say your answer makes no sense to me. 

If an institution lends out stock it owns and charges interest at say 7-10% until the stock is returned, how does that benefit the owner of those shares if the stock is then driven down 20-30%; they would be a net loser.  Unless, of course, I'm underestimating the fee paid to "borrow the stock"...in which case, if larger, the transaction would be prohibitive to the individual wanting to go short.

As I said, this just doesn't make sense to me.  Those "lending out" stock are betting against their own interests as best I can see. 

In all the years I've asked this question, NO ONE has provided a plausible explanation.  With so many owning stock, it's incredible there isn't more of a ground swell of demand that owners be allowed to remove their shares from the "lending" market.

Wouldn't markets be more efficient if one could only buy (without margin) and sell stock they actually have in their possession?

Can individuals who own a stock, request that the brