The SEC recently moved to limit short selling, with some fairly technical rule changes, cutting off robust feedback mechanisms in financial markets and catering to the interests of increasingly ensconced oligarchs.

Meanwhile, Chinese regulators are continuing to liberalize financial markets, and will soon introduce rules to allow large institutional investors to trade index futures. In isolation, this may not make much of a difference for the near future (particularly given limits on participation). As part of a broader trend it is very important: the “China collapse imminent” story is, at present, predicated on a property bubble that will collapse and saddle banks with lots of dead loans. At the same time, the mainland is derided as pursuing policies which solidify global imbalances (or, the process by which Chinese savers are shafted with artificially low rates of return, and Westerners get cheap credit that we proceed to do stupid things with).

Currently, a dearth of options for individual investors is only contributing to these distortions. Currency revaluation alone will not fix global imbalances, and a more efficient financial sector (say, anything with >0% return) would allow Chinese investors to save (incrementally) less, which is the only way trade deficits will actually shift in the long run.

Of the short selling rules change by the SEC, Robin Hanson nails it:

Anyone who believes that stocks which have fallen at least 10% in a day are an unappreciated good buy are free to grab that free money they think is lying on the sidewalk.  Clearly most folks don’t do this, and so don’t believe this, implying that short sales that push stock prices down on average give reliable bad news: this stock is worse than you thought.

Taxing short sales is an attempt to ban this bad news, to trick people into thinking those companies are doing better than they are.  After all, we all know that the financial crisis was not caused by banks making bad loans, it was caused by short sellers telling people that banks had made bad loans — if only we’d killed the messenger, we wouldn’t be in this mess, right?

Eastern part of the 长江三角洲, on track to be the world's largest mega-region. Ignore the sediment in the ocean and invest here! Image from the European Space Agency.

From Bloomberg:

New York has withstood the worst economic crisis in seven decades and remains the leading global financial center, followed by Singapore … Twenty-nine percent of respondents in the quarterly poll of investors, traders and analysts who subscribe to the Bloomberg terminal say New York will be the best place for financial services two years from now. Singapore is chosen by 17 percent of respondents and London is the pick of 16 percent. Shanghai has 11 percent, while Tokyo, once considered a global hub, gets the nod from only 1 percent.

Huh? 11%? Fourth on their list? I mean, they do have a Brobdingnagian sized bottle opener bearing the titular “World Financial Center” label, what else is necessary? Bloomberg terminal users are maybe astute. They are probably wealthy, since subscriptions are so expensive. But why so optimistic? Mainland stocks have the second largest capitalization in the world (~USD3.6tr, depending upon your conversions), but only about 20% of that is floating. The currency isn’t freely convertible. It takes months to get a @#!@% work permit… Perhaps they are counting on growth, certainly a given, but within what time frame? Two years seems fast.

If it’s accurate, it’s good for people like me, though personal opinion is more in line with Richard Florida, who stresses the dense clusters are critical for industries where network effects and human capital are extremely important:

… Although the U.S. displaced England as the world’s largest economy well before 1900, it was not until after World War II that New York eclipsed London as the world’s preeminent financial center (and even then, the eclipse was not complete; in recent years, London has, by some measures, edged out New York). As Asia has risen, Tokyo, Hong Kong, and Singapore have become major financial centers—yet in size and scope, they still trail New York and London by large margins.

[...] “A crucial contributory factor in the financial centres’ development over the last two centuries, and even longer,” writes Cassis, “is the arrival of new talent to replenish their energy and their capacity to innovate.” All in all, most places in Asia and the Middle East are still not as inviting to foreign professionals as New York or London. Tokyo is a wonderful city, but Japan remains among the least open of the advanced economies, and admits fewer immigrants than any other member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of 30 market-oriented democracies. Singapore remains for the time being a top-down, socially engineered society. Dubai placed 44th in a recent ranking of global financial centers, near Edinburgh, Bangkok, Lisbon, and Prague. New York’s openness to talent and its critical mass of it—in and outside of finance and banking—will ensure that it remains a global financial center.