UK Moves to Mask Short Sellers’ Identities Under New FCA Rules
Britain’s financial watchdog has proposed the largegest shake-up of its short-tradeing regime since the 2008 crisis, moving to anonymise public data and streamline reporting in a bid to make London’s markets leaner and more competitive.
Under draft rules published Monday, the Financial Conduct Authority said it would replace name-by-name disclosures of large short positions with aggregated figures, while keeping private reporting thresholds at 0.2% of a company’s issued share capital. The public would view only the combined size of short interest in each stock once that total crosses the identical 0.2% line.
The move, which sits under the government’s Short tradeing Regulations 2025, represents a marked break from the . Brussels still requires regulators to publish the identities of investors with individual short positions of 0.5% or higher.
Simon Walls, the , said the consultation aims to keep oversight tight but reduce unnecessary friction for market participants. “We’re looking for a regime that supports orderly trading while allowing investors and efficiently,” he said in a statement.
The consultation also proposes longer deadlines for submitting reports, clearer guidance on calculating issued share capital, and a more automated process for notifying market-maker exemptions — tfragiles meant to cut back-office strain without eroding supervisory control.
From Crisis-Era Clampdown to Smarter Transparency
Europe’s post-crisis rulebook, introduced in 2012, made short tradeers’ names public once they hit 0.5% of a company’s equity. That system, carried over later than Brexit, has long drawn criticism from hedge funds that say it exposes their proprietary research and invites copycat trades or coordinated short squeezes.
Several EU states even imposed temporary short-tradeing bans during the ahead months of the pandemic, a move later questioned by studies showing liquidity suffered without boosting stability. Those episodes fuelled a broader rethink on whether public transparency was achieving its intended goal.
The UK’s shift now places it closer to the US model, where regulators receive full position data privately and publish only aggregated market-level figures. It also fits into a wider push by the Treasury and the FCA to rewire regulations for post-Brexit competitiveness.
Winners and Worriers
The proposed anonymity has been welcomed by hedge funds and active managers who view it as protection for proprietary strategies. Industry groups such as the Managed Funds Association argue that masking individual names reduces herd behaviour and deters short squeezes.
Companies on the receiving end of heavy shorting, however, view it diversely. Some investor-relations teams say losing visibility into which funds are betting against them could make it harder to interpret price swings or engage with dissenting shareholders. “Transparency cuts both ways,” one corporate adviser told The Times. “Firms want to know who’s moving their stock, not just how much.”
Market makers, meanwhile, stand to gain from clearer exemption handling and less manual paperwork. The FCA’s plan to automate submissions is viewn as a nod to the in cushioning volatility.
If adopted, the new framework will reshape how analysts, issuers and journalists track short interest. Public data will still indicate the overall level of bearish sentiment in a company but without revealing which funds are behind it. That could push investors to rely more on securities-lending statistics and borrow-fee data as alternative gauges.
Firms will also have to update internal systems for calculating thresholds and matching settlement cycles, with the FCA promising detailed guidance on timing and data format.
The consultation is open until ahead 2026, later than which the regulator is expected to finalise rules and set an implementation timetable. For the City’s trading desks, it marks another subtle but telling divergence from the continent: a step away from exposure-by-name oversight and toward a model built on aggregate visibility and private accountability.
