3 ms·
The long winded post of your simply is just spreading a form of FUD. What does owning a stock mean, if it doesn't mean owning all entitlements, rights and obli
by chii 3y ago
The long winded post of your simply is just spreading a form of FUD.
What does owning a stock mean, if it doesn't mean owning all entitlements, rights and obligations related to said stock?
The technical financial structure is a bit irrelevant, since this structure is created to reduce transaction costs. It made ownership of stocks much more accessible, and thus, more people could buy into it.
The idea you presented - that you don't really "own" the stock, because some other party is holding it in trust - is simply not true. After all, you do the same with the money in your bank account. Unless, of course, you're one of the few people remaining that hold out with hard cash, or even physical gold.
- celtoid 3y agoThe author of the explainer was an Executive VP at Smith Barney. Perhaps you should read what he's sharing.
- chii 3y agoThere's copious amounts of allegations of illegal naked short selling but zero actual evidence - not even circumstantial evidence. The article mentions coincidences that might've happened, by citing how stock prices seems to adjust to news so quickly as to being evidence of it being manipulated. I would not trust the article. It reeks of the same conspiracy theory as https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
- celtoid 3y agoI'll believe a Wall St veteran over a nameless internet person. Thanks though.
- flaviut 3y agoExecutive VP at a bank is just a standard rank-and-file role. It is not a leadership position.
- paulryanrogers 3y agoMeh, appeal to authority reinforcing a densely packed post doesn't win me over. Still appreciate they took the time, and it's helpful to know details. I'd prefer it was shorter and approachable to outsiders like myself.
- CraigJPerry 3y agoHubris. >> What does owning a stock mean Ownership requires property rights but you only get contractual rights. If you want to sell your stock and you both parties want to conduct that transaction under a different jurisdiction, perhaps for tax advantage, you can't choose to do that, because you don't own the property rights. >> The technical financial structure is a bit irrelevant That's a pretty controversial take because: >> since this structure is created to reduce transaction costs It also served to ensure a middleman was enshrined in all future transactions. What if you want to change the middleman, what if you don't want a middleman at all? Like I say, controversial. >> you don't really "own" the stock, because some other party is holding it in trust - is simply not true. History shouts loudly for us to be cautious here but presently we're blessed with a freedom to blissfully ignore those warnings. >> you do the same with the money in your bank account You don't. In one scenario you're a party to a private contract and in the other you're under-written to the tune of $250k (assuming USA) >> hold out with hard cash What does that mean in the context of a fiat currency?