DOCSLIB.ORG

The Hidden Cost of Holding a Concentrated Position Why Diversification Can Help to Protect Wealth by Baird’S Private Wealth Management Research

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Hidden Cost of Holding a Concentrated Position Why Diversification Can Help to Protect Wealth by Baird’S Private Wealth Management Research The Hidden Cost of Holding a Concentrated Position Why diversification can help to protect wealth By Baird’s Private Wealth Management Research Executive Summary Family wealth created by holding a single stock that appreciates substantially in value over time is fairly common. For example, senior company executives receive stock or stock options as part of their compensation, investors benefit from superior appreciation of one stock relative to the rest of their portfolio or family members inherit a large position in a single stock. Regardless of how the concentrated position is acquired, it results in a disproportionate allocation of wealth, which exposes the family to undue risk that should be understood and managed. Whether investors understand the risks of holding a concentrated position or not, there is a tendency to hold onto these positions. Corporate executives may face insider selling constraints or concerns about how a sale would affect the market price of their company’s stock. Other investors simply have an emotional attachment to the stock. Many investors are concerned about the tax implications of selling. Despite these seemingly valid reasons, there is a critical point for most investors and families where the desire for wealth, income and lifestyle preservation outweighs the need for further wealth creation. This is especially true when investors approach retirement or life events during which they will more heavily rely on their accumulated wealth. The goals of this paper are to educate investors about the hidden risks associated with holding significant wealth in concentrated positions and to suggest strategies to help mitigate and manage those risks. The Risk/Reward Implications of The results of this study showed Defining a Concentrated a Concentrated Position that over one-third of the individual Position Investors who have benefited from stocks underperformed our 60/40 A concentrated position occurs holding a concentrated position often diversified portfolio, and that all of when an investor owns shares believe that past performance will the individual stocks showed much of a stock (or other security continue indefinitely, and may find higher volatility. The average stock’s type) that represent a large it difficult to imagine a downside. volatility was more than three times percentage of his or her overall While it’s tempting to believe a that of the diversified portfolio. There portfolio. The investor’s wealth stock’s market outperformance is no perfect way to know which becomes concentrated in the will continue, studies show that stocks will be the winners over the single position. Depending on investments in a diversified portfolio long term, and the cost for being the volatility of the stock and can produce greater long-term wealth wrong can be high. For example, the the size of the client’s portfolio, a than investments in a concentrated return of 55 stocks failed to keep pace position is often considered to be position, with significantly less risk. with inflation over the period, and concentrated when it represents 37 of the 309 stocks had a negative 10% or more of one’s portfolio. In order to better understand the return for the decade. risk/reward trade-off of holding a concentrated stock position, Baird A good example is General Electric. constructed a hypothetical diversified The chart below compares the portfolio consisting of 60% equities performance of General Electric’s and 40% fixed income and compared stock to the diversified portfolio over it with the 309 individual stocks that this 10-year period. GE experienced remained consistently in the S&P a 1.9% annual rate with 28.9% 500 Index for the 10-year period of volatility, while the diversified September 30, 2006, to September portfolio generated a positive annual Concentrated Equity Position: 30, 2016. return of 5.8% with much less “What If” Analysis Single Stock Position vs Diversified Portfolio $200,000 Growth of $100,000 Investment, Past Ten Years GE $180,000 $175,467 Diversified Portfolio $160,000 Diversified Portfolio $140,000 GE Diversified Portfolio $120,000 $120,154 10-Year Higher $100,000 1.9% 5.8% Annualized Return Return $80,000 10-Year Less 28.9% 9.2% $60,000 Annual Volatility