Wrong shift to ‘broker anonymity’
I heard that a shift to “broker anonymity” is being considered by the Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE). The PSE has been very transparent the past two decades, and it has been doing fine.
By shifting to anonymity, the retail investors, despite hours of study on technical and fundamental indicators, will not get additional information on why the market is moving weirdly or differently. If the intent is to attract more stock investors to the country with this move, is it not but proper that we tap the millions of overseas Filipino workers who yearly remit $18 billion-$20 billion, instead of foreign investors?
Sometimes, playing up the market is something that retail investors such as myself do not have the capacity to do. But big players can make the market move because they have the means to
do so.
If we intend to attract higher participation in the stock market, the best route is to get the OFWs and former Filipinos (immigrants, migrants, expatriates) to invest in our market. Twenty billion dollars or even just 10 percent of it ($2 billion) of their yearly remittance would be more than enough to keep the market from crashing down on the mere whims or fears of foreign trade investors. I think that with their added participation, we can definitely have a more dynamic stock market—that is, a market not easily swayed by big market players’ decisions.
Thus the PSE can be guaranteed more continuous profit, as more would trade or invest on a regular basis rather than on the basis of foreigners’ whims and perceived opportunities in our market. Thus we, Filipinos, will be able to control our market.
I hope the PSE will reconsider its move to “broker anonymity.” This is counterproductive, and less beneficial financially to the PSE in the long run.
—PAUL VICENTE V. CURIMAO,
