>Concerning the float, first don't believe a damn thing that gets published from Barrons, even their dictionary is suspect with me. However, you must take into account that if a share is borrowed and then sold short it now has two owners. If a company has a 10% short position it actually increases the public float by 10%.
Dominic,
So there is a distinction between a "public float" and a company float?
I've read other posts here at SI that also poo-poo Barrons. I'm really not up to speed on why Barrons might be the target of disparaging comments. However, I did find their dictionary's definition of a float, as I mentioned, to be lacking in specificity.
Let me comment on your statement..."if a share is borrowed and then sold short it now has two owners". It seems to me this is the heart of the matter. And this is my impression: if a share is borrowed by a shorter, and sold, then the shorter only acts as an intermediary, or "middleman", between the original share owner and the new buyer. As a middleman, the shorter makes a profit, or takes a loss. Is this correct?
If so, and if a share actually has two simultaneous owners, then I think the shorter is responsible for one of the two long positions. Thus, stock ownership and stock responsiblility may be two different things. Is this correct?
Ice
|