Volatility $40,000 GE Diversified Portfolio (total=100%) $20,000 Equity 0 Large-Cap Value 14.0% Large-Cap Growth 12.0% Sep-06 Jul-07 May-08 Mar-09 Jan-10 Nov-10 Sep-11 Jul-12 May-13 Mar-14 Jan-15 Nov-15 Sep-16 Mid-Cap 8.0% Source: FactSet Research Systems; Baird analysis. Small-Cap 4.0% The following indices are used to represent the diversified portfolio: Large-Cap Growth: Russell 1000® Growth International 14.0% Index; Large-Cap Value: Russell 1000® Value Index; Mid-Cap: Russell Midcap® Index; Small-Cap: Russell 2000® Index; International: MSCI EAFE; Taxable Fixed Income: Barclays Capital Intermediate US Govt/Credit Taxable Fixed Income 40.0% Index; Satellite: MSCI Emerging Markets Index, Barclays Capital US Corporate High Yield Bond Index, Satellite 8.0% DJ UBS Commodity Index, DJ US Select REIT Index. Russell® is a trademark of the Frank Russell Company. Indices are unmanaged and a direct investment can not be made into an index. The analysis was performed by Baird’s Private Wealth Management Research department. - 2 - volatility (9.2%). Importantly, this is As Table B shows, Investment II, the less not an isolated case. Baird has calculated volatile of the investments, generates similar results for dozens of companies, a much higher compounded growth including US Bank, Cisco Systems, rate of 9.9%, compared with 2.5% for Exxon Mobil and FedEx. In many of the Investment I. As a result, a $1,000,000 “what-if ” analyses we conducted, the investment in Investment II grows to diversified portfolio outperformed the $1,207,500 in two years. That’s over single stock position, and in all $150,000 more than Investment I cases the diversified portfolio had simply because of the investment’s lower lower volatility. volatility. In summary, the more an investment’s return fluctuates year by So why does a diversified portfolio often year (i.e., the higher the volatility), the outperform a single stock position? greater the drag on the compounded The answer lies in the lower volatility. growth rate and the lower the future As our study and others like it have wealth. Thus, controlling volatility and indicated, greater volatility in a portfolio risk through proper diversification does reduces compounded growth rates and matter in portfolio management. future wealth. The example in the tables below illustrates this point through two While investors may be tempted to hypothetical investments that generate hold a concentrated stock position in the same average annual return of 10%, the hope of greater profit, they may fail but with varying levels of volatility. to understand that they are not being In Table A, Investment I averages a compensated for taking this risk. In 10% return but is the more volatile theory, stocks are riskier investments that investment, increasing 50% one year and should provide higher returns than less decreasing 30% the next. Investment II risky investments like Treasury securities. also averages a 10% return; however, it is However, the risk/reward premium less volatile, up 15% and 5% in the two turns against the investor when too few years, respectively. stocks are owned, and especially when the investor holds a single or large, TABLE A: dominant position. Returns become too Averages Can Be Misleading reliant on the fortunes of one company Investment Year 1 Year 2 Average Volatility (exposing the investor to significant company-specific fundamental risks) I 50% -30% 10% 40% and to a single industry (exposing the investor to sector-specific risks). As a 15% 5% 10% 5% II result, it is clear that investors should choose to diversify a concentrated stock TABLE B: position whenever possible. Why Volatility Matters Investment Original Investment Year 1 Year 2 Compounded Growth Rate I $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,050,000 2.50% II $1,000,000 $1,150,000 $1,207,500 9.90% - 3 - Why Are Some Investors The True Tax Consequences Today’s Capital Gains Reluctant to Sell? of Selling Rate Environment Despite this compelling argument, One of the biggest objections to It’s widely agreed that tax we have found many investors selling a large appreciated stock considerations, while important, are reluctant to sell concentrated position is the need to pay income tax should not be the only reason for positions. A few of the most on the gain. With a cost basis that can making an investment decision. common reasons investors don’t sell be as low as zero, the tax implications The investment merits of owning are summarized in Table C below. in dollar terms of a sale can seem the stock should supersede the Although