6 ms·

So nothing about the selling of stock they didn't own etc? That was one of the problems if I remember correctly. I wonder when the stock market is going to ad

by tiku 4y ago

So nothing about the selling of stock they didn't own etc? That was one of the problems if I remember correctly. I wonder when the stock market is going to adapt some of cryptos tech, so that you can store your stock on your own PC instead of an exchange, like the paper versions.

logifail 4y ago
> selling of stock they didn't own Compared with all the other stuff that goes on in finance, it's really really hard to see short selling as bad. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/05/experts-including-warren-buffett--say-short-selling-can-be-beneficial-for-markets.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/05/experts-including-warren-buf...
- chrischattin 4y ago
  Short selling wasn’t the issue in this case. It was loaning out shares to short that straight up didn’t exist.
  - logifail 4y ago
    > loaning out shares to short that straight up didn’t exist We should note that naked shorting was apparently just fine until not that long ago[0]. [0] https://seekingalpha.com/article/4453048-naked-short-selling https://seekingalpha.com/article/4453048-naked-short-selling
  - Hasu 4y ago
    The SEC didn't find any evidence of naked shorts in the GameStop debacle. Some people confuse naked shorts - which are currently illegal - with the simple finance fact that the same stock can be shorted more than once. Let's say A owns 1 stock. I borrow it from him and short sell it to B. Now I owe A one stock, and B owns one stock. There is no reason(1) I can't borrow that stock from B, and short sell it to C. I now owe A and B each one stock, and C owns 1 stock. You can continue doing this as much as you want, and create effectively infinite short positions without ever doing a naked short. (1) Well aside from the the practicalities that it overleverages you and if your short position gets called you are completely screwed, and eventually you might not be able to find any stocks to borrow for shorting purposes, but there's no theoretical reason you can't do this.
    - unethical_ban 4y ago
      I'm sure it's because I'm a plebian, but being able to create infinite short positions from one stock seems like a bad thing, whatever the name is.
      - Kinrany 4y ago
        It's not the name, it's the fact that shorting is nothing more than borrowing and selling. Regulating it would mean regulating debt. Perhaps borrowing should involve disclosing other positions in some way.
    - aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
      > The SEC didn't find any evidence of naked shorts in the GameStop debacle. "I guess that would be the first time somebody's lied under oath."
cuteboy19 4y ago
Forget about selling PFOF, in crypto exchanges are directly betting against their customers. When it looks like they're losing, they just turn off trading with the "unscheduled maintenance" excuse
astrange 4y ago
All stocks are owned by DTCC. Your exchange having your name on some of them is an illusion, except for fractional shares. Why ACATS are so expensive is another question.

by tiku 4y ago

logifail 4y ago

> selling of stock they didn't own Compared with all the other stuff that goes on in finance, it's really really hard to see short selling as bad. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/05/experts-including-warren-buffett--say-short-selling-can-be-beneficial-for-markets.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/05/experts-including-warren-buf...

chrischattin 4y ago
Short selling wasn’t the issue in this case. It was loaning out shares to short that straight up didn’t exist.
- logifail 4y ago
  > loaning out shares to short that straight up didn’t exist We should note that naked shorting was apparently just fine until not that long ago[0]. [0] https://seekingalpha.com/article/4453048-naked-short-selling https://seekingalpha.com/article/4453048-naked-short-selling
- Hasu 4y ago
  The SEC didn't find any evidence of naked shorts in the GameStop debacle. Some people confuse naked shorts - which are currently illegal - with the simple finance fact that the same stock can be shorted more than once. Let's say A owns 1 stock. I borrow it from him and short sell it to B. Now I owe A one stock, and B owns one stock. There is no reason(1) I can't borrow that stock from B, and short sell it to C. I now owe A and B each one stock, and C owns 1 stock. You can continue doing this as much as you want, and create effectively infinite short positions without ever doing a naked short. (1) Well aside from the the practicalities that it overleverages you and if your short position gets called you are completely screwed, and eventually you might not be able to find any stocks to borrow for shorting purposes, but there's no theoretical reason you can't do this.
  - unethical_ban 4y ago
    I'm sure it's because I'm a plebian, but being able to create infinite short positions from one stock seems like a bad thing, whatever the name is.
    - Kinrany 4y ago
      It's not the name, it's the fact that shorting is nothing more than borrowing and selling. Regulating it would mean regulating debt. Perhaps borrowing should involve disclosing other positions in some way.
  - aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
    > The SEC didn't find any evidence of naked shorts in the GameStop debacle. "I guess that would be the first time somebody's lied under oath."

cuteboy19 4y ago

Forget about selling PFOF, in crypto exchanges are directly betting against their customers. When it looks like they're losing, they just turn off trading with the "unscheduled maintenance" excuse

astrange 4y ago

All stocks are owned by DTCC. Your exchange having your name on some of them is an illusion, except for fractional shares. Why ACATS are so expensive is another question.