8 ms·
You cannot reduce ownership of a stock to discounted cash flow. Owning shares (mostly) comes with shareholder rights like voting. To me it is pretty obvious sel
by JanSt 6y ago
You cannot reduce ownership of a stock to discounted cash flow. Owning shares (mostly) comes with shareholder rights like voting. To me it is pretty obvious selling more of those rights than exist is fraudulent.
- jameshart 6y agoIn the simple short scenario, where A owns a share, lends it to B, then B sells it to C, the share in question only has one owner: C. A doesn’t have a share any more, they have an IOU from B for one share. B doesn’t have a share either. Only C has a share. Once the IOU comes due, B will need to acquire a share from D to give back to A, at which point both A and C own a share - but D no longer does. At no point are there any magic duplicated shareholding rights.
- JanSt 6y agoYes, but Gamestops was above 150% of float short. So that scenario doesn't matter and fraudulent stuff is going on. Shares were literally created from thin air.
- alisonkisk 6y agoGoogle did this exact experiment with GOOG and GOOGL. Voting is worth about 1-5% of the stock price. And you don't get extra voting rights for shorting (borrowing) a share. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/05/shortsalevotingrights.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/05/shortsalevotingr...
- fennecfoxen 6y agoWhoever lends shares to the short seller lends the voting rights attached to the shares as well, so as long as the short is covered, there's not actually any excess voting available. Moreover, sellers have up to two days to deliver the shares to begin with (the settlement period). If a naked short seller can secure the loan or the securities within that period, it all works out. (If they can't, well, it's fraudulent for other reasons more direct than the voting.)
- JanSt 6y agoHow does this work at 160% of shares shorted?