Short-selling
卖空
Naked fear
对裸露卖空的担忧
Jul 24th 2008
From The Economist print edition
Regulators have yet to justify their restrictions on short sales
监管方还没有证明他们对卖空的限制是正当的
IF BANK bosses have slept at all in recent months, their dreams have probably been unhappy ones. Quite a few of them will have featured nightmarish beings known as short-sellers. These ghouls sell shares they do not own-usually borrowed stock, which they sell in the hope of buying it back at a lower price. Many of them have been betting vocally, and successfully, that bank shares will fall. Now financial regulators in both America and Britain are doing their best to make bankers’ waking and sleeping hours a little less troubled, by imposing restrictions on short-selling. They should have left bankers to toss and turn a little longer.
近几个月，若银行老板们熟睡，他们的梦境大概不那么愉快，被称作卖空者的家伙将成为其中相当多的人的梦魇。这些盗尸者般的家伙卖出他们并不拥有的股票–通常是借来的，寄希望于其下跌时再赎回。 他们中的许多人放言打赌银行股将跌，并且成功地，银行股真的跌了。现在美国和英国的金融监管部门正用对卖空强加限制的手段竭力使银行家们安心。他们本应让银行家们辗转反侧的更久一点。
This month America’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) banned “naked” shorting-the sale of stock that investors do not yet have in their possession-of the American-listed shares of 17 investment banks as well as of the country’s mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Last month Britain’s Financial Services Authority (FSA) introduced a new disclosure regime for short positions in companies that are selling new shares. Both announcements bore a whiff of panic: they were made during steep falls in bank shares and the fine print was tidied up afterwards. Both were accompanied by the rattling of regulatory sabres. The FSA growled that “market abuse” could explain the “severe volatility” of shares. The SEC thundered that “false rumours can lead to a loss of confidence”. It has reportedly fired off more than 50 subpoenas, largely to hedge funds.
这个月美国证券交易委员会(SEC) ‘颁布对17家美国上市投资银行和两大国家住房抵押巨头房利美和房地美的裸露卖空禁令，裸露卖空指投资者还未持有股票时就将其卖出。上个月英国金融服务局 (FSA)提出一项新的针对要发售新股的公司存在的空头净额的披露制度。这两项新令带来一阵恐慌：他们是在银行股急剧下跌期间制定的，并且附属的例外条件被一并购销。FSA咆哮道 “市场操纵”能够解释股价的”剧烈波动”。SEC斥责道”谣言能够导致信心丧失”。据说SEC已开出50多张传票，主要发给对冲基金。
Spreading false rumours with the intention of manipulating share prices is to be deplored. Indeed, it is usually illegal. If either regulator has evidence that this explains the fall in banks’ share prices, they should bring the culprits to book . It may be that the SEC’s flurry of subpoenas turns up something substantial. But neither of the watchdogs has produced such evidence so far.
散步谣言以操控股价是要被谴责的。当然，它通常是违法的。如果任一监管方有证据表明是它解释了银行股票的下跌，监管者应当谴责罪魁。或许SEC纷踏发出的传票呈现些许实质的东西，但是任一监管方迄今还未提供这样的证据。
Naked shorting too can be a cause for concern. It can result in failed trades if investors sell shares without properly checking that they will be able to obtain them before their trade settles. This can sometimes lead to disorderly markets. But the SEC already has rules against this as well-although some argue they could be enforced better. It also has tests for levels of botched trades in any individual stock, which trigger its intervention. However, these tests were met for only one of the 19 institutions the SEC has leapt to protect. Indeed, the commission’s chairman has said that “unbridled” naked short-selling of financial stocks has “not occurred”. The SEC has also shown less enthusiasm for policing trading in other distressed industries, such as carmaking, where short-sellers have been much more active than they have in banking.
裸露卖空也是引起关注的一个缘由。它能导致交易违约，倘若投资者在卖出股票时却没有严格的核算他们将在合约交割前有能力赎回这些股票。这有时能导致市场混乱。但是SEC也已经有了应对的法令–尽管有些争论它们能被实施的更好。SEC 也测试任一个股中存在的误交易的水平，这触发了它的干预。然而，这些测试只适用SEC急于保护的19家机构中的一家。的确，SEC的主席说”肆无忌惮”的裸露卖空金融股票还”未发生”。SEC对其他低迷行业的交易监管可没这么热情，比如汽车制造业，那里卖空比银行业更为活跃。
The Selective Enforcement Commission
选择性执行委员会
The sense of selective enforcement, combined with regulators’ dark mutterings about short-sellers of financial stocks, explains the widespread suspicion in the markets that both regulators acted in order to prop up bank shares. After all, as well as policing stockmarkets, the SEC and the FSA are responsible for supervising the capital positions of these institutions (although the SEC does not oversee the solvency of Fannie and Freddie). More failures on their watch would be embarrassing.
选择性执行的感觉与监管当局难以理解的嘀咕结合在一起解释了市场上为什么存在广泛怀疑：两个监管当局举动的目的是支持银行股东。毕竟，在管理股票市场的同时，SEC和FSA也要对监管这些机构（尽管SEC没有监督房利美和房地美的偿付能力）的资本情况负责。更多他们监管上的失败将令其尴尬。
If this suspicion is accurate, it is unfair that regulators should take aim at short-sellers. Although overall short positions in banks have risen, they have not overwhelmed other trading. After the collapses of Bear Stearns and Northern Rock it is entirely legitimate for investors to debate other banks’ vulnerabilities-and to back their opinions with money. Indeed, prominent short-sellers have played an important role in exposing the poor condition of some companies, often in the face of intense hostility from management. There is no guarantee that the regulators’ actions will even work beyond the very short term. On July 21st, a month after the FSA intervened, the shares in HBOS, Britain’s biggest mortgage lender, languished below the price at which the bank was trying to sell new equity, forcing it to rely on its underwriters.
如果这个怀疑是正确的，那么监管方拿卖空者作靶就不公平。尽管银行总的空头净额已上涨，但它们还没有压过其他交易。贝尔斯登和北岩覆灭后，对投资者来说商讨其他银行的弱点并用资金来支持他们的观点完全是合法的。的确，卓越的卖空者在曝光一些公司的不良状况方面扮演了重要角色，他们经常面对来自管理方的强烈敌意。监管者的行动将在这样短的时期之后依然起作用是无保证的。7月21 日，FSA干预实施一个月后，英国最大的抵押贷款银行苏格兰哈里法克斯银行(HBOS)的股票跌至该行试图发售新股的价格以下，迫使它不得不依赖它的证券包销商。
Some may say that the rules should still be bent to prop up bank shares, because banks rely on confidence and their failure causes systemic damage. But lenders now have generous privileges to borrow from central banks; these should prevent runs on solvent banks. Fannie and Freddie now have near-explicit state guarantees. Shareholders neither need nor deserve any more privileges. Attempting to distort share prices away from their market level is not a legitimate activity for traders. It is no business of regulators either.
一些人或许会说法令依然应该倾向支撑银行股票。因为银行依靠信心，并且它们的破产引发系统性的破坏。但是银行现在有从央行大量借款的特权；这些应当可以防止挤兑发生在有偿付能力的银行。房利美和房地美现在有近乎现付的地位保证。股东既不需要也不值得享有更多特权。对交易者来说，试图歪曲股票价格以使它偏离市场水平是不合法的，对监管当局来说也是如此。
译者：蓝冰 http://www.ecocn.org/forum/viewthread.php?tid=12867&extra=page%3D1