KARACHI: Numerous stockbrokers, who supported the movement for the removal of ‘badla’ system of share financing, were jubilant when their wish was granted. While many who spearheaded the movement, vow never to let what they believe is a ‘haram’ interest product, to sneak back into the market, there are others, who were earlier swept by the crowd, but are now taking a step back and looking at the results.
That is not to say that anyone is floating the idea of revisiting age old mode of share financing prevalent in just the sub-continent, variously named: the badla, the COT or the COT Mk-II.
But with each passing day as the volume of business at the market continues to shrink. Currently at 125 million shares and nearly one-half of the average number of share traded daily early last year, the absence of a widely useable leverage product is being badly felt. All of that has put the spotlight on a modified form of the old system — the ‘in-house’ badla.
Haji Ghani Haji Usman, an old time broker who had spear-headed the move against the ‘badla, dismissed the talk of ‘in-house’ badla merely as ‘rumour mongering.’ But other people in the know of things said that, even if in initial stage, quiet conversations were indeed taking place among regulators relating to the ‘in-house’ badla.
No one is willing to go on record as having favoured this or that system, but in private conversation, brokers and traders spout both views for and against the ‘in-house’ badla.
First, consider those who would not hear of it. ‘It is effectively the old wine in a new bottle,’ says a disgruntled market participant and he asks: ‘Why can’t these people think of a product beyond badla?’
He echoes the sentiments of several other participants, who are all asking for introduction of ‘derivative products’ as are prevalent in other markets of the world.
One participant observed that the ‘deliverable futures’ were scrapped along with the badla. ‘Cash settled futures have met with little success,’ said he and recommended that deliverable futures be put up in a more polished form.
A fund manager admitted that sticking to the ‘badla’ would set the Pakistan market apart from the rest of the world. He lamented the lack of vision on the part of participants and regulators, saying that resistance to change was contrary to the ‘best practices,’ demutalisation, modernisation and other ongoing third generation reforms of the capital markets.
He counted several products that needed to be looked into as a substitute leverage products, such as option trading, index trading and margin financing.
The people on the other side of the fence who stand up for the ‘in-house’ badla, scoffed at the margin financing. ‘For one, banks are reluctant to provide it and when they do, it is channelled through a stock broker,’ says one participant.
‘Why not to strong arm banks to lend directly to the investor in exchange for satisfactory collaterals,’ he said. He also thought that options trading and other derivatives had slowly developed over time in the developed markets and those could not be pushed overnight into the Pakistani bourses.
Those favouring the ‘in-house badla’ also argued against the series of stock market crash caused by the ‘badla’ financing. ‘In-house badla is different from the conventional banned badla that have precipitated the previous market crises,’ says a participant.
But a person sourly against the badla in any form growled that the only difference was that in ‘in-house badla,’ the stockbroker would finance investor without any liability on the part of the stock exchange.
He said that in either case all investors dealing with that brokerage house would be at risk, for in case of the broker going broke because of the failure of his financees to pay up, those dealing in cash would also have to part with their investment without a fault of their own.
But the detractors say that investors playing stock in cash could on settlement keep their shares in Central Depository (CDC) and mitigate their risks.
He said that when the tables are turned at the stock market, only those few brokers would take a hit who finance out of their limits under the ‘in-house badla,’ unlike the whole market sinking in the conventional ‘badla’ system.
‘Stringent rules can be laid down for ‘in-house’ badla, such as limit to financing in relation to the broker’s paid-up capital and so on,’ said the fund manager. Can that be monitored? ‘Yes,’ he argues, ‘by a daily check on the record of sale, purchase and settlement.’ But many stoutly against ‘badla’ in whatever form are unimpressed.
A former chairman of the KSE, who asked not to be named, said that what all of that brought to the fore was that the regulators would have to quickly find a leverage financing product. ‘Any dilly-dally on that account will result in complete dry up of trading volume, which has the potential of throwing the stock market into yet another crisis,’ says he. (DAWN)
That is not to say that anyone is floating the idea of revisiting age old mode of share financing prevalent in just the sub-continent, variously named: the badla, the COT or the COT Mk-II.
But with each passing day as the volume of business at the market continues to shrink. Currently at 125 million shares and nearly one-half of the average number of share traded daily early last year, the absence of a widely useable leverage product is being badly felt. All of that has put the spotlight on a modified form of the old system — the ‘in-house’ badla.
Haji Ghani Haji Usman, an old time broker who had spear-headed the move against the ‘badla, dismissed the talk of ‘in-house’ badla merely as ‘rumour mongering.’ But other people in the know of things said that, even if in initial stage, quiet conversations were indeed taking place among regulators relating to the ‘in-house’ badla.
No one is willing to go on record as having favoured this or that system, but in private conversation, brokers and traders spout both views for and against the ‘in-house’ badla.
First, consider those who would not hear of it. ‘It is effectively the old wine in a new bottle,’ says a disgruntled market participant and he asks: ‘Why can’t these people think of a product beyond badla?’
He echoes the sentiments of several other participants, who are all asking for introduction of ‘derivative products’ as are prevalent in other markets of the world.
One participant observed that the ‘deliverable futures’ were scrapped along with the badla. ‘Cash settled futures have met with little success,’ said he and recommended that deliverable futures be put up in a more polished form.
A fund manager admitted that sticking to the ‘badla’ would set the Pakistan market apart from the rest of the world. He lamented the lack of vision on the part of participants and regulators, saying that resistance to change was contrary to the ‘best practices,’ demutalisation, modernisation and other ongoing third generation reforms of the capital markets.
He counted several products that needed to be looked into as a substitute leverage products, such as option trading, index trading and margin financing.
The people on the other side of the fence who stand up for the ‘in-house’ badla, scoffed at the margin financing. ‘For one, banks are reluctant to provide it and when they do, it is channelled through a stock broker,’ says one participant.
‘Why not to strong arm banks to lend directly to the investor in exchange for satisfactory collaterals,’ he said. He also thought that options trading and other derivatives had slowly developed over time in the developed markets and those could not be pushed overnight into the Pakistani bourses.
Those favouring the ‘in-house badla’ also argued against the series of stock market crash caused by the ‘badla’ financing. ‘In-house badla is different from the conventional banned badla that have precipitated the previous market crises,’ says a participant.
But a person sourly against the badla in any form growled that the only difference was that in ‘in-house badla,’ the stockbroker would finance investor without any liability on the part of the stock exchange.
He said that in either case all investors dealing with that brokerage house would be at risk, for in case of the broker going broke because of the failure of his financees to pay up, those dealing in cash would also have to part with their investment without a fault of their own.
But the detractors say that investors playing stock in cash could on settlement keep their shares in Central Depository (CDC) and mitigate their risks.
He said that when the tables are turned at the stock market, only those few brokers would take a hit who finance out of their limits under the ‘in-house badla,’ unlike the whole market sinking in the conventional ‘badla’ system.
‘Stringent rules can be laid down for ‘in-house’ badla, such as limit to financing in relation to the broker’s paid-up capital and so on,’ said the fund manager. Can that be monitored? ‘Yes,’ he argues, ‘by a daily check on the record of sale, purchase and settlement.’ But many stoutly against ‘badla’ in whatever form are unimpressed.
A former chairman of the KSE, who asked not to be named, said that what all of that brought to the fore was that the regulators would have to quickly find a leverage financing product. ‘Any dilly-dally on that account will result in complete dry up of trading volume, which has the potential of throwing the stock market into yet another crisis,’ says he. (DAWN)
Comments