The World Federation of Exchanges (WFE) has heaped yet more academic evidence onto the pile of papers debunking claims that short selling bans achieve their intended aims of alleviating downward pressure on markets.
WFE has published a paper that reviews the academic literature on short selling and short selling bans, comparing the arguments against banning short-selling with the arguments in favour.
From this exercise, the WFE concludes that the evidence 鈥渁lmost unanimously鈥� points towards short selling bans being disruptive for the orderly functioning of markets.
The federation explains that the research indicates that such shorting freezes only serve to reduce liquidity, increase price inefficiency and hamper price discovery.
In addition, short selling bans are found to have negative spillover effects on other markets, such as options markets, it adds.
鈥淎ccording to the literature, during periods of price decline and heightened volatility, short-sellers do not behave differently from any other traders, and contribute less to price declines than regular 鈥榣ong鈥� sellers,鈥� WFE says.
Moreover, the WFE warns that emerging markets should be particularly wary of bans on short selling as they are 鈥渕ore deleterious to markets characterised by a relatively high amount of small stocks, low levels of fragmentation, and fewer alternatives to short-selling鈥�.
The paper comes shortly after Malaysia confirmed it was extending its ban until the end of June. Other emerging markets currently imposing a short ban include The Philipines and Indonesia, both of which have no set fixed deadline to repeal the order.
Bans have also been extended in . These were all endorsed by the European Securities and Markets Authority.
This week鈥檚 paper is not the first time that the WFE has gone out to bat for the short sellers recently.
In late March, the WFE's CEO, Nandini Sukumar, published a statement criticising the recent bans on short-selling as damaging to markets and failing to achieve their desired effect.
鈥淏anning short selling interferes with price formation, thereby increasing uncertainty,鈥� she said at the time. 鈥淭hat can only artificially amplify volatility and probability of default, the opposite effect to that claimed and hampers the ability of markets to serve the real economy.
鈥淚t is not 鈥� and never has been 鈥� true that bans have any other, positive effect on market activity or price levels,鈥� she concludes.
Others to have waded in the fray on the controversial issue include , which recently published a paper on the interplay between securities lending and the growing trend of environmental, social and governance investing.
Elsewhere, one of the most vocal critics of the bans is, unsurprisingly, the International Securities Lending Association. The industry body has released numerous statements denouncing the value of the bans, including via its and its newly-formed .
.
Image: wavebreakmedia/Shutterstock.com 