> Why don't more companies "engage and attack shorts"? Because it's incredibly pointless, an utter waste of time, a distraction from things which actually matt

> Why don't more companies "engage and attack shorts"? Because it's incredibly pointless, an utter waste of time, a distraction from things which actually matter, and can veer all-to-quickly into illegal actions as Musk has already found out? (His "taking Tesla private" tweet seemed to have been driven, in part, by a desire to punish shorts. It was later found, of course, to be illegal stock manipulation, and it wiped billions of dollars off Tesla's market cap.) > Aren't people taking short positions on companies effectively lowering the stock price of the company compared to someone just not buying their stock, and therefore doing potential damage to that company's valuation and future? In much the same way that people choosing not to buy Tesla shares do, yes. The effect is real, but even in extreme cases, trivial. It is quite clear that Musk has done vastly more damage to Tesla by worrying about short sellers than the short sellers themselves could have possibly done (eg, with his "taking Tesla private" tweet, but there are many other examples). > I'm not surprised there is an incentive for them to do so There is no incentive to do so. It is actively harmful.