Weekly Reports | Jun 27 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 June 20, 2019
I’m pleased to announce ASIC data appears to have returned to normal after the nonsense of the prior two weeks. We can go back to analysing short position changes on their merit.
Last week saw the ASX200 kick on to new post-GFC highs, helped along by strength on Wall Street and as good as a promise from the RBA another rate cut is in the offing.
It’s a more familiar looking table this week, showing a more typical smattering of reds and greens. There were nevertheless four stocks experiencing short positions changes in excess of one percentage point.
Agri-stocks Nufarm ((NUF)) and Elders ((ELD)) saw short positon increases to 17.5% from 16.2% and 6.7% from 5.3% respectively. I suggest the simple explanation for this is if you’re anywhere west of the Divide, look out the window. What don’t you see?
Super Retail ((SUL)) shorts fell to 8.2% from 9.6%. There was no new news from the company but the stock has had a revival of late on improving sentiment in the housing market (the wealth effect of which flows through to vehicle purchases) thanks to the election/APRA/RBA, so perhaps some covering was evident.
The big mover in the week was Centuria Industrial REIT ((CIP)), which leapt up to 15.6% from oblivion below 5% the week before. See below.
Weekly short positions as a percentage of market cap:
In: CIP, PLS Out: IFL
SDA, IFL, MTS, BGA, HVN, PPT, RWC
In: IFL Out: PLS, SUL
SGM, BKL, CSR, IVC, SUL, HUB
In: SUL Out: KGN, MYR
WSA, MYR, CGC, AMP, CGF, BOQ, KGN
In: MYR, KGN
ELD, GMA, NEC, GWA
A2M, COE, MSB, SEK, DCN, LNG, OML, RSG, SXY, CTD, MIN, CLQ
In: DCN Out: ELD, CLH, AMC, MLX
Movers & Shakers
Centuria Industrial REIT plunged -5% last week when JP Morgan entered the market with a $135m block of stock for sale at a -5.6% discount, representing, it is believed, the stake inherited by Asian property group ESR when it acquired fund manager Propertylink.
Given the stock has this week come all the way back again, and yesterday announced its final dividend, one presumes the stake is now cleared.
I’m guessing the position will disappear in next week’s data.
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