The Colombo Stock Exchange (CSE) recently marked a significant milestone when the All Share Price Index (ASPI) reached an all-time high. The achievement itself is factual and undisputed. However, the manner in which such milestones are communicated by a stock exchange — particularly through official channels such as social media — raises an important and often overlooked question: where should a market operator draw the line between information and promotion?
Stock exchanges occupy a unique position within the financial ecosystem. They are not merely platforms for trading; they are also neutral market operators and regulatory gatekeepers, entrusted with maintaining fair, orderly, and transparent markets. This dual role carries with it a heightened responsibility to communicate with restraint, objectivity, and institutional neutrality.
Against this backdrop, the use of language such as “sustained growth” and “rising investor confidence” in official CSE communications warrants careful reflection. These phrases go beyond the reporting of verifiable facts and enter the realm of interpretation and sentiment framing. While such language may be common in media commentary or brokerage research, its use by an exchange itself can create the perception — whether intended or not — that the regulator is endorsing market performance or shaping investor sentiment.
Perception matters deeply in capital markets. Even when no improper intent exists, the appearance of advocacy can be as damaging as advocacy itself. Market participants, particularly retail investors, may interpret promotional-toned messaging from an exchange as an implicit signal of reassurance or encouragement. In periods of heightened market enthusiasm, this risks amplifying herd behaviour rather than reinforcing disciplined, informed decision-making.
Globally, best practice among stock exchanges and market regulators is to maintain a clear distinction between factual disclosure and market commentary. Objective data — index levels, turnover figures, trading volumes — can and should be communicated transparently. However, qualitative assessments about growth trajectories, confidence levels, or market momentum are typically left to independent analysts, economists, and the financial press. This separation protects the credibility of the exchange and preserves trust in its regulatory impartiality.
It is also important to recognise that markets move in cycles. Messaging that appears celebratory during upswings can become problematic during downturns, exposing the institution to accusations of inconsistency or selective optimism. A regulator’s voice must therefore be steady across cycles, not rising with euphoria nor retreating in adversity.
The concern raised here is not about suppressing positive developments or downplaying genuine achievements of the Sri Lankan capital market. Rather, it is about institutional discipline in communication. The long-term strength of a market depends as much on confidence in its governance as on index levels.
As the CSE continues to modernise, attract new investors, and position Sri Lanka within regional and global capital markets, maintaining this distinction will be increasingly important. Neutrality is not merely a regulatory obligation; it is a strategic asset. Once compromised, even subtly, it is difficult to restore.
In the final analysis, the stock exchange is the referee, not a cheerleader. Its credibility rests on being seen — at all times — as an impartial custodian of the market, allowing prices, sentiment, and narratives to be formed by participants themselves, not by the institution entrusted to regulate them.
