IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/eucflr/v17y2020i3-4p386-418n7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Banning Cassandra from the Market? An Empirical Analysis of Short-Selling Bans during the Covid-19 Crisis

Author

Listed:
  • Siciliano Gianfranco

    (China Europe International Business School. ShanghaiChina)

  • Ventoruzzo Marco

    (Bocconi University. MilanoItaly)

Abstract

During the recent COVID-19 pandemic crisis, stock markets around the world have witnessed an abrupt decline in security prices and an unprecedented increase in security volatility. In response to a week of financial turmoil on the main European stock markets, some market regulators in Europe, including France, Austria, Italy, Spain, Greece, and Belgium, passed temporary short-selling bans in an attempt to stop downward speculative pressures on the equity market and stabilize and maintain investors’ confidence. This paper examines the effects of these short-selling bans on market quality during the recent pandemic caused by the spread of COVID-19. Our results suggest that during the crisis, banned stocks had higher information asymmetry, lower liquidity, and lower abnormal returns compared with non-banned stocks. These findings confirm prior theoretical arguments and empirical evidence in other settings that short-selling bans are not effective in stabilizing financial markets during periods of heightened uncertainty. In contrast, they appear to undermine the policy goals market regulators intended to promote.

Suggested Citation

  • Siciliano Gianfranco & Ventoruzzo Marco, 2020. "Banning Cassandra from the Market? An Empirical Analysis of Short-Selling Bans during the Covid-19 Crisis," European Company and Financial Law Review, De Gruyter, vol. 17(3-4), pages 386-418, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:bpj:eucflr:v:17:y:2020:i:3-4:p:386-418:n:7
    DOI: 10.1515/ecfr-2020-0019
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/ecfr-2020-0019
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/ecfr-2020-0019?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:eucflr:v:17:y:2020:i:3-4:p:386-418:n:7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.