逢高減持是時候了



港股自八月以來已累跌22%,但單單上週已極速回彈6%,一衆市民歡喜若狂,瞳景政府救市政策湊效,歐洲開鈔票機靈驗了?事實上,七大證券組織要求政府暫停沽空活動,不再出現像現時般大上大落,或一分鐘內多隻牛證突然死亡。於是市場、基金恐慌沽空禁制實行而進行大量平倉活動。上星期五政府否定事件,並指出禁沽空難阻股市,最重要是恐禁沽空令市場交投萎縮與波動加大。雖然干預市場是不鼓勵的,但適當監管卻是非常重要。香港沽空猖獗,更盛傳大戶,如強積金,基金管理人有可能在客戶不知情的情況下將貨借出作沽空,一但遇上被挾倉未能還貨時、及可能違約後的骨牌效倒閉等種種牽連甚廣。香港政府監管不力是事實,偏幫銀行大戶也顯然易見,最後受難的就只有小市民。如fofoa所説,這個世界分爲The debtors and savers”, where

1. Debtors - "The easy money camp" likes to spend (and redistribute) money it did not earn, either by borrowing it, taxing the savers for it, or printing it. They like easy money because it is always and everywhere constantly inflating, easing the repayment of their debts.
2. Savers - "The hard money camp" likes to live within their means and save any excess for the future. They prefer hard money (or in some cases "harder" money) because it protects their savings and forces the debtors to work off their debts.
You save, they spent!

-------------------------------------------------------

明報 – 2011107日星期五上午5:14
【明報專訊】環球股市近期大幅波動,個別歐美市場陸續開始限制沽空活動,財經事務及庫務局長陳家強昨日表示,禁止沽空並不是阻止大市跌勢的最好方法,相反擔心會導致反效果,令大市成交萎縮及下跌加劇。不過,證券界強調要求禁止沽空是希望減低大戶舞高弄低機會,並指監管機構應考慮其他措施穩定市場。
本港多個證券商會組織日前約見財經事務及庫務局,要求政府考慮禁止沽空,但陳家強昨日出席公開活動時表示,香港是現時全球監管沽空最嚴的地方之一,認為近期市場沽空情况大致正常,暫不考慮禁止沽空,監管機構將密切注視市况,若有違規或操縱行為,證監會則會全力跟進。
陳家強表示經過證監會的市場諮詢,近期將加強對申報持倉量方面的監管,尤其是對持股票淡倉的投資者,在法例未修改前將密切留意不尋常及操作性交易活動。
港沽空活躍 全球前列
事實上,香港一直是全球沽空活動最活躍地區之一,相比已實施限制沽空金融股的個別歐洲市場,自8月初至今,港股已下跌超過兩成,至於米蘭、巴黎及馬德里等今次金融危機源頭地區,跌幅則介乎11%18%左右。
香港證券及期貨專業總會會長王國安批評,監管機構在非常時期應出手穩定市場及投資者心理,即使不實施禁止沽空,亦應考慮其他措施如要求披露沽空借貨來源,或平倉情况,維持金融市場穩定,而非「得個講字」,任由香港「成為其他外資的提款機」。
香港證券學會會長張華峰坦言對於陳家強言論感到遺憾,指出禁止沽空目的非為阻止港股下跌,而是希望遏制大戶及對冲基金單邊沽空活動,進一步擾亂市場秩序。他表示,在當前市場環境不穩下,希望監管機構多與業界溝通,盡力在各方面加強對金融市場秩序的監管。
不過,浸大財務及決策學系副教授麥萃才表示,股票價格上落反映着市場供求情况及股份基本因素,沽空活動並非股市波動的主要因素。他續指,本港自97年容許借貨沽空以來,即使經歷過金融風暴,亦無出現因沽空活動而導致的重大事故,因監管當局對這些活動嚴格規管,例如設有賣空價規則(Uptick Rule)。他認為,倘機構投資者依法進行沽空活動,政府不應限制,因這樣不但扼殺了投資者對冲風險的機會,亦會大大降低外資參與本港市場的興趣,導致交易量萎縮之餘,亦不利香港作為國際金融中心的發展。

Comments

  1. Also from FOFOA

    A short seller is selling a stock he borrowed, but doesn't actually own, at current prices only to buy it back at a lower price. He causes two buys in the market. First is the person that buys the borrowed stock he sold, and the second buy is him buying it back at a lower price and then returning the borrowed stock to it's owner. In essence, he is betting on the price of the stock dropping and when it does he makes money. On the other hand, a long seller is an owner of the stock who just wants out. He is selling a stock he actually owns. He only causes one buy in the market because once he sells he is out. And as he sells, the stock is caught at the lower price by the short seller. So the short seller actually acts as a backstop against the panic selling of shareholders.

    If you remove the short seller from the equation, then there will be no backstop if the actual shareholders get spooked by the market and decide to exit their positions.

    Most short sellers place their bets because they actually believe a stock will go down based on fundamentals. In fact, most short sellers don't have the billions of dollars it would take to affect the market in a downward trajectory, so they must place their bets carefully. Some short sellers are doing it as a hedge against a long position they may have in the same company, perhaps in Preferred Shares with a fixed dividend. By shorting the common stock they can hedge their risk in the price of the preferreds.

    The point is that legal short sellers provide a legitimate function in our current market setup. And by removing them wholesale from the marketplace creates a situation where the prices of stocks could theoretically freefall all the way to zero. That is where we are today.
    =======================================
    instead of banning short selling, isnt it better to ban derivatives?

    ReplyDelete
  2. the situation is if everything is properly managed and control, doesn't need to ban anything. However, at the end, whose gonna propose and execute the policy? The government? The bankers? The Elites? It is scary to think they are all from same family.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I was referring to HK, my guess is NO ONE, why would they?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts