Re:Counterfeiting Stock – Explaining illegal naked shorting ...
by varispeed on Monday February 01, 2021 @08:22AM
(#25988413)
I don't think this is the same. If you sell a house that is mortgaged you essentially pay off the mortage and therefore gain ownership and then transfer that ownership onto the buyer. The example with subletting is also wrong - the fitting analogy would be if you rented a flat and then sold it to someone.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Counterfeiting Stock – Explaining illegal naked shorting ...
by nemo44x on Monday February 01, 2021 @08:36AM
(#25988524)
Just tell your broker to not loan your shares. If they weren’t bought on margin then they won’t loan them out. Standard broker agreements for margin accounts state that your shares can and will be lent. Sometimes you’ll even share in the profit from loaning them as in-demand assets for shorting often have a borrowing fee.
The analogies hold though - people sell things they don’t own all the time. The important thing to understand is it is based on promises to deliver an asset/money by a certain date.
Likewise people buy assets on margin all the time. This means people can buy things they don’t have money for based on a promise they will pay that money back. Credit cards, mortgages, auto loans, bonds, etc.
This is how our finance system works and for whatever problems it has, the future promise concept isn’t one. Especially with the regulations and limits on it.
Re:Counterfeiting Stock – Explaining illegal naked shorting ...
by varispeed on Monday February 01, 2021 @09:14AM
(#25988835)
So as long as there is an agreement and plausible explanation then any crime is legal? This is fishy as hell. It seems like we are going round in circles and only argument is that "hey people die all the time, so murder ain't a bad thing if the victim consented".