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 LatteLazy on Sunday January 31, 2021 @07:23PM (#25984129)
I thought most of the online brokers had it by default now? Isn't it part of the "no commission but we do literally anything else to make a buck" business model?

If not then he either doesn't own all the stock or there is some fraud here. As it is, it's the simplest explanation and one he hasn't ruled out. So he needs to check there first. It's possible they lent it by mistake or he agreed as part of the 10,000 page T&C he signed when he joined...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Naked shorting: The curious incident of the shares that d... by tempestn on Monday February 01, 2021 @02:34AM (#25986453)
Perhaps now. I'm in Canada so don't know the details of the Robin Hoods and such. The OP is from 2005 though.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Naked shorting: The curious incident of the shares that d... by LatteLazy on Monday February 01, 2021 @06:01AM (#25987582)
It's interesting. I'm a limey brit (sorry, I should have said sooner), brokers here were always able to lend stock without involving the owner. It's one of the reasons that brokers here have always been pretty cheap. It also helped Unit Trusts (ETFs etc who can do the same) take off quickly here.
[ Parent | on HN ]