3 ms·
Thats not true at all. Its perfectly possible and legal to short beyond 100%
by djbebs 6y ago
Thats not true at all. Its perfectly possible and legal to short beyond 100%
- Accujack 6y agoThe practice I'm referring to is "naked shorting" which has been illegal since 2008 in the US.
- ZephyrBlu 6y agoSee this comment for why you can have >100% short interest without naked shorting: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25991013 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25991013
- kcg 6y agoExcept you're completely conflating terms and numbers here. A stock can have over 100% short interest with no naked shorting occurring. >100% short interest DOES NOT imply that there is naked shorting.
- Accujack 6y agoIt doesn't guarantee that it's occurring, but it's strong indicator that something sketchy is happening. In this case, the important point is that a hedge fund with a 140% short position is more vulnerable to loss than a hedge fund with a 100% short position.
- ac29 6y ago> In this case, the important point is that a hedge fund with a 140% short position is more vulnerable to loss than a hedge fund with a 100% short position. Sure, but only in the sense that a fund is also more vulnerable to loss at 80% short than 40% short. Nothing magic happens between 99% and 101% short.
- tedunangst 6y agoIt's amazing how we're on day 10 of this adventure and people still show up like this is the first and only thread.