Weekly Reports | Apr 18 2019
The Short Report draws upon data provided by the Australian Securities & Investment Commission (ASIC) to highlight significant weekly moves in short positions registered on stocks listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX). Short positions in exchange-traded funds (ETF) and non-ordinary shares are not included. Short positions below 5% are not included in the table below but may be noted in the accompanying text if deemed significant.
Please take note of the Important Information provided at the end of this report. Percentage amounts in this report refer to percentage of ordinary shares on issue.
Stock codes highlighted in green have seen their short positions reduce in the week by an amount sufficient to move them into a lower percentage bracket. Stocks highlighted in red have seen their short positions increase in the week by an amount sufficient to move them into a higher percentage bracket. Moves in excess of one percentage point or more are discussed in the Movers & Shakers report below.
Week ending April 11, 2019
Last week saw the ASX200 hit a bottom below 6200 before chopping its way back again.
Again there was not a lot of movement in short position last week, as the table below indicates, with most moves representing slight bracket creep.
The two exceptions are Inghams Group ((ING)), the shorts in which fell to 15.4% from the prior week’s table-topping 17.4%, and Bank of Queensland, which saw its shorts rise to 9.1% from 8.0%.
Weekly short positions as a percentage of market cap:
IVC, SUL, IFL, DMP, PPT, HVN, MYR, PLS, BOQ
In: PLS, BOQ
CSR, KGN, AMC, BKL, RWC
In: RWC Out: PLS, BOQ
SGM, BIN, HUB
In: SGM Out: RWC
BGA, AMP, MSB
Out: SGM, DHG, BEN
WSA, BEN, CGF, DHG, KDR, RSG, COE, GMA, HT1, LNG, CGC, RIO
In: BEN, DHG, CGC Out: CAR
Movers & Shakers
Poultry producer Inghams Group had been drifting lower into its earnings report in February, largely impacted by the east coast drought pushing up feed prices. The impact proved to be worse than expected when Inghams took a dive on its result.
A new CEO, appointed last year, is yet to unveil his new strategy but last week the company provided an update that saw the share price take another tumble, after having regained the ground lost in February. This despite wheat (feed) prices having fallen back and the company seeing improvement in New Zealand.
The stock has once again rebounded but a drop in shorts to 15.4% from 17.4% suggests someone took some profits.
Bank of Queensland had been creeping up the shorted charts after issuing a profit warning in February, and still managed to disappoint when it released its official result last week, which included a cut in dividend. The outlook remains bleak, analysts suggested.
In this case profits were not taken, rather shorts increased to 9.1% from 8.0%. The FNArena database shows no fans among brokers, with the regional lender attracting four Sell ratings and four Holds.
ASX20 Short Positions (%)
|Code||Last Week||Week Before||Code||Last Week||Week Before|
To see the full Short Report, please go to this link
IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THIS REPORT
The above information is sourced from daily reports published by the Australian Investment & Securities Commission (ASIC) and is provided by FNArena unqualified as a service to subscribers. FNArena would like to make it very clear that immediate assumptions cannot be drawn from the numbers alone.
It is wrong to assume that short percentages published by ASIC simply imply negative market positions held by fund managers or others looking to profit from a fall in respective share prices. While all or part of certain short percentages may indeed imply such, there are also a myriad of other reasons why a short position might be held which does not render that position “naked” given offsetting positions held elsewhere. Whatever balance of percentages truly is a “short” position would suggest there are negative views on a stock held by some in the market and also would suggest that were the news flow on that stock to turn suddenly positive, “short covering” may spark a short, sharp rally in that share price. However short positions held as an offset against another position may prove merely benign.
Often large short positions can be attributable to a listed hybrid security on the same stock where traders look to “strip out” the option value of the hybrid with offsetting listed option and stock positions. Short positions may form part of a short stock portfolio offsetting a long share price index (SPI) futures portfolio – a popular trade which seeks to exploit windows of opportunity when the SPI price trades at an overextended discount to fair value. Short positions may be held as a hedge by a broking house providing dividend reinvestment plan (DRP) underwriting services or other similar services. Short positions will occasionally need to be adopted by market makers in listed equity exchange traded fund products (EFT). All of the above are just some of the reasons why a short position may be held in a stock but can be considered benign in share price direction terms due to offsets.
Market makers in stock and stock index options will also hedge their portfolios using short positions where necessary. These delta hedges often form the other side of a client's long stock-long put option protection trade, or perhaps long stock-short call option (“buy-write”) position. In a clear example of how published short percentages can be misleading, an options market maker may hold a short position below the implied delta hedge level and that actually implies a “long” position in that stock.
Another popular trading strategy is that of “pairs trading” in which one stock is held short against a long position in another stock. Such positions look to exploit perceived imbalances in the valuations of two stocks and imply a “net neutral” market position.
Aside from all the above reasons as to why it would be a potential misconception to draw simply conclusions on short percentages, there are even wider issues to consider. ASIC itself will admit that short position data is not an exact science given the onus on market participants to declare to their broker when positions truly are “short”. Without any suggestion of deceit, there are always participants who are ignorant of the regulations. Discrepancies can also arise when short positions are held by a large investment banking operation offering multiple stock market services as well as proprietary trading activities. Such activity can introduce the possibility of either non-counting or double-counting when custodians are involved and beneficial ownership issues become unclear.
Finally, a simple fact is that the Australian Securities Exchange also keeps its own register of short positions. The figures provided by ASIC and by the ASX at any point do not necessarily correlate.
FNArena has offered this qualified explanation of the vagaries of short stock positions as a warning to subscribers not to jump to any conclusions or to make investment decisions based solely on these unqualified numbers. FNArena strongly suggests investors seek advice from their stock broker or financial adviser before acting upon any of the information provided herein.
Find out why FNArena subscribers like the service so much: "Your Feedback (Thank You)" – Warning this story contains unashamedly positive feedback on the service provided.
FNArena is proud about its track record and past achievements: Ten Years On