many of these reasons are significant. However, we have already tax considerations of selling. valid in the eyes of the investor, the shown how a diversified portfolio can Nevertheless, investors who logic supporting diversification is build greater wealth with less risk than currently own a large stock compelling. We will now turn to a single-stock position. In the study position should consider the some ways an investor can successfully referenced, even in a decade when the impact of capital gains tax rates diversify and minimize the risk of a S&P 500 was up 5.3%, 25 stocks when contemplating a sale. concentrated position. were down 20% or more in value at While higher than they were in the end of 10 years – roughly the early 2000s, long-term capital equivalent to a payment of 15% gains rates are still at or near historical lows for most taxpayers.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Financial Statements of the Budapest Stock Exchange for the Year 2016 Table of Contents
    FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE BUDAPEST STOCK EXCHANGE FOR THE YEAR 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS BALANCE SHEET 3 INCOME STATEMENT 5 NOTES TO THE 2016 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 6 BUSINESS REPORT 33 Statistical Code 12853812-6611-114-01 Company’s Reg. Num. 01-10-044764 BALANCE SHEET Budapest, 18 April, 2017 Richárd Végh Ildikó Auguszt Chairman-CEO Financial Director 3 | Financial statements of the Budapest Stock Exchange for the year 2016 Statistical Code 12853812-6611-114-01 Company’s Reg. Num. 01-10-044764 Budapest, 18 April, 2017 Richárd Végh Ildikó Auguszt Chairman-CEO Financial Director 4 | Financial statements of the Budapest Stock Exchange for the year 2016 Statistical Code 12853812-6611-114-01 Company’s Reg. Num. 01-10-044764 INCOME STATEMENT Budapest, 18 April, 2017 Richárd Végh Ildikó Auguszt Chairman-CEO Financial Director 5 | Financial statements of the Budapest Stock Exchange for the year 2016 NOTES TO THE 2016 ANNUAL REPORT GENERAL COMPANY INFORMATION Name of Company: Budapesti Értéktőzsde Zártkörűen Működő Részvénytársaság Address of Company: H-1054 Budapest, Szabadság tér 7. Company’s Registration No.: Cg. 01-10-044764 Data of persons authorised to Richárd Végh, Chairman-CEO sign the report on behalf of the Address: H-2010 Budaörs, Kálvária utca 7. Company: Ildikó Auguszt, Financial Director Address: H-1138 Budapest, Róbert Károly krt. 18/C The person charged with the management of bookkeeping tasks and the preparation of the annual report: Ildikó Auguszt (address: H-1138 Budapest, Róbert Károly krt. 18/C, registration No. 120433). Statutory audit is obligatory for the Company. Data of the Auditor KPMG Hungary, Audit, Tax and Advisory Services Limited Liability Company HU-1134 Budapest, Váci út 31.
    [Show full text]
  • Massive Delisting on the Prague Stock Exchange
    CAN THE MARKET FIX A WRONG ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION? MASSIVE DELISTING ON THE PRAGUE STOCK EXCHANGE Zuzana Fungáčová CERGE-EI Charles University Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic Economics Institute WORKING PAPER SERIES (ISSN 1211-3298) Electronic Version 335 Working Paper Series 335 (ISSN 1211-3298) Can the Market Fix a Wrong Administrative Decision? Massive Delisting on the Prague Stock Exchange Zuzana Fungáčová CERGE-EI Prague, August 2007 ISBN 978-80-7343-134-1 (Univerzita Karlova. Centrum pro ekonomický výzkum a doktorské studium) ISBN 978-80-7344-123-4 (Národohospodářský ústav AV ČR, v.v.i.) Can the Market Fix a Wrong Administrative Decision? Massive Delisting on the Prague Stock Exchange Zuzana Fungáčová* CERGE-EI† Abstract This research contributes to the investigation of the emerging stock markets in transition economies, namely in the Czech Republic. We estimate the impact of the various determinants of shares delisting e.g. exclusion from public trading on the Prague Stock Exchange (PSE) during the period 1993 – 2004. Unlike its counterparts in Poland or Hungary, exceptionally large amounts of shares were delisted from the PSE. Using the data on listed and delisted companies we show that the pre-privatization and privatization characteristics of the companies were decisive for delisting. This further indicates that it would have been possible to prevent massive delisting if these factors had been taken into account when deciding which companies to place on the stock exchange for public trading. Moreover, therefore companies that were not suitable for public trading were also not suitable for voucher privatization.
