If I short a stock, I borrow the share and the sell it on the market. If I loan the share to someone else and they sell it then it is still only sold once.
In my opinion it's more likely that people were either selling naked calls (which would convert into an IOU for stock) or that people were selling shares that didn't actually exist on the open market.
I don't know enough about settlement to verify the latter claim, but there are some reports of shares taking an excessively long time to settle. Those kind of irregularities should probably be more closely investigated.
> If I short a stock, I borrow the share and the sell it on the market. If I loan the share to someone else and they sell it then it is still only sold once.
The share can then, afterwards, be loaned out and sold again. This causes it to be “double sold” and you’ll see something like the 140%.
Alice loans share to Bob, Bob sells to Carol, Carol loans to David, David sells to Eve.
Bob and David are both short sellers. There is only one stock. It has been sold twice.
>The share can then, afterwards, be loaned out and sold again.
I've seen the same argument more than once this weekend but this flood [1] (also linked from the TFA) says otherwise:
In order to meet legal requirements, the broker has to find un-lent shares (so the same shares aren’t lent twice). The PB will “tag” those shares, indicate to the client the prevailing cost to borrow, and provide the client a “locate ID” that guarantees that client those shares.
I think you’re misinterpreting the linked statement - they’re saying A can’t lend the same share to both B and C at the same time. If B borrows the share and then sells to C, C has a share with a clean title and can then lend to D. Otherwise there would be two different prices for lent and unlent shares, since you can make interest off one but not the other.
I’m not 100% sure this is correct though, someone please let me know if I’m wrong.
That’s interesting… people in that thread have the same questions, but they are not answered. Perhaps we will eventually find out after the SEC investigation… or perhaps someone will just stop by and explain it.
You’re missing the point. The same share can be repeatedly loaned and sold by different people: A lends to B who sells to C who lends to D who sells to E, etc. No one in the chain did any naked short selling.
Sure!
We are using Blockstack for authentication; it is a platform to have your identity safe with the help of blockchain.
Scalable? It is easier as all the works are done in the client-side, so no server pressure there, and your data will be stored on the storage provider of choice although we have a default one with 10GB free storage for all the news users. (Always encrypted!)
In the future, we will provide extended options like self hosting for enterprises.
Yes. But it gives us the power of making sure everything is encrypted and accessible from anyway, and no one beside you can access your data! As for storage, it is configurable, and you can move it anywhere. But you have 10GB free plan if you join us now.
Not at all. Your identity is encrypted with the master key just like when you make a BTC wallet. You can save it and use it even if our servers go down; you can have or use another node.
Also, you can choose or make another storage provider to host your docs. We are cool; we want to give people a more secure option ;)
Being able to discern large scale themes and patterns in data, then using those findings distill the original data input to minimally redundant messages, is similar to the goal of an AGI that can comprehend any input data.
Look at bitcoin, its value is expected to go up, so owners never use it, they don't even feel the need to put it in a bank account to hedge against inflation, because the likelihood is there'll be the opposite, deflation (because theres a fixed number of coins that can be made). So now you have all this cash sitting there doing nothing. Not being lent to businesses, so they can grow, or invent hover boots or what ever, it's not being put in a bank, so they can lend it to someone to buy a house.
It just gums the system up, the haves accrue more by doing literally nothing. The have nots have no opportunity to improve their lot, or the lot of the haves.
I don't think the things you're saying are really accurate. Bitcoin isn't used very much for payments because it isn't easy to use it for payments. The scaling technology to enable it is in development but not good enough yet. Once payments hit a certain critical level, the network slows. Lots of people spend Bitcoin when they can.
Additionally, lending and borrowing is becoming a really popular application for crypto. You should take a look into things like Compound, Dharma, dYdX, nuo, BlockFi, and others. [1] Decentralized lending + borrowing with collateral is super hot, with amazing interest rates. On dYdX right now you can get a 6.2% APY on USDC, which is a stablecoin pegged to the US dollar. My bank savings account only gives me 2.2%. That's a 2.8X multiplier on the best bank rate available right now. And not on a volatile asset - a pegged-to-USD asset.
It's actually practical - more practical than traditional finance - if your goal is to save via compound interest. The idea that crypto is sitting around doing nothing isn't accurate at all.
But besides all that, the idea that "money sitting there doing nothing" is bad is wrong anyway, since the money that "does something" becomes worth more. This argument confuses numbers for value. Economic output doesn't care about how we quantify it, it cares about resource allocation. The value of our flappy paper tabs changes to reflect economic activity and its own scarcity in the economy, not vice-versa.
I picked on bitcoin because there will only ever be a limited number of coins, I could just have easily picked on gold. This is in contrast to the USD, where more can be printed bringing about inflation.
Money that "does something" ie gets lent to businesses to expand, or to people to buy houses is being allocated, its being allocated to something productive, whereas under the mattress isn't. Under the mattress isn't economic activity, lending it out is, or can encourage it at least.
Every transaction with Bitcoin is subject to capital gains tax. There is a penalty for using it to purchase things. It's a little silly to try to explain why people don't "use" Bitcoin and skip over that fact.
capital gains tax is paid on capital gains (you've made money!!!). If a gain hasn't been made, theres no tax to pay. And anyway assuming you plan on spending your money some time before you die you're not going to be able to avoid the tax so why should it put you off spending that bitcoin?
Plus in my jurisdiction I get a capital gains allowance, so its better to spend the bitcoin now and make full use of each years allowance, than save it up for whenever.
If it in effect doesn't exist, then the rest of the money in circulation is worth more due to its scarcity being increased. Net economic activity is thus unaffected.
I've always seen this as an over-simplification that leads down an incorrect path of thinking. It "doesn't exist" if you think the only thing that has an effect on the economy is the number of dollars in circulation at a given instant. A person that has money saved may behave differently in the economy vs that same person with no money saved. They may buy different things or take bigger financial risks with the money they are spending.
That money is also out of circulation, so not contributing to inflation. The government will print (or create through interest rate adjustments) the same amount as it pursues an interest rate target.
Well that depends on what he wants to charge for the drug now doesn't it? and dont give me some free market BS because there is very little free market left in pharma pricing. its just extortion by making artificial monopolies plain and simple.
Yes, patents give companies monapolies for a limited time but I don't see how a company having a monopoly on a drug for a limited time makes anyone worse as the alternative is to just not have the drug at all.
And if your argument is that the government should fund all drug research, realize that they are fully capable of doing so and then patenting the drug and giving it out for free in our current system. Thus, both funding models can work in cohesion.
I interviewed at Facebook with the intention of getting an offer letter I could use as a bargaining chip with my first choices. I was rejected, but fortunately got into my first choice anyway. Despite all the perks and compensation, I would never want to work for Facebook.
There are (at least?) three different ways "ch" can be pronounced in German: Throaty as in "Buch", a slightly altered "sh" sound like in "Bücher", and just as plain "k", like in "Lachs".
I was very surprised to see wiktionaries phonetic transcription and sound sample of "Buch", apparently it is not throaty everywhere.
It's a /k/ in all "-achs", e.g. "Dachs", "wachsen", "Flachs", exactly as in "bochs" the emulator (compare "boxen"), except across boundaries, e.g. "wachsam, wach-sam" (wakeful, at guard), or contractions, e.g. "[Meister seines].Faches/Fachs".
