In an attempt to stem the tide, Citigroup is requesting that the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) impose a ban on short selling. This request comes as the CEO of Citigroup, Vikram Pandit, tries to rationalize the nearly 84% decline in Citigroup stock since October 1, 2008. While Mr. Pandit isn't responsible for the mess that Citigroup is in, he is responsible for doing whatever he can to get the company out of its funk. Unfortunately, the idea of putting a ban on short selling is not going to solve anything.
In life we seldom get the chance to see comparable examples of the effect of an idea before actually implementing it. In the case of banning short sells there is one example that stands as a perfect case study. On September 30, 2008, Taiwan's Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC), the equivalent to our SEC, implemented a complete ban on all short selling. Along with this ban on short selling, the FSC has a rule that limits the amount of decline of any stock to 3.5%. After a stock falls 3.5% there will be no trading of that stock until the next day.
With these rules in place to limit the decline of stocks in Taiwan, you would think that Taiwan's main stock index, the TSEC Weighted Index, would have fared much better than the Dow Jones Industrial Average in the period from October 1 to the present. After all, The housing crisis originated in the U.S. The rating agencies that didn't properly rate the debt are in the U.S. The biggest financial institutions in the world that have failed are in the U.S. With all that has happened recently, it would stand to reason that the brunt of the decline in stocks would take place here in the U.S. rather than in Taiwan. Unfortunately, the reality shows that banning short selling has little impact on the market's declines.
From the period of October 1 to November 21 the TSEC index fell 27.64% while the Dow Industrials fell 25.71%. Was there any benefit of having the ban on short selling? There has been no material benefit to Taiwan's ban on short selling. A ban on short selling of Citigroup stock would have a similar effect. By banning short selling, Mr. Pandit blames the symptom, a falling stock price, rather than addressing the approximately $1 trillion in money losing "assets" that aren't on the company's balance sheet. Such an irrational response from a investment professional like Mr. Pandit puts into question the legitimacy of the leadership at Citigroup.
The investment community will zero in on Mr. Pandit's request to ban short selling as a cover for more serious matters at the bank that cannot be resolved through management or leadership. This will put further pressure on Citigroup's stock price and hasten a government inspired merger of equals (the combining of two unhealthy institutions) which will result in a scenario like the combination of CreditAnstalt and BodenCredit of Austria which sparked the worldwide banking crisis in May of 1931. Touc.
In life we seldom get the chance to see comparable examples of the effect of an idea before actually implementing it. In the case of banning short sells there is one example that stands as a perfect case study. On September 30, 2008, Taiwan's Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC), the equivalent to our SEC, implemented a complete ban on all short selling. Along with this ban on short selling, the FSC has a rule that limits the amount of decline of any stock to 3.5%. After a stock falls 3.5% there will be no trading of that stock until the next day.
With these rules in place to limit the decline of stocks in Taiwan, you would think that Taiwan's main stock index, the TSEC Weighted Index, would have fared much better than the Dow Jones Industrial Average in the period from October 1 to the present. After all, The housing crisis originated in the U.S. The rating agencies that didn't properly rate the debt are in the U.S. The biggest financial institutions in the world that have failed are in the U.S. With all that has happened recently, it would stand to reason that the brunt of the decline in stocks would take place here in the U.S. rather than in Taiwan. Unfortunately, the reality shows that banning short selling has little impact on the market's declines.
From the period of October 1 to November 21 the TSEC index fell 27.64% while the Dow Industrials fell 25.71%. Was there any benefit of having the ban on short selling? There has been no material benefit to Taiwan's ban on short selling. A ban on short selling of Citigroup stock would have a similar effect. By banning short selling, Mr. Pandit blames the symptom, a falling stock price, rather than addressing the approximately $1 trillion in money losing "assets" that aren't on the company's balance sheet. Such an irrational response from a investment professional like Mr. Pandit puts into question the legitimacy of the leadership at Citigroup.
The investment community will zero in on Mr. Pandit's request to ban short selling as a cover for more serious matters at the bank that cannot be resolved through management or leadership. This will put further pressure on Citigroup's stock price and hasten a government inspired merger of equals (the combining of two unhealthy institutions) which will result in a scenario like the combination of CreditAnstalt and BodenCredit of Austria which sparked the worldwide banking crisis in May of 1931. Touc.
Sources:
- Westbrook, Jesse. “Citigroup Urging SEC to Bring Back Short-Selling Ban.” Bloomberg.com. November 20, 2008. viewed online November 22, 2008.
- Young, Doug. “Taiwan extends Short Selling Ban, Limits Stock Drops.” Reuters. October 12, 2008. viewed online November 22, 2008.
- Austria's Economic Development Between the Two Wars. Rothschild, Kurt Wilhelm. F. Muller LTD. 1947.
- Kassenaar, Lisa. "Citi's Wake-up Call." Bloomberg Markets Magazine. September 2008.
Click on the link to learn more about Dividend Inc.
