[chii]

The long winded post of your simply is just spreading a form of FUD.

What does owning a stock mean, if it doesn't mean owning all entitlements, rights and obligations related to said stock?

The technical financial structure is a bit irrelevant, since this structure is created to reduce transaction costs. It made ownership of stocks much more accessible, and thus, more people could buy into it.

The idea you presented - that you don't really "own" the stock, because some other party is holding it in trust - is simply not true. After all, you do the same with the money in your bank account. Unless, of course, you're one of the few people remaining that hold out with hard cash, or even physical gold.

[celtoid]

The author of the explainer was an Executive VP at Smith Barney. Perhaps you should read what he's sharing.

[flaviut]

Executive VP at a bank is just a standard rank-and-file role. It is not a leadership position.

[chii]

There's copious amounts of allegations of illegal naked short selling but zero actual evidence - not even circumstantial evidence. The article mentions coincidences that might've happened, by citing how stock prices seems to adjust to news so quickly as to being evidence of it being manipulated.

I would not trust the article. It reeks of the same conspiracy theory as https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

[celtoid]

I'll believe a Wall St veteran over a nameless internet person. Thanks though.

[paulryanrogers]

Meh, appeal to authority reinforcing a densely packed post doesn't win me over. Still appreciate they took the time, and it's helpful to know details. I'd prefer it was shorter and approachable to outsiders like myself.

[CraigJPerry]

Hubris.

>> What does owning a stock mean

Ownership requires property rights but you only get contractual rights. If you want to sell your stock and you both parties want to conduct that transaction under a different jurisdiction, perhaps for tax advantage, you can't choose to do that, because you don't own the property rights.

>> The technical financial structure is a bit irrelevant

That's a pretty controversial take because:

>> since this structure is created to reduce transaction costs

It also served to ensure a middleman was enshrined in all future transactions. What if you want to change the middleman, what if you don't want a middleman at all? Like I say, controversial.

>> you don't really "own" the stock, because some other party is holding it in trust - is simply not true.

History shouts loudly for us to be cautious here but presently we're blessed with a freedom to blissfully ignore those warnings.

>> you do the same with the money in your bank account

You don't. In one scenario you're a party to a private contract and in the other you're under-written to the tune of $250k (assuming USA)

>> hold out with hard cash

What does that mean in the context of a fiat currency?