We have a habit of looking west and thinking what they do must be right. With all the craziness going on in the US capital markets, I thought it will be a good time to share some of the reasons why India is way better in terms of capital market regulations. 1/n

In US, hedge funds can leverage unlimited & run positions worth hundreds of $billions bringing in systemic risk. In India, no one can hold overnight positions more than ~5 times leverage (SPAN+Exposure for F&O, VAR+ELM for stocks). Even intraday leverages are now capped 2/n
In US your stock holdings are held by the brokers (held in book or street name, also the reason for the large stock lending market). If a broker goes down, your securities is at risk as well. In India, they sit in your Demat with NSDL/CDSL, ring-fenced from any broker risk 3/n
In the US your broker has an option to send the order placed on the trading platform to the exchange or a high-frequency trading firm that pays for the order. As you’d guess most orders are sent to HFT firms. In India, all order matching has to happen on the exchanges 4/n
In US a broker can act almost like a bank. Hold your funds for as long, take risk & lend them to other clients as well. In India, a broker can lend only their own funds and not client funds. Also, all unutilized funds need to be returned back once a quarter to the client bank 5/n
In US exchanges earn mostly from selling data feed. The more you pay the better quality of data, creating a non-level playing field with retail usually getting lowest quality data. In India, exchnges earn mostly from transaction fees & everyone has access to same quality data 6/n
US regulator has no restriction in terms of how large short positions can get on a stock (140% of free float in $GME 🤯). In India 20% of free float is the maximum speculative position that can be built using F&O or SLB. 7/n
A couple of posts if you want to read the above in detail

https://t.co/f42KrfMgd3

https://t.co/3HvfgwD7RS n/n

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?