    [Show full text]
  • Zsolt Katona Is the New CEO of the Budapest Stock Exchange
    Zsolt Katona is the new CEO of the Budapest Stock Exchange Budapest, 10 May 2012 The Board of Directors of the Budapest Stock Exchange appointed Zsolt Katona to be the new Chief Executive Officer of the Budapest Stock Exchange from 15 May 2012. He is a professional with over two decades of executive experience in the financial and the stock exchange fields. He started his career over 20 years ago at one of the founding broker firms of the then reawakening BSE and has been connected to the Stock Exchange by many links ever since. He has been directing the investment services unit of the ING Group in different positions in the past 17 years while also filling several positions related to the Hungarian stock exchange and the capital market in the meantime. He was a member of the Supervisory Board of the BSE between 2002 and 2011, including a 3-year period when he was the Chairman of the BSE Supervisory Board, and he was also a member of the Supervisory Board of the Central Clearing House and Depository (KELER) between 2003 and 2004. In the last one and a half years, he has been participating in the work of the Consultation Body of the BSE, the task of which was to co-ordinate and harmonise interests in relation to the projected replacement of the trading system of the BSE. In connection with his appointment, Zsolt Katona said: “I made my first stock exchange deals in the “good old days”, at the beginning of the 90's, at the open-outcry trading floor in Váci Street, so my ties to the BSE do really go back a long way.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Regulates Whom? an Overview of the US Financial Regulatory
    Who Regulates Whom? An Overview of the U.S. Financial Regulatory Framework Updated March 10, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R44918 Who Regulates Whom? An Overview of the U.S. Financial Regulatory Framework Summary The financial regulatory system has been described as fragmented, with multiple overlapping regulators and a dual state-federal regulatory system. The system evolved piecemeal, punctuated by major changes in response to various historical financial crises. The most recent financial crisis also resulted in changes to the regulatory system through the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act; P.L. 111-203) and the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA; P.L. 110-289). To address the fragmented nature of the system, the Dodd-Frank Act created the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), a council of regulators and experts chaired by the Treasury Secretary. At the federal level, regulators can be clustered in the following areas: Depository regulators—Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and Federal Reserve for banks; and National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) for credit unions; Securities markets regulators—Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC); Government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) regulators—Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), created by HERA, and Farm Credit Administration (FCA); and Consumer protection regulator—Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), created by the Dodd-Frank Act. Other entities that play a role in financial regulation are interagency bodies, state regulators, and international regulatory fora. Notably, federal regulators generally play a secondary role in insurance markets.
    [Show full text]
  • Failure Is an Option: Impediments to Short Selling and Options Prices
    Failure is an Option: Impediments to Short Selling and Options Prices Richard B. Evans Christopher C. Geczy David K. Musto Adam V. Reed* This Version: May 25, 2006 Abstract Regulations allow market makers to short sell without borrowing stock, and the transactions of a major options market maker show that in most hard-to-borrow situations, it chooses not to borrow and instead fails to deliver stock to its buyers. Some of the value of failing passes through to option prices: when failing is cheaper than borrowing, the relation between borrowing costs and option prices is significantly weaker. The remaining value is profit to the market maker, and its ability to profit despite the usual competition between market makers appears to result from a cost advantage of larger market makers at failing. * Evans is from the Carroll School of Management at Boston College. Geczy and Musto are from The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. Reed is from the Kenan-Flagler Business School at the University of North Carolina. We gratefully acknowledge important input from an anonymous referee, Michael Brandt, Greg Brown, Jennifer Conrad, George Constantinides, Patrick Dennis, Darrell Duffie, Bin Gao, Eitan Goldman, Jonathan Karpoff, Richard Rendleman and seminar participants at Notre Dame, USC, UT, Wharton and the Western Finance Association Meetings. We thank Wes Gray for excellent research assistance. The Frank Russell Company generously provided constitution lists for their Russell 3000 index. Corresponding Author: Adam Reed; Campus Box 3490, McColl Building; Chapel Hill, NC 27514. Phone: (919) 962-9785. E-mail: [email protected]. The market for short exposure in the United States clears differently from the market for long exposure.
