Live data from Hacker News

Counterfeiting Stock – Explaining illegal naked shorting and stock manipulation

counterfeitingstock.com

71–80 of 403 posts

Re: Counterfeiting Stock – Explaining illegal naked shorting and stock manipulation

#71
post #42

Shitty companies failing is a necessary and important mechanism of a functioning economy. Look at the Soviet Union for an example of what happens when no companies ever go bankrupt. Short activists expose shitty companies and as such, they play an important role in the economy. Maybe Wirecard's fraud scheme would still be going on if it wasn't for short sellers. Maybe shorting, in particular naked shorting, is not id…

> Shitty companies failing is a necessary and important mechanism of a functioning economy. Are you thinking of Melvin Capital, GameStop, or both?

I am thinking Wirecard

Re: Counterfeiting Stock – Explaining illegal naked shorting and stock manipulation

#72

Shitty companies failing is a necessary and important mechanism of a functioning economy. Look at the Soviet Union for an example of what happens when no companies ever go bankrupt. Short activists expose shitty companies and as such, they play an important role in the economy. Maybe Wirecard's fraud scheme would still be going on if it wasn't for short sellers. Maybe shorting, in particular naked shorting, is not id…

> Maybe shorting, in particular naked shorting, is not ideal. But there needs to be a way to reward people for taking shitty companies down.

That's what disclosed shorting is for. Why is naked shorting needed?

Re: Counterfeiting Stock – Explaining illegal naked shorting and stock manipulation

#73

The author seems to be really upset about this, but I don't understand why. Nothing they are describing, if you ignore histrionic language like "counterfeiting", seems especially nefarious. Maybe I am misunderstanding. Basically, a short is when A borrows from B a share of corporation C with the promise to return a share of corporation C at a later time, plus some cash interest. A naked short is where instead B gives…

When I purchase a stock, I do it in the express belief that I will get a physical (though digitally stored) share of that company, and possibly one that gives me a voting right if the stock is marked as such. When a stock “fails to clear” this gives me a ton of problems such as slippage and volatility, and possibly a quite substantial loss.

Same if you buy an apple, I'm sure you'd only do it in the belief that you will actually get something edible. If I got nothing, I'd want my money back! But then when you buy an apple, you can see and touch it before you commit. Not so with stocks. And so you buy it while trusting the broker that your order will actually be met.

If instead my money is “borrowed” without my concent for some nefarious activity—in order to create more “liquidity”—that has a name: It's fraud. It's fraud of the customer whose money is being stolen. It's fraud of the customer who's being fooled into thinking that he's buying a real stock. That these shares do not exist, isn't some slip-up. It's an intentional effort, done with the motive of earning money by exploiting the trust of their customers. Such action should thus clearly be illegal.

Same if you bought a stock, and your broker suddenly decides to steal it without your knowledge, and loan it out in order to sell it in the hopes of earning money if its value drops (i.e. short the stock). Clearly you'd want to know if your property is being loanded out, because it means that you're incurring risk, no matter if you're compensated for it through interest or not.

Re: Counterfeiting Stock – Explaining illegal naked shorting and stock manipulation

#74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A can fail to deliver in the first activity, too. More generally, when you agree to have someone give you something of value at a later time, you take on some risk that they will fail to do so.

There's a very different risk profile for me (an individual investor) if I'm buying shares from someone who doesn't have them, and merely promises to deliver them, than if they're backed by real shares. I'd like my brokerage to be holding real shares on my behalf for real dollars I gave them. I don't want them loaning my shares out either. They're mine. If there are naked shorts floating around (or shorts covered by…

> I don't want them loaning my shares out either.

If you don't want that, don't. It's in your control.

Re: Counterfeiting Stock – Explaining illegal naked shorting and stock manipulation

#75

Shitty companies failing is a necessary and important mechanism of a functioning economy. Look at the Soviet Union for an example of what happens when no companies ever go bankrupt. Short activists expose shitty companies and as such, they play an important role in the economy. Maybe Wirecard's fraud scheme would still be going on if it wasn't for short sellers. Maybe shorting, in particular naked shorting, is not id…

>Shitty companies failing is a necessary and important mechanism of a functioning economy. True >Look at the Soviet Union for an example of what happens when no companies ever go bankrupt. The Soviet Union was not a free market economy. >Short activists expose shitty companies and as such, they play an important role in the economy. In free market economies, shitty companies fail by themselves because their competito…

Why would Tesla not exist? A low stock price doesn't bankrupt a company.

Re: Counterfeiting Stock – Explaining illegal naked shorting and stock manipulation

#76
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are a company looking to raise money through the public markets. You have issued 10 million shares; but the market is trading with 15 million because of counterfeit stocks. The bankers and the hedge funds have got to dilute you; actively hurting your fundraising ability, and of course; your stock price (which you may own as a founder).

This doesn't distinguish between shorting and naked shorting. But in either case I don't understand why I'm supposed to be upset. Is it because the stock price goes down?

Does it matter? 1 stock = 1 stock. 1 stock should never be 2 stocks.

It’s because I believe in ownership of what you make. If you founded a company, sold 10% on public markets for float, and magically 20% of your cap table now exists on the NYSE; something is horrifically wrong.

And yes, you would have suffered negative financial outcomes because of the counterfeiting.

Re: Counterfeiting Stock – Explaining illegal naked shorting and stock manipulation

#77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Shitty companies failing is a necessary and important mechanism of a functioning economy. True >Look at the Soviet Union for an example of what happens when no companies ever go bankrupt. The Soviet Union was not a free market economy. >Short activists expose shitty companies and as such, they play an important role in the economy. In free market economies, shitty companies fail by themselves because their competito…

Why would Tesla not exist? A low stock price doesn't bankrupt a company.

It can because if you want to raise money, the banks wont accept your shares as collateral making your job to raise money very difficult.

Re: Counterfeiting Stock – Explaining illegal naked shorting and stock manipulation

#79
post #73

The author seems to be really upset about this, but I don't understand why. Nothing they are describing, if you ignore histrionic language like "counterfeiting", seems especially nefarious. Maybe I am misunderstanding. Basically, a short is when A borrows from B a share of corporation C with the promise to return a share of corporation C at a later time, plus some cash interest. A naked short is where instead B gives…

When I purchase a stock, I do it in the express belief that I will get a physical (though digitally stored) share of that company, and possibly one that gives me a voting right if the stock is marked as such. When a stock “fails to clear” this gives me a ton of problems such as slippage and volatility, and possibly a quite substantial loss. Same if you buy an apple, I'm sure you'd only do it in the belief that you wi…

If I want insurance to protect against the price going down, I'd buy a put option. I know a bit about this but I'm not an expert on this. Naively, those put options are effectively offered by those providing a short (they think the price is going to go down, or have a way to hedge the price decrease). Those don't get represented as shorts either. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/tr...

The other thing to consider here: if some entity needs to provide the put option, how does one hedge (risk manage) a put option ? They need to consider what would happen if the price drops, and as the price drops their hedge needs to increase in price. There's undoubtedly more to this, but that relationship sounds awfully like a short.

Any experts want to wade in here?

Re: Counterfeiting Stock – Explaining illegal naked shorting and stock manipulation

#80
post #51

On a sidenote, I really like that site's design. Having just read about the Gemini project, I feel like we all should maybe tone down the web design a little bit.

What's the gemini project?

https://gemini.circumlunar.space/
Post reply on HN