3 ms·
As you point out, an IOU for a share doesn't pay out a dividend from the company, so it is not the same as an actual share. We seem to be in violent agreement t
by wcoenen 6y ago
As you point out, an IOU for a share doesn't pay out a dividend from the company, so it is not the same as an actual share. We seem to be in violent agreement that shares are not created out of thin air (but IOUs for shares can be).
- thaumasiotes 6y ago> As you point out, an IOU for a share doesn't pay out a dividend from the company Huh? They most definitely do. That's actually one of the simplest non-objections to naked shorting; in the system we have, the short seller must pay the dividend to the person who loaned them the stock. In a naked short, the short seller would pay the dividend to the person who bought the stock. Voting rights don't transfer so cleanly; in the current system, a stock lender can't vote the loaned shares. The most natural system of naked shorting would prevent the purchaser from voting a share that was sold short, which would produce a difference between shares sold short and other shares.
- wcoenen 6y agoNote that I said "from the company". My point was that the company only pays dividend to real shares, and the stock market intends to track ownership of those real shares. This does not prevent lenders and short sellers to replicate dividends from IOUs of shares via contractual agreements, but it is not the same thing.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]