Live data from Hacker News

Naked shorting: The curious incident of the shares that didn't exist (2005)

euromoney.com

21–30 of 312 posts

Re: Naked shorting: The curious incident of the shares that didn't exist (2005)

#21
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the more interesting part of the story (if I'm reading it right) is he paid $5000 to completely own a company with millions in assets.

is that really how it works?

Unless there was something fishy about the share classes. Non-voting shares perhaps?

Re: Naked shorting: The curious incident of the shares that didn't exist (2005)

#22
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the more interesting part of the story (if I'm reading it right) is he paid $5000 to completely own a company with millions in assets.

is that really how it works?

Yes, but it's possible the company also had a bigger debt than assets and no hope of turning things around...

Re: Naked shorting: The curious incident of the shares that didn't exist (2005)

#23

The perils of fractional reserve banking can arise in any centralized custodial arrangement. As long as no one performs a physical audit—or there is no physical object to be audited in the first place—then accounting fraud can and will happen. This is, in my opinion, the raison d’etre of blockchain. Public, immutable ledgers are immune to this kind of fraud (although they have other issues, of course).

Fractional reserve banking in the real economy is utterly irrelevant thanks to the FDIC backstopping a run. In the last [edit: 88] years nobody had lost a single penny to a bank run or default including 2008s WaMu default thanks to the FDIC.

Crypto fractional reserve like tether has no backstop and that’s a completely different beast. It’s what exacerbated the Great Depression.

As with all blockchain unless the state is 100% totally and utterly encapsulated within the blockchain, then it’s garbage in, garbage immutably recorded. Which is why the only thing you can do with crypto is currency and kitties.

Re: Naked shorting: The curious incident of the shares that didn't exist (2005)

#24

The perils of fractional reserve banking can arise in any centralized custodial arrangement. As long as no one performs a physical audit—or there is no physical object to be audited in the first place—then accounting fraud can and will happen. This is, in my opinion, the raison d’etre of blockchain. Public, immutable ledgers are immune to this kind of fraud (although they have other issues, of course).

No blockchain would ever be able to keep with with equities trading

Re: Naked shorting: The curious incident of the shares that didn't exist (2005)

#27

The perils of fractional reserve banking can arise in any centralized custodial arrangement. As long as no one performs a physical audit—or there is no physical object to be audited in the first place—then accounting fraud can and will happen. This is, in my opinion, the raison d’etre of blockchain. Public, immutable ledgers are immune to this kind of fraud (although they have other issues, of course).

Well fractional reserve banking is accounting fraud. Widespread and legal, but fraud nevertheless.

Also fractional reserve banking is a thing of the past. We've now evolved to no reserve banking. The banks' ability to create money from thin air is almost unrestrained.

Re: Naked shorting: The curious incident of the shares that didn't exist (2005)

#28

The perils of fractional reserve banking can arise in any centralized custodial arrangement. As long as no one performs a physical audit—or there is no physical object to be audited in the first place—then accounting fraud can and will happen. This is, in my opinion, the raison d’etre of blockchain. Public, immutable ledgers are immune to this kind of fraud (although they have other issues, of course).

No blockchain would ever be able to keep with with equities trading

In which case of course the trading has to happen on totally unaudited, unauditable exchanges like Bittrex’ (GME:USDT) pair and settled on the blockchain - which is absolute free for all in terms of shenanigans.

Re: Naked shorting: The curious incident of the shares that didn't exist (2005)

#29
Basic rule of thumb is any company where the management is whining about shorts, and about naked shorts in particular, is garbage. The reason companies get shorted over 100% of outstanding shares is because everybody agrees they are garbage. Not a conspiracy. Go look at the stock of the absurd company in question after you read this article.

Re: Naked shorting: The curious incident of the shares that didn't exist (2005)

#30

Should have a [2005] in the title. This is probably showing up on HN because naked short selling is topical, but the information in the article might be misleading if it's out of date.

Honestly when I saw this link prior to the edit it was less interesting due to how topical it was. Now it’s more interesting and carries an historical aspect.
Post reply on HN