News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Naked shorting: The curious incident of the shares that didn't exist (2005). Parent comment

Re:Naked shorting: The curious incident of the shares that d... by fractionalhare on Sunday January 31, 2021 @06:32PM (#25983735)
Not necessarily. As long as the borrower commits to borrow the stock at a determined point in the future which the broker legitimately deems should have borrow liquidity (availability of shares to borrow), the short sale is not naked.

And interestingly enough, if this transaction occurs in good faith and for unforeseen reasons there is no borrow liquidity at the agreed upon time, a fail to deliver will occur despite the short sale not being naked.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Naked shorting: The curious incident of the shares that d... by jaycroft on Sunday January 31, 2021 @07:26PM (#25984148)
That's fair - said another way you just have to have a plan in place to borrow the share but don't actually have to have it borrowed yet. And all this discussion is fairly moot given the number of shares that routinely fail to deliver and the general lack of meaningful enforcement actions.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Naked shorting: The curious incident of the shares that d... by jkhdigital on Sunday January 31, 2021 @07:55PM (#25984359)
That... seems gimmicky. Like using repurchase agreements to pretend that your balance sheet looks cleaner than it actually is.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Naked shorting: The curious incident of the shares that d... by fractionalhare on Sunday January 31, 2021 @09:04PM (#25984806)
It's not really about presentation of balance sheets, it's about liquidity. The explicit purpose of market makers is to provide liquidity, so they have a special exemption to buy and sell shares without being certain they exist. They have to have a good faith belief they will exist though. Usually they're right. Occasionally they're wrong.
[ Parent | on HN ]