• Home
  • About
  • Subscribe
  • LATIF
  • Conferences
  • Dashboard
  • Edit My Profile
  • Log In
  • Logout
  • Register
  • Edit this post

Room 151

  • 151 BRIEF

    What's New?

  • Inflation ‘biggest concern for LGPS professionals’

    May 20, 2022

  • LGA calls for government support as regulators face staffing issues

    May 19, 2022

  • WMCA signs £4bn investment agreement with L&G

    May 18, 2022

  • Bill will give UK Infrastructure Bank power to lend directly to councils

    May 18, 2022

  • £400bn pension group collaborates on climate transition initiative

    May 17, 2022

  • CIPFA rejects proposal for vote on publication of fraud hub report

    May 17, 2022

  • Treasury
  • Technical
  • Funding
  • Resources
  • LGPS
  • Development
  • 151 News
  • Blogs
    • David Green
    • Agent 151
    • Dan Bates
    • Richard Harbord
    • Stephen Sheen
    • James Bevan
    • Steve Bishop
    • Cllr John Clancy
    • David Crum
    • Graham Liddell
    • Ian O’Donnell
    • Jackie Shute
  • Interviews
  • Briefs

Securities lending and short selling: What’s a responsible long-term investor to do?

0
  • by Guest
  • in Blogs · LGPS
  • — 6 Feb, 2020

David Crum looks at a decision by the world’s biggest pension fund to bring a halt to securities lending and how the LGPS should react.

Subscribe for FREE to the LGPS Quarterly Briefing

At the beginning of December last year, Japan’s £300bn Government Pension Investment Fund (GPIF) halted its stock lending programme, saying it was ‘…inconsistent with the fulfilment of the stewardship responsibilities of a long-term investor’.

Specifically, their press release cited concerns that ‘…the current stock lending scheme lacks transparency in terms of who is the ultimate borrower and for what purpose they are borrowing the stock’.

This announcement was effectively a large rock tossed into the securities lending pond from an asset owners’ viewpoint, and the ripples are still spreading out. From an LGPS perspective, what does it mean, and what—if anything—should the LGPS be doing in response?

Concerns

Securities lending is an activity which many LGPS funds have undertaken over the years. It’s essentially the process of lending out some of their existing investments (usually listed company shares or government bonds) to a borrower, for a period of time, in return for a fee, and with some collateral provided as security for the loan.

Most LGPS funds have their securities lending programme managed by their global custodian, if they are large enough to have segregated investment accounts. For funds whose investments are held as units of managed pooled funds, those vehicles are likely to have lending programmes in place.

Securities lending, while unlikely to generate large amounts of income, is generally viewed as a useful way to deliver income to offset some fund operating costs.

There are a number of reasons why someone would want to borrow your assets, but two main reasons are for brokers to ensure they have sufficient stock liquidity to support their daily buying and selling “market making” obligations, and for investment managers (including some hedge fund managers) wishing to have a “short” position on a company.

This second kind of manager borrows securities and immediately sells them, hoping to buy them back at a future date at a lower price. They’re looking to profit from a downward movement in the borrowed security’s share price over the period of the loan (so-called ‘short sellers’).

Looking again at GPIF’s actions, they have three current concerns:

  • They believe lending is currently inconsistent with the fulfilment of their stewardship responsibilities as a long-term investor;
  • That their current lending scheme lacks transparency in terms of knowing the precise identity of the ultimate borrower;
  • They have no way of knowing the rationale behind the borrowing arrangement.

Let’s briefly touch on these concerns.

Stewardship Responsibilities of Long-Term Investors

A topic worthy of a book, by ceasing to lend their assets GPIF are implying they are now more closely aligned to what they believe their long-term investor responsibilities to be.

Without presuming to know their thoughts, it seems reasonable to suggest that responsible long-term investors should not necessarily participate in, or promote, activities that are short term in nature, particularly if such activities might result in some long lasting, or irreparable, damage to their existing investments.

