This doesn't distinguish between shorting and naked shorting. But in either case I don't understand why I'm supposed to be upset. Is it because the stock price goes down?
Does it matter? 1 stock = 1 stock. 1 stock should never be 2 stocks.
It’s because I believe in ownership of what you make. If you founded a company, sold 10% on public markets for float, and magically 20% of your cap table now exists on the NYSE; something is horrifically wrong.
And yes, you would have suffered negative financial outcomes because of the counterfeiting.
There’s not just “1 stock.” Let’s say: A loans a share to be B who sells to C who loans to D and so on. You end up with a multiplier on nominal stock, always, and that’s perfectly normal. I really don’t understand the moralistic argument here, esp. without regard to the underlying value of the original asset. Up is not strictly good.
No matter how many times it gets repeated in the thread it is still nonsense made up by the stock market. Exchange "Share" with "Burger" and see how many Burgers you can create from thin air. If you end up with more than one you should start a McDonald's competitor!
If you can't it is because you are making mental gymnastics as soon as the word is some magical word Wall Street made up. Sure it is correct that you can but it shouldn't be and can't be fixed fast enough.
But thank you to everyone who gave me GME money with their mental gymnastics <3
Ok, I've done it. I told my children that I'm going to take them to McDonald's tomorrow evening. They see this promise as 100% good, as real as if they were actually holding the burger. The only difference from their point of view, is that if they were holding a physical burger now, by tomorrow evening it would be cold and bad to eat. The ones I have promised them are real burgers which are deliverable tomorrow evening, at the time we're going to want to eat them. So I've created two additional burgers owned by my children, in addition to all the physical burgers that currently exist, which are owned by either McDonald's, if they haven't been sold yet, or by customers if they have.
Does this mean that I've found an infinite supply of free burgers and should go into competition with McDonald's? No. Because I'm going to have to buy the burgers from McDonald's to supply to my children. They own two new paper burgers, but I'm short two burgers. So the net total world supply of burgers is unchanged.
Well you're still flawed if you scale your argument. What if you take your argument, and scaled it up. What if you promised each kid 1 trillion burgers. Will you have access to 1 trillion burgers tomorrow? What if they take their future 1 trillion burgers and sell half. What if you walk into McDonalds to claim the 1 trillion burgers. Does McDonalds have 1 trillion burgers? No.
So you're saying it's okay to promise burgers as long as it's an amount that actually exists and McDonald's can fulfil it. So what you're saying is that you shouldn't sell things you can't possibly fulfil? Hence the argument against this kind of trading.
Most financial institutions need some kind of basis for a promise - something that "secures" the contract e.g. like a loan secured by an asset.
A regulated entity might have capital requirements which would limit the no of burgers promised to money held. Another might be a contract with mcdonalds for N burgers, or a warehouse full of burgers - shorted stocks require the lender to actually sell a stock, and the shorter to actually sell it (and buy it back later) but there will need to be security/"deposit" on the returning of the stock - there exist a risk that the lender will not get their stock back, which is part of the reason for the premium.
Since you/I are not regulated financial institutions, not may would trust us to deliver 1 trillion burgers on paper; so the flaw exists in "What if they take their future 1 trillion burgers and sell half" - sell to whom? They'd have to find someone willing to buy. "What if you walk into McDonalds to claim the 1 trillion burgers" - the "paper burger" is an agreement between you and some third-party, not mcdonalds. You couldn't pre-order items from one shop, and go to another store with you invoice and demand they fulfil it - your contract is not some general/official currency, there is no obligation to accept it.
> So you're saying it's okay to promise burgers as long as it's an amount that actually exists and McDonald's can fulfil it.
It's a promise that you will supply N burgers, so the criteria for ok-ness is that you can supply N burgers, that McDs can provide that many is necessary-but-not-sufficient alongside:
- you can pay for N burgers
- you can transport N burgers (on time)
but when I say "ok", I mean from a "morality of making personal promises" perspective, not "financial promises/obligations made by a regulated financial institution" perspective. Individuals are not financial institutions, and financial institutions are regulated as such.
This is where the burger analogy breaks down in my opinion because it's a lot harder to deliver a fraudulent burger than a digital signature.
What can happen in real life is Person A and Person C are given a digital receipt confirming delivery of the burgers they were owed and that is the end of the transaction. To shield themselves from revealing potential fraud, the brokerage will charge a $500 fee if either of them ask for proof of their burger.
Now, while there may only be one burger in existence, it appears as though there are two, keeping demand artificially flat.
What you’re forgetting is you still have to deliver. If you created burgers out of thin air and sold them (you’re actually creating a promise of a burger, not a real burger) then you’d have to deliver these burgers when whoever bought them calls for them. Or you’d go to jail.
So how could you do this? Well you could create a burger delivery service that sells other peoples burgers. But you sell them for a bit more than what you pay for them and you can begin you’re offering “all the burgers” and connecting the sellers with the buyers. Now you’re creating burgers out of thin air to people buying them from you and you’re delivering the burger they ordered even though you don’t even own a grill. Congrats, you just created a burger exchange that sells promises of future burgers on margin out of thin air.
If you’re even smarter you’d use other people’s money (which is key) to capitalize this venture instead of your own and keep an outsized share of the profits. This is what investment banks and hedge funds do. Other people’s money is key to winning and not really losing.
