- Joined
- 25 June 2008
- Posts
- 30
- Reactions
- 0
Hi,
I have been tracking this data for a few weeks now and have posted it here for others to see and make comments.
This explanation seems mad and maybe incorrect. Shorting stocks maybe not be as simple as borrowing the physical stock as described above. Derivatives maybe used to protect the owner of any downside they may experience on the underlying assets?? it would only make sense and would be part of the borrowing costs that the shorter would have to pay..Unfortunately the data the ASX makes available is as good as useless.
The bulk of the short selling is done off market. Stock lending done between the large instos.
You have a situation where Superfund A may own 10m shares in XYZ. Superfund B wants to short the stock so they borrow it from Superfund A and pay them a fee for the privilege. They then sell the stock into the market and drive the price down. Eventually they have to buy the stock back and pay it back to Superfund A
The situation is perverse. Superfund A which is long and hoping that the share price appreciates is actually assisting another superfund to drive the price down. Go figure.
This activity is not reported to the ASX. Its said to be substatially greater in szie than the on market reported activity.
No one actually knows how much "short selling" is going on.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?