3 ms·
That's not correct. Alice does not own anymore the shares, only Charlie does. There are 2 steps involved: 1) shares borrowing 2) shares selling Shares borro
by pbalau 6y ago
That's not correct. Alice does not own anymore the shares, only Charlie does.
There are 2 steps involved:
1) shares borrowing
2) shares selling
Shares borrowing: Bob will borrow 100 shares from Alice. Bob will have to give Alice a collateral, valued at 100% value of the shares + a percentage. Bob also has to pay a borrowing fee to Alice, daily.
At this point, Bob owns the shares, not Alice. Alice does not receive dividends directly from the company that issued the shares and Alice does not have any voting rights.
If those shares produce dividends, then Bob has to pay those dividends to Alice. If Alice invests the collateral and that produces profit, Alice needs to pay some of it to Bob.
When Bob thinks all is said and done, he has to return 100 shares (not particularly the same shares, but the same type and amount). At that point, Alice will return the collateral. Alice regains the voting rights and will get dividends.
Shares selling: Bob sells 100 shares to Chuck. Chuck owns 100 shares (the ones previously owned by Alice), has the voting rights associated with the shares and will receive dividends (if the shares generate that).
There are no extra shares generated by this process.
Alice is not a person, but a financial institution, most likely a bank.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/securitieslending.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/securitieslending.asp
- anonymouse008 6y agoRight, which when the float is short any significant amount... is when things can get sticky. Bob sees the name go up, and instead of buying the 100 shares to close the position, he goes back to Alice. Alice says, 'sure, I'll lend you another 100 shares.' But Alice doesn't have any at the moment, so she buys the 100 from Chuck (from Bob, from Alice), and now.... 200 shares short on the original 100 shares? If Bob wants to close out (or must close out)... there must be many more people with shares for this to work out nicely. However, if it's all through puts, none of this matters!
- Thorrez 6y agoI think my description was pretty close to this, just a bit off in the terminology.
- pbalau 6y agoNo, your explanation is wrong. You said: > So Alice owns 100 shares and Charlie owns 100 shares even though only 100 real shares exist. which is wrong, Alice does not own any more shares.