Whilst the generally held “short selling bad” sentiment is, I believe, more nuanced than that, there is no doubt that it can result in significant negative outcomes for any short-sold company. By being a true long-term investor, avoiding activities that destroy value seems sensible.

Lack of Transparency

As the securities lending system currently stands, there is no way of knowing where your stock might end up.

It’s not currently possible to run a securities lending programme in which the lender can specify who the final borrower can be. You can agree to a list of counterparties with whom you will lend, but not what they might then do with the loaned position. Lenders cannot currently control the final destination of their loaned stock.

Borrowing End Uses

It follows that, if you can’t specify the final home for your loaned stock, it’s unlikely that you can specify how it can, and can’t, be used.

In a loan, the legal title of the asset is transferred to the borrower, who can use it as they see fit, and that includes selling it short if they wish. The outcome of short selling—aside from being a potentially profitable activity for the seller—could result in a company in distress, possibly even going out of business.

This has its own consequential impacts in terms of jobs lost, investors losing their money, and other associated wider economic and social costs. Not every stock sold short goes under, but some do, and in some instances there will be someone making money from the event using borrowed stock.

What to do?

Clearly GPIF have concluded that stock lending, as it currently operates, is not consistent with their long-term investor responsibilities. In their December statement they hold out the possibility of restarting their lending programme one day, saying: “The stock lending scheme may be reconsidered in the future if improvements are made to enhance transparency and address the inconsistencies cited…”.

So, what can long-term institutional investors do, when it comes to securities lending in 2020?

I believe there are four options:

  • Don’t lend;
  • Recall stocks on loan in time to secure the voting entitlement;
  • Recall stocks only for companies where there are specific stewardship or ESG issues, using a provider such as Minerva to help screen holdings and identify such issues;
  • If the idea of short selling is unpalatable, add an additional step to your lending programme to recall any loans where the stock is being shorted (again, something with which an adviser can help).

It’s inevitable that the greater focus being placed on sustainable stewardship by long-term institutional investors has turned its gaze to the securities lending function. Some, including myself, would argue that it’s long overdue.

Whilst it will require a significant effort from asset owners to bring about positive changes to the future shape of stock lending arrangements, the day may well come when transparency of ultimate borrower and borrowing purpose can be delivered, and GPIF will return to the securities lending fold.

In the meantime, LGPS lending participants can take pragmatic steps to make stock lending more sustainable. Whilst acknowledging the system’s weak points, funds can take action today, for example, by protecting their voting rights through monitoring potential controversies.

So, with the right help, there’s no reason why the LGPS can’t continue to lend, with the result of reducing overall running costs and providing vital market liquidity.

David Crum is managing director of asset steward solutions at Minerva Analytics.

Share

You may also like...

  • Cash dethroned: The quest for liquid yield 11th Jan, 2021
  • LGPS webinar: Governance the key to TCFD implementation 1st Mar, 2021
  • Course aims to aid move from private sector to council accounting 29th Sep, 2021
  • Fixed income investing can help target both financial and sustainability targets 3rd Mar, 2021

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • Register to become a Room151 user

  • Latest tweets

    Room151 12 hours ago

    2022 LGPS valuations: difficult discussions in uncertain times: Michelle Doman looks at the impact of inflationary pressures, the war in Ukraine, climate risk and Covid-19 on employer contributions. At the start of 2022, for Local Government Pension… dlvr.it/SQlvy9 pic.twitter.com/Dd0lrHjWNb

    Room151 15 hours ago

    Investing today: nowhere to hide: Partner Content: Alex Stanley from Ardea Investment Management suggests that investors have few places to hide amid a synchronised sell-off in both bonds and equities. However, there are catalysts that[...] dlvr.it/SQlNVC pic.twitter.com/KkGGnduzPL

    Room151 2 days ago

    Treasury to restrict PWLB loans to councils at risk of non-repayment: The Treasury has released new guidance that restricts local authorities’ access to Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) advances if there is a “more than negligible risk” of a council’s… dlvr.it/SQhLTV pic.twitter.com/vBsS7xMJdb

