4 ms·
Nobody, but you would continue paying fees on your short position and there would be no liquidity to close it out.
by jimmydorry 4y ago
Nobody, but you would continue paying fees on your short position and there would be no liquidity to close it out.
- kbenson 4y agoA simple Google search indicates that you often don't need to cover a short if a company is delisted, and if it's not delisted then you can always offer over the current value (even if the current value is zero) to get some of the worthless stock, so I don't see how covering the short if the company implodes is a problem. Unless you have expertise that it's not that simple? Or a source saying otherwise? (Not an attempt to be snide, but an honest opening for counter evidence, I'm not an expert in this).
- dklsf 4y agoIn some markets, such as Hong Kong, instead of being delisted, suspected frauds are often halted (the stock cannot be traded). So you might end up paying the borrow fee for years, even though you were right about the company being a fraud. See https://www.reuters.com/article/muddy-waters-asia-short-selling-idINL3N1H41E7 https://www.reuters.com/article/muddy-waters-asia-short-sell...