Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Radica Games (RADA) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: David who wrote (2825)	2/23/1998 11:23:00 PM
From: Webster Groves	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7111

David, A market maker such as FAHN can short a stock "naked", meaning no shares have been borrowed. This is allowed to "facilitate an orderly market", but it's a privilege often abused. The MM has a period of time (3 days I think) to find shares to borrow, but this can be circumvented temporarily by collusion with a second MM. I am not "in the business", and perhaps someone like Stan or Skipard can fill in more of the gory details. There must be a link on SI where this is debated ad nauseam. -wg P.S Retail shorts must borrow shares before shorting. No shares, no shorting. Also short positions can be hedged with options, and it can obviously get very complicated. Also, don't take the monthly short interest figures too literally. A shorter can hide a position by trading in and out around the report date.

To: David who wrote (2825)	2/24/1998 11:02:00 AM
From: Zirdu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7111

David, you ask: "Am I correct to say that a person/company/Fahn can only short a stock if they have borrowed stock, so that the limit for any short position is the number of shares held in margin accounts at any one time ...?" This does accord with my understanding also, aside from the MM who short "naked". But I thought this naked shorting was limited and temporary in nature. But in thinking about this, your question raises another one: Doesn't shorting in effect raise the total number of shares in the float? Suppose a company had a total of 1 million shares outstanding, all of which were in margin accounts. Suppose then the short sellers managed to borrow all of these 1 million shares, and sell them short. Of course, they would have to sell them to other investors buying them. So then there would be 2 million shares held long, and 1 million shares held short. Of the 2 million shares held long, only 1 million would have been already borrowed, leaving another 1 million still available for borrowing and short sale. If the shorts were to then borrow this 1 million additional shares, and sell them short, we would have 3 million shares held long, and 2 million held short. And the process could be continued. So, as I see it, there is no theoretical reason why the short interest is limited by the number of shares outstanding. Even though it is limited by the number of shares held long in margin accounts. Maybe I am missing something here, but it seems to me that shorting does increase the float of a stock. In a way it seems to do so artificially, but also in a way that cancels itself out. RR