    Room151 2 days ago

    Mixed reaction to proposed government intervention powers: There has been a mixed reaction to the government’s legislative plans to strengthen its intervention powers over local authority finances. The Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill has proposed… dlvr.it/SQhLMB pic.twitter.com/50foWxpPGs

    Room151 2 days ago

    Post-Brexit struggles for national and local government regulators. @LGAcomms @NAOorguk Click the link below to read 🔻🔻 room151.co.uk/brief/lga-call… #Brexit #government pic.twitter.com/s3c8ySGy5G

    Room151 2 days ago

    CIPFA: a question of transparency: Roman Haluszczak’s campaign for publication of the independent report into the collapse of CIPFA’s London Counter Fraud Hub has been rejected again by the institute. He is now calling for[...] dlvr.it/SQgC5V pic.twitter.com/08fWsHFF4g

    Room151 3 days ago

    Back to the future for the PWLB: The Public Works Loan Board is tightening its lending criteria to ensure that loans will be repaid by local government borrowers. But, asks Peter Findlay, shouldn’t they have been doing[...] dlvr.it/SQcmmm pic.twitter.com/bVv4fe0Xlv

    Room151 3 days ago

    Great piece from Peter Findlay on the PWLB’s tightening of its lending criteria. He raises some pointed questions for the Treasury and explains why the ‘casino council’ characterisation was simplistic and inaccurate. #PWLB #localgov room151.co.uk/treasury/back-…

    Room151 3 days ago

    The Queen's speech highlighted the need for accelerating UK infrastructure investment into levelling up projects and cutting emissions. @UKInfraBank #QueensSpeech #ClimateAction #emissions Click the link below to read 🔻🔻 room151.co.uk/brief/bill-wil… pic.twitter.com/hFmF2veVIa

    Room151 3 days ago

    Huge funding heading to the @WestMids_CA from @landg. @andy4wm #LevellingUp #netzero #regeneration Click the link below to read 🔻🔻 room151.co.uk/brief/wmca-sig… pic.twitter.com/ajhZhia6mx

    Room151 3 days ago

    LGPS governance, Cagney and Lacey style: What regulatory response can be expected following the publication of the Good Governance project’s Phase 3 report and the closure of the Single Code of Practice consultation? Susan Black offers[...] dlvr.it/SQbfXf pic.twitter.com/xwqHOEu2AP

    Room151 4 days ago

    More evidence of the importance of emerging markets in the journey to net-zero. @BordertoCoast @BrunelPP @northernlgps @EAPensionFund @WYPF_LGPS Click the link below to read 🔻🔻 #LGPS #NetZero #NetZeroCarbon #EmergingMarkets room151.co.uk/brief/400bn-pe… pic.twitter.com/qCm0EGxzLn

  • Categories

    • 151 News
    • Agent 151
    • Audit
    • Blogs
    • Business rates
    • Chris Buss
    • Cllr John Clancy
    • Council tax
    • Dan Bates
    • David Crum
    • David Green
    • Development
    • Education
    • Forum
    • Funding
    • Governance
    • Graham Liddell
    • Housing
    • Ian O'Donnell
    • Infrastructure
    • Interviews
    • Jackie Shute
    • James Bevan
    • Jobs
    • Levelling up
    • LGPS
    • Mark Finnegan
    • Net Zero
    • Private markets
    • Recent Posts
    • Regulation
    • Resources
    • Responsible investing
    • Richard Harbord
    • Risk management
    • Social care
    • Stephen Fitzgerald
    • Stephen Sheen
    • Steve Bishop
    • Technical
    • Transport
    • Treasury
    • Uncategorized
    • William Bourne
  • Archives

    • 2022
    • 2021
    • 2020
    • 2019
    • 2018
    • 2017
    • 2016
    • 2015
    • 2014
    • 2013
    • 2012
    • 2011
  • Previous story London borough to use housing company to boost constrained HRA output
  • Next story Olympian task: Stepping up at Newham

© Copyright 2022 Room 151. Typegrid Theme by WPBandit.

0 shares