    [Show full text]
  • Trading Around the Clock: Global Securities Markets and Information Technology
    Acronyms and Glossary Acronyms ACT —Automated Confirmation Transaction LIFFE —London International Financial Futures [System] (NASD) Exchange ADP —Automatic Data Processing, Inc. MATIF —Financial Futures Market (France) ADR —American Depository Receipt MOF —Ministry of Finance (Japan) AMEx —American Stock Exchange MONEP —Paris Options Market (France) BIS —Bank for International Settlement MOU —Memoranda of Understanding BOTCC —Board of Trade Clearing Corp. MSE —Midwest Stock Exchange CBOE -Chicago Board Options Exchange NASD —National Association of Securities Dealers CBOT —Chicago Board of Trade NASDAQ —NASD Automated Quotation system CCITT -Comite Consultatif International Nikkei 225 —Nikkei 225 futures contracts (Japan) Telegraphique et Telephon (International NSCC —National Stock Clearing Corp. Telecommunications Union) NYMEX —New York Mercantile Exchange —Commodity Exchange Act NYSE —New York Stock Exchange CEDEL —Centrale de Livraison de Valeurs OCC -Options Clearing Corp. (U.S.) Mobilieres OECD -Organization for Economic Cooperation CFTC —Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Development (U.S.) ONA -Open network architecture (of computer CME -Chicago Mercantile Exchange systems) CNs -Continuous Net Settlement OSE -Osaka Stock Exchange (Japan) DTC —Depository Trust Corp. OSF50 -Osaka Securities Exchange Stock Futures DVP -delivery-versus-payment (Japan) EC —European [Economic] Community OTC -Over-the-counter FIBv —Federation International des Bourses de PHLX —Philadelphia Stock Exchange Valeurs PSE —Pacific Stock Exchange —Federal
    [Show full text]
  • Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (“GS&Co.”) Statement on Options
    Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (“GS&Co.”) Statement on Options Position Limits / Exercise Procedures and Other Disclosures for U.S. Listed Options 1. Position Limits. The options exchanges have established limits on the maximum number of puts and calls covering the same underlying security that may be held or written by a single investor or group of investors acting in concert or under common control (regardless of whether the options are purchased or written on the same or different exchanges or are held or written in one or more accounts or through one or more brokers). Under exchange and FINRA rules, customers are required to agree not to violate these limits. GS&Co. is required to monitor and report a customer’s positions to the options exchanges and may be required to liquidate positions in excess of these limits. Failure by GS&Co. to adhere to these regulations may result in the imposition of fines and other sanctions by the options exchanges. The position limit applicable to a particular option class is determined by the options exchanges based on the number of shares outstanding and trading volume of the security underlying the option. Positions are calculated on both the long and short side of the market. To calculate a long position, aggregate calls purchased (long calls) with puts written (short puts), on the same underlyer. To calculate a short position, aggregate calls written (short calls) with puts purchased (long puts) on the same underlyer. The aggregation of positions is illustrated in the following table. OTC options positions are calculated separately from listed positions.
    [Show full text]
  • Market Organization and Structure Larry Harris Los Angeles, USA Contents
    1 Market Organization and Structure Larry Harris Los Angeles, U.S.A. Contents: LEARNING OUTCOMES ......................................................................................................................................... 3 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 3 2 THE FUNCTIONS OF THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM .................................................................................... 4 2.1 HELPING PEOPLE ACHIEVE THEIR PURPOSES IN USING THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM ................................................. 4 2.1.1 Saving .................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1.2 Borrowing .............................................................................................................................................. 5 2.1.3 Raising Equity Capital ........................................................................................................................... 6 2.1.4 Managing Risks ..................................................................................................................................... 7 2.1.5 Exchanging Assets for Immediate Delivery (Spot Market Trading) ...................................................... 7 2.1.6 Information-Motivated Trading ............................................................................................................. 8 2.1.7
    [Show full text]
  • The Duty of a Stockbroker to Its Client
    Client Update August 2011 Dispute Resolution The Duty Of A Stockbroker To Its Client Introduction In Eric Preston Pty Ltd v Euroz Securities Limited [2011] FCAFC 11, the Australian Federal Court (Full Court) had the opportunity to consider the relationship between stockbroker and client, and when a stockbroker may be liable for its client’s losses. The Plaintiff client (“Preston”) initially carried out share trading activities using a standard margin lending facility. It then switched to a securities lending facility under which it transferred ownership of the purchased shares to the lender. The lender became insolvent, and as an unsecured creditor, Preston suffered substantial losses. Preston sought to recover these losses from its stockbroker (“Euroz”). Preston’s claims relied mainly on two bases: Euroz’s contractual duty and Euroz’s alleged misrepresentation. Both grounds were rejected by the Court. On the first ground, the Court affirmed that a stockbroker is only obliged to execute the client’s orders, and is not bound in law to give financial advice, unless such duty arises in the specific circumstances of the case. On the second ground, the Court found that no misrepresentation had been made. Preston alleged that Euroz had passed on information from the lender regarding the stability of its financial situation. However, it was held that unless the information was adopted or endorsed by Euroz, it could not constitute misrepresentation. This decision reinforces the general position that a stockbroker’s duty and liability to its client is limited in nature and scope, and that the role of a stockbroker is facilitative rather than advisory, unless the circumstances of a particular case dictate otherwise.
    [Show full text]
  • Stock Split Guide: Definition and How to Benefit from This Situation
    Stock Split Guide: Definition and How To Benefit From This Situation What Is a Stock Split? The split occurs when a company’s board of directors decides to increase the number of ​ outstanding shares. They do this by issuing additional shares to current shareholders. ​ Despite the fact that the number of shares outstanding has increased, the total dollar amount of the ​ shares remains the same. So by simply splitting the stock, the company doesn’t gain any value. ​ For example, say that a company has decided to do a 3-for-1 stock split. Say that you currently hold 100 shares of their stock with a value of $200. When the stock splits, you will have 300 shares, but the total value will still be $200. Defining Share Splits When a stock has a forward split, the number of shares added are typically listed by a ratio. So, if the amount of shares were doubled, it would be a 2-for-1 split. Other common ratios are 3-for-1 and 5-for-1. Why Do Stocks Split? The intention of a stock split is to make the shares more accessible to smaller investors without sacrificing or changing the underlying value of the company. For an investor trading from a small account, it’s much easier to invest in shares if they are priced at $10 each versus $200, for example. Is a Stock Split Good? A stock split in and of itself is actually a neutral thing. It’s a simple method of dividing the shares. However, it can be an indicator of good things to come for both the company and its investors.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fundamental Principles of Financial Regulation
    Geneva11_latest.qxp 07/05/2009 16:48 Page i The Fundamental Principles of Financial Regulation Geneva Reports on the World Economy 11 Geneva11_latest.qxp 07/05/2009 16:48 Page ii International Center for Monetary and Banking Studies (ICMB) International Center for Monetary and Banking Studies 11 A Avenue de la Paix 1202 Geneva Switzerland Tel (41 22) 734 9548 Fax (41 22) 733 3853 Website: www.icmb.ch © June 2009 International Center for Monetar y and Banking Studies Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) Centre for Economic Policy Research 53-56 Great Sutton Street London EC1V 0DG UK Tel: +44 (0)20 7183 8801 Fax: +44 (0)20 7183 8820 Email: [email protected] Website: www.cepr.org British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Librar y ISBN: 978-0-9557009-7-2 Geneva11_latest.qxp 07/05/2009 16:48 Page iii The Fundamental Principles of Financial Regulation Geneva Reports on the World Economy 11 Markus Brunnermeier Princeton University and CEPR Andrew Crocket JPMorgan Chase Charles Goodhart London School of Economics Avinash D. Persaud Chairman. Intelligence Capital Limited Hyun Shin Princeton University and CEPR ICMB INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR MONETARY AND BANKING STUDIES CIMB CENTRE INTERNATIONAL D’ETUDES MONETAIRES ET BANCAIRES Geneva11_latest.qxp 07/05/2009 16:48 Page iv International Center for Monetary and Banking Studies (ICMB) The International Center for Monetary and Banking Studies was created in 1973 as an inde- pendent, non-profit foundation. It is associated with Geneva s Graduate Institute of International Studies. Its aim is to foster exchange of views between the financial sector, cen- tral banks and academics on issues of common interest.
    [Show full text]
  • Short Sale Position and Transaction Reporting
    Short Sale Position and Transaction Reporting As Required by Section 417 of the Dodd‐Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act This is a report of a study by the Staff of the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Commission has expressed no view regarding the analysis, findings, or conclusions contained herein. June 5, 2014 Executive Summary Congressional Mandate The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act” or “Act”) was signed into law on July 21, 2010.1 Section 417(a)(2) of the Act directs the Division of Risk, Strategy, and Financial Innovation (the “Division” and now called the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis) of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) to conduct a study of the feasibility, benefits, and costs of: (A) requiring the reporting of short sale positions in publicly listed securities in real time, (i) publicly or, in the alternative, (ii) only to the Commission and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), and of the feasibility, benefits, and costs of: (B) conducting a voluntary pilot program in which public companies will agree to have all trades of their shares marked (i) “short” (ii) “market maker short” (iii) “buy” (iv) “buy-to-cover” or (v) “long” and reported as such in real time through the Consolidated Tape.2 This is the report of that study made to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives specified in Section 417(b)(2) of the Act.
    [Show full text]