4 ms·
The float was shorted 120%. This is not disputed.
by rapsey 5y ago
The float was shorted 120%. This is not disputed.
- gruez 5y agoand that's not evidence of naked shorting, because of synthetic longs. see: footnote 3 of this article https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-25/the-game-never-stops#footnote-3 https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-25/the-ga...
- jandrewrogers 5y agoShorting 120% of float does not imply naked shorting. It means some shares were re-loaned. You are only looking at the debtor side of the ledger and ignoring the creditor side. If I lend $1 to friend A, and friend A lends that same $1 to friend B, then the total debt obligation is $2 (A & B both owe $1 to someone else) i.e. 200% of the original dollar. In the case of person A, that both owes $1 and is owed $1, which effectively cancels out, no new dollar was created and they become a middleman in the chain of debt obligations. The primary implication of shorting >100% of float is the settlement time and capital required to close out that chain of loans and return the share to the original lender.