Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by CTDOCodebases 1966 days ago
In reference to the GME/WSB fiasco the issue isn't so much the shorting itself but the large number of “fails-to-deliver”.

This was happening since early December. It looked suspicious and was reported to the SEC. Read comments for receipts.

https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/kr98ym/gme_...

1 comments

Which I believe is due to them having shorted over 100% of the float making it impossible for the shares which were shorted to be purchased.
> There are 100 shares. A owns 90 of them, B owns 10. A lends her 90 shares to C, who shorts them all to D. Now A owns 90 shares, B owns 10 and D owns 90—there are 100 shares outstanding, but190 shares show up on ownership lists. (The accounts balance because C owes 90 shares to A, giving C, in a sense, negative 90 shares.) Short interest is 90 shares out of 100 outstanding. Now D lends her 90 shares to E, who shorts them all to F. Now A owns 90, B 10, D 90 and F 90, for a total of 280 shares. Short interest is 180 shares out of 100 outstanding. No problem! No big deal! You can just keep re-borrowing the shares. F can lend them to G! It's fine.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-25/the-ga...

“It’s fine”

This situation sounds like a hideous volatile time bomb of complex exponential effects.

That's a bit overblown. Dog piling into a single stock is one thing. An entire market (that was) primed to collapse (housing) is another.
As said in another comment, these thing can easily slowball due to leveraged positions.
This seems like textbook naked shorting.

"Ordinarily, traders must borrow a stock, or determine that it can be borrowed, before they sell it short. So naked shorting refers to short pressure on a stock that may be larger than the tradable shares in the market"

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nakedshorting.asp