3 ms·
One of Matt Levine's footnotes from a recent column, about short interest being over 100%: "This does not necessarily mean a lot of people are doing evil illeg
by perl4ever 6y ago
One of Matt Levine's footnotes from a recent column, about short interest being over 100%:
"This does not necessarily mean a lot of people are doing evil illegal nefarious naked shorting! Really, I promise! There is no special limit on shorting at 100% of shares outstanding! Here is an explanation of how options market makers (discussed below) are allowed to short without a locate, but I want to offer an even simpler explanation. There are 100 shares. A owns 90 of them, B owns 10. A lends her 90 shares to C, who shorts them all to D. Now A owns 90 shares, B owns 10 and D owns 90—there are 100 shares outstanding, but 190 shares show up on ownership lists. (The accounts balance because C owes 90 shares to A, giving C, in a sense, negative 90 shares.) Short interest is 90 shares out of 100 outstanding. Now D lends her 90 shares to E, who shorts them all to F. Now A owns 90, B 10, D 90 and F 90, for a total of 280 shares. Short interest is 180 shares out of 100 outstanding. No problem! No big deal! You can just keep re-borrowing the shares. F can lend them to G! It's fine."
- mangoman 6y agoBut what happens when they all need to cover? regardless of who lent to who, all the parties who borrowed are looking to now buy the same 90 shares? I don't know the answer and am asking. I also wonder what happens when a cycle happens?
- cambalache 6y agoThe 90 shares presumably have to be bought and sold twice or more, heavily incrementing the price for the last buyer.
- bewaretheirs 6y agoThey have to buy the shares on the open market, and have to raise their bids until sellers appear. The ramp up in price -- and the consequences for the shorts -- is known as a "short squeeze".
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]