Replying to Avatar Short Fiat

If something is shorted, then there must necessarily be a long which is the other side of the contract. A short is a bet on the price going downwards and there must be someone on the other side of bet. It is enabled by a broker borrowing the asset from one of their customers (usually without them knowing it) and lending it to the person that wants to sell it in the market.

In order for it to be sold in the market someone has to be buying it. So the short sale means that there are two people that bought the same ETF, the one who bought it in the first place and has lent it to the short seller and the one who has bought it from the short seller. The fiat system allows them to both own the same ETF at the same time.

The short seller could be another retail punter, or they could be the brokerage themselves. By selling you an asset that they have borrowed from another customer, they get some interest free money to play with. They are exposed to the price going up, but they don't have to mark to market.

All of this is enabled by the digitisation of the stock exchange. In the days of paper certificates, people had legal title to their assets and they could hold the share certificate in their own custody. Now they have no choice, but to custody with a broker. As I said, every brokerage account owned by a retail investor does not own the shares. The shares are owned by a nominee company that holds the paper certificates. This structure enables unlimited re-hypothication of assets. They have been doing the same thing with gold for years. That is how there is a 200:1 ratio of paper gold to physical gold. The finanical system is sitting on an enormous short position on the gold price.

Shorting any asset is agreeing to sell it at the current price(ish) on a future date. So yes, a bet that it will go down in value. Doing that without having a corresponding right to own the asset is “naked short selling”; doing it with either ownership of the asset or at least the contractual right to own the asset is “covered short selling”. Naked short selling is mostly illegal on many developed markets (including the US, although the wordings around “right to own” are a bit weak).

Either way, no new units of the underlying asset are created, and for every agreed sale of a unit, a purchase of a unit is also agreed (as you say above), so the net difference is zero, every time.

The ones buying the contract don’t own the asset until the strike date. So you don’t have two owners at the same time. One owns the asset, the other owns a contract to buy the asset in future.

When market events turn against market participants (such as during a “short squeeze”, the pressure is on the short sellers, not the underlying asset itself. The short sellers may get wiped out, or go bankrupt, or not be able to pay their debts, but the asset itself is unaffected - the market price of the asset might change, but there is no change to the asset itself, nor any change to how many units of it exist.

There are two types of broker/custodian - fiduciary (sometimes called “full service”) and non-fiduciary.

Full service ones (such as Interactive Brokers) give you the option to allow them to lend/repo your assets in exchange for a cut of the fees they generate, or not - your choice. Customer assets are segregated from company assets.

Non-fiduciary brokers (such as Robinhood) are basically just borrowing your funds, don’t have that separation, can do what they like with your money, and are basically just promising you you’ll get what you expect, as you describe. Best avoided, and not the only option available.

Digitalisation of exchanges makes it easier and quicker to do all of this, but it didn’t herald the start of this - short selling is just a sales purchase agreement, a contract. Contracts have existed for millennia.

Sometimes people sign contracts they then can’t deliver on - this is counterparty risk. It’s part of the free-ish market though, and nothing to do with governments, fiat currency, central banks, etc. The vast majority of trades and contracts are by and between private individuals and companies 🤷‍♀️

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

You are thinking of an option there. An option give the owner of the option the right to buy or sell the price at a future specified date at future specified price. Forward futures contracts on indices and commodities are delivery date based also.

When it comes to short selling of individual shares the facilitating broker borrows the shares and then lends them to the short seller to sell in the market. I should know, I have done it enough times.

Yes, if you short sell without owning the asset, then you are naked short selling. It's not illegal in any jurastiction that I have ever heard of. They might put me in prison for my facebook posts, but i've been a naked short seller a lot of times I have never had the police come round to my house to ask me what I was thinking!

Yes options are different - and yes that’s how short-selling works (although it can be done without borrowing the asset, if it’s already owned), but how is this a function of a fiat currency system, or a government?

It’s private individuals/companies/banks doing this, between themselves?

And happens just as much on DeFi markets as it does on CeFi markets?

And happens with all sorts of different assets?

And presumably the only way to prevent it would be additional market rules to ban it…?