3 ms·
> That's a good question, ask them? you're making wild claims, and cannot offer a coherent theory that explains what you think is happening. not a good look.
by sigstoat 5y ago
> That's a good question, ask them?
you're making wild claims, and cannot offer a coherent theory that explains what you think is happening. not a good look.
> If the borrow fee was enough to compensate the stock owners for the damage done by the short sellers, why would any short seller ever pay to borrow the stocks to sell them short?
for the same reason that heaping piles of shares of stock trade hands every single day, at a price agreed upon by both parties.
- bedobi 5y agoThat stocks in retirement accounts are lent out to short sellers against a small fee is not a wild claim? It's ubiquitous and routine. And no, it's not at a price agreed upon by both parties. The owners of the stocks have zero say in any of it. Even if they did, most people aren't able to make an informed decision that allowing their stocks to be lent out to short sellers for a small fee is in their interest. (and, despite creative rhetoric to the contrary, there's no world in which doing so is in their best interest)