What went horrifically wrong is the company went public with a clueless CFO. For all corporate actions—reporting, dividends and buybacks—that additional float is meaningless. It’s only relevant for short-term holders and short-term metrics.
Your explanation makes a lot of sense. Nonetheless it's bit of a hard sell as it seems to parallel fractional reserve banking to a degree, and we've come to accept the later as the best currently available compromise.
I think the dilution from fractional reserve banking is priced into the buying power of each dollar somehow.
You never look at the value of a dollar as the % of total dollars in circulation. The value of a dollar is rather defined by how many goods/services/other currencies you can get in exchange for it.
With stock it matters a lot more how many % of a company is represented by a single share.
> each short seller not only adds a _virtual_ share to the market, but also has an obligation to later on buy a share back
Again, to be super clear: for everyone but market makers, the law is you have to locate the borrowed share before selling short. Market makers can naked short to provide liquidity in a buying frenzy. Given they're shorting into a buying frenzy, they tend to be quite motivated to immediately cover themselves.
We have lots of people shorting GameStop. We have zero evidence anyone is improperly naked shorting.
And to be fair, they also definitely have to cover themselves before they need to make delivery two days later.
I think naked shorting would be a perfectly valid thing to allow every investor to do, you clearing house would just want to ask for pretty high margin requirements.
Very similar to how there are covered call options, but also naked call options. And the economy hasn't collapsed either.
With normal shorting the number of shares being traded is no greater than the float. Only with naked shorting can there be more shares traded than float, as in the parent's example. Interestingly, in both cases the short interest can be greater than 100%.
My understanding is that naked shorting can be used to artificially lower the stock price by increasing the supply with the ultimate goal of driving the company into bankruptcy.
So on one side you have illegal(?) market manipulation benefiting sophisticated traders and on the other you have companies that are presumably creating jobs and generating something of value being destroyed as a result of financial engineering.
> With normal shorting the number of shares being traded is no greater than the float. Only with naked shorting can there be more shares traded than float, as in the parent's example. Interestingly, in both cases the short interest can be greater than 100%.
Why?
A owns a share, loans it to short seller B. B sells the loaned share back to A. Then A loans the share again to B, B sells it back to A. Now repeat the process a million times.
You can get arbitrarily high amounts of shorting without any naked shorts. (And usually, A and B don't know each other. It's all done via exchanges and clearing houses etc.)
> You can get arbitrarily high amounts of shorting without any naked shorts.
That's why I said "Interestingly, in both cases the short interest can be greater than 100%"
But in the situation you're describing the total number of shares on the market is still equal to float.
If we altered your example to have naked shorting it would be: B sells a share it hasn't borrowed to C, A sells a share it hasn't borrowed to D. The total number of shares that can now be traded is equal to the float + 2. Hence the claims of 'counterfeit shares' which is not a great description.
Naked shorting can only be done by market makers. The argument is that it helps to create liquidity and that these actors will have the ability to later borrow the shares without issue. The problem is that, as I understand it, there are not strict rules dictating when they must actually borrow the shares to back the shares that they sold short.
There are some indications that this has happened with GME. For example Michael Burry said in a now deleted tweet[0]:
"May 2020, relatively sane times for $GME, I called in my lent-out GME shares. It took my brokers WEEKS to find my shares. I cannot even imagine the sh*tstorm in settlement now. They may have to extend delivery timelines. #pigsgetslaughtered #nakedshorts"
I somewhat follow, but it seems shares have privileges that cannot be synthesized in the same way that dividends and value can. For example, if the firm votes for a new CEO, these shares should have voting power, but B cannot fulfill this obligation to A, so how can these shares be resold to multiple buyers?
When A loans out her shares, she accepts the loss of voting rights as part of the deal. If she cares more about voting her shares than about the income from lending, she will simply direct her broker not to loan out her shares.
In the “A loans to B who sells to C” scenario, C is the one who gets to vote.
> Only with naked shorting can there be more shares traded than float
Why? Imagine there exists one share of GME, owned by Alice. Bob borrows it from Alice and sells it to Charlie. Now both Alice and Charlie own one share, and no naked short sale ever happened, as far as I understand that term.
I don't know if there's a name for it, but while not naked, it's still a dubious situation unless Bob has secured some way to get the share back to Alice when Alice wants it back. Say Charlie has decided to go hold that share forever; how is Alice ever made whole?
In the only-one-share-exists situation, there's no real way out of that. In a situation where more than one share exists, Bob could, say, obtain a call option so that he at least has a plausible way to acquire a share in the future to make Alice whole.
This results in a similar situation to GME where the short interest is > 100%. WSB wants to be Charlie. They want to hold the share that Bob is legally obligated to buy and can't purchase anywhere else. They can then demand whatever price they want for it.
My understanding is that this leads to short interest greater than 100% but not more shares traded than float as there is still just one share.
In your example Alice doesn't own the share at this point, she owns an agreement that says she will be returned a share in the future and is paid interest on it in the meantime.
Both naked shorting and regular shorting reduce the price of the stock. In the case of regular shorting, there is a sale offer that wouldn't have been and was, and in the case of naked shorting, there is a buy offer that would have been and wasn't.
True, but in the case of naked shorting there is now (for some period of time) another share being traded in addition to the shares issued by the company. In the case of regular shorting the float remains the same.
