Document Type : Research Paper
Author
Associate Professor, Department of Law, Faculty of Administrative Sciences and Economics, University of Isfahan,Isfahan. Iran
Abstract
The Securities Market Act mentions the option contract but does not specify that contract’s base mechanism. The Stock Exchange’s Directors Board has chosen the method of "commitment to offer transaction” as the mechanism for the option contract. But this mechanism is not compatible with the requirements of trade, especially the stock market trading requirements. As this article’s hypothesis, seemingly it was necessary to use the suspended transaction mechanism (with suspension in initiative) for this purpose.
Methodology
In this descriptive analytical research paper which is the result of the author's scientific experience, after proposing the solution of the board of directors of the stock exchange market regarding options securities, i.e. the" commitment to offer" solution, and enumerating the shortcomings of that solution, to test the validity of the novel hypothesis of this analytical-descriptive research at first, the suspension initiative in the transaction included in the options contract i.e. the solution of "suspension in initiative in sales "is analyzed. Then, the nature of the suspension, the manner of determining the transaction’s price, the manner of transferring these securities, and finally separation of the suspension of initiative from the suspension of execution are discussed. Using the latter method is more legally justifiable and will have better adaptability to the requirements of the market. Applying the latter method has not been considered by specialists so far, so the present research analysis is completely novel and has no precedent.
Findings & Conclusion
Certainly, suspension in initiative is correct and the legislator has no objection to it. In order to digest the possibilities in commercial transactions, a solution must be considered. So, the option contract must inevitably be formed on the basis of suspension in initiative. Such a contract is a subset of the derivatives market and futures in stock exchange law. As a rule, an option contract should be designed in such a way that the transaction is not in conclusion for the time-being, but it provides the person who needs it with the option to choose the transaction’s conclusion in the future and cause it to conclude, to assign this right to another, or not to conclude it. The pending subject of this suspension is the arrival of a certain predictable time. Of course, a pending subject can be another event or a combination of several events. The initiation of the option contract will have requirements for its initiator, and the relationship created from this initiation is binding for him, and he principally cannot get out of this relationship. In a suspended transaction too, the transaction's basic validity conditions are observed. In this regard, it cannot be said that the transaction has been concluded for the time being and only its execution has been postponed to the future, because in this case, the option will not happen. In other words, the option contract for the applicant cannot be considered based on suspension at impact.
The property of suspension is that it digests the probabilities and problems related to those probabilities, and the option contract, as one of the subsets of future contracts, is a contract that is affected by probabilities. In terms of payment of the premium and the method of determining it, there is no difference between the usual method and the proposed method. Of course, in exchange for paying that amount, the applicant obtains a "commitment to create an offer" in the usual method, but in the proposed method, he obtains the "initiation of offer" himself. In both ways, the acquired "right of choice" can be transferred. The usual method consists of two transactions (the first a covenant and the second a proprietary one), each of which has a separate offer and acceptance, but, the proposed method actually contains only one transaction (principally proprietary) in which three initiatives are intertwined: the applicant's offer, the supplier's acceptance in the form of initiation of a transaction offer, the applicant's acceptance of the transaction. It is not unlikely that this theory will solve many of the scientific concerns of Sunni scholars too, and attract them as well.
The usual solution involves suspension in the impact, but the proposed solution involves suspension in the initiative. In contrast to the usual method, in the proposed method, the option right of a known transaction (e.g., sale, compromise, etc.) is transferred by the applicant (the holder of the right) which its subject matter (whether in whole or in part, and whether in kind, interest, or right) has already been offered (initiated) and created. Therefore, unlike the usual method, in the proposed method, there is no concern about "non-initiation of the offer" at maturity by the supplier. As a result, unlike the usual method, in the proposed method, there is no need to receive a guarantee (obligation deposit) from the option provider, and also, if necessary, there will be no need to make an onerous adjustment of that guarantee.
The intervention of probabilities causes the suspicion of gambling in the option contract in certain cases in inflationary conditions. However, it does not seem that the contract ultimately involves gambling, because, unlike gambling, there is no possibility of winning at all for the supplying party. At the same time, the use of that contract is not necessarily for stock market speculation, and the use of a possible decrease or increase in the price in the market. The possibility of decreasing and increasing the price leads to ignorance and ignorance of the market price during the conclusion can lead to a kind of arrogance (Gharar) and consequently to the stock market speculation. Stock market speculation by creating fake demand in the market leads to oppression of the real needy applicants of the subject of the transaction, and it is against the rule of no harm, whether the purchase is in cash, credit, or advance. In order to avoid this deception, the minimum and maximum price fluctuations must be specified in the proposal initiation. In the proposed method, the conclusion of the transaction takes place at the moment of its choice, and in these securities, it is the conclusion that is suspended, not just execution.
Keywords
Main Subjects
)