite visible.

But the flip side is that on the 15th there are only 80 million shares to be bought by long only investors. There is less price adjustment required on that date. The total portfolio adjustment required with or without short selling is the same – 100 million shares. The only question is whether the price adjustment happens on the 15th or earlier.

In an efficient market, the impact of unrestricted short selling would be to force the entire price adjustment to happen on the announcement date itself. The issue itself would then have zero price impact and this would be a good thing.

Because of limited short selling in the past, we are accustomed to issues being priced at a discount to the market price on the pricing date. With unlimited short selling, this would disappear. If the short selling were excessive, the issue may even be priced at a premium as the shorts scramble to cover their positions. It will take some time for market participants to adjust to the new environment. Regulators should just step back and let the market participants learn and adjust.

Posted at 20:30 on Sat, 20 Feb 2010     5 comments     permanent link


Puneet wrote on Sun, 21 Feb 2010 01:08

Re: Short selling and public issues

Sir, <quote> "In short, the short sellers would not change prices at all." </quote>

In the small time period before the sale of a new issue, the stock price is quite volatile in anticipation of the new supply and determination of a new price point. In these times, actions of short sellers can have serious short term impact on the pricing, which is unfair to the issuer as it reduces its capital proceeds.

You are correct that in an efficient market these issues won't arise, but we do not live in an efficient market, particularly in a market as illiquid and small as the Indian.

Deepak Shenoy wrote on Tue, 23 Feb 2010 01:57

Re: Short selling and public issues

With all due respect to the government, they must note that the market wide position limit on futures/options is just 20% of the "free float" of a company's shares. For NTPC, with a free float of 86 cr. shares, the market wide position limit was 17 cr shares. That means if all the futures/options open interest was added up across all contracts, it would not be allowed to cross 17 cr. shares, which at the outer end would cost Rs. 3,500 crore.

The open interest of NTPC on Feb 3 - the starting date of the FPO - was just 4.3 crore shares. THat's 800 crores of "shorting" if you may (though it's not - there's a buyer for each seller) That's just 1/10th the size of the FPO - with that many new shares coming in, one would assume NTPCs price would dip, no?

It's silly, blaming all this stuff on "short sellers". The data just doesnt add up. And even if it did, consider the logic that shorts are the stock supporters if it did go down (versus buy-and-hold, who end up panic selling in deep drops).

ketan wrote on Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:08

Re: Short selling and public issues

Just to add to what the Professor says, but only illustratively:

Most of us work with our right hand, though we have both hands of same length.

What would happen if the left one is made smaller.

How would we feel, if when there is an urgent use of the left hand, it is found lacking in length & strength... there are two (equal) sides to every coin - and the 'equal' is understood.

reg ketan

Paresh wrote on Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:24

Re: Short selling and public issues

Even in 'advanced' and more liquid bourses in USA, there are moves to curb short selling. On 24th February 2010, SEC has come out with fresh curbs on shorting. The restrictions will be triggered when a stock has fallen by 10% or more in one day. So, the soft solution would be not to ban shorts completely but impose some restrictions on the reckless betting. But this move may have got to do more with the huge political pressure because of the crisis. In any case, short sellers do provide one benefit - liquidity. And their actions can also expose firms that have dubious finances.