Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by decompiled_dev 1802 days ago
The way I see it is that the market participants job is to allocate capital effectively, not function as a savings account. Shorting provides incentive to sniff our frauds and enhances yields for those with fixed liabilities in a low interest rate environment.

Furthermore, not all short sellers are evil. While some short sellers may have ill intentions, short sell have researched and exposed many fraudulent companies effectively embezzling funds.

I don't agree short selling should be banned, but I agree the already illegal practice of naked shorting should be enforced in a more meaningful manner.

If people can lend out dollars for interest, than I think lending out shares should be allowed as well. If banks can lend out deposits and collect fees that seems to be the same thing as lending out equities as well. Do you see some delineation between these practices?

I agree shares shouldn't be lent out the holder permission, but if you want a consistent amount of money every month, no matter what, then those small fees really add up. This is what most retirement funds are obligated to provide, and they can no longer get it in government debt.

This might also be a perspective thing. I have a very different view on the function of markets than you seem to have. A market primary job is to allocate resources effectively, not provide entitlements to passive participants. The market doesn't exist to pump what ever positions you might be long, its meant to reward effective use of capital while preventing ineffective use.

1 comments

I don't disagree the market and price discovery can benefit from shorting. But here we're talking about retirement accounts that are already long the stocks in question. There's no world in which the owners of those stocks benefit from them being lent out to short sellers, despite creative rhetoric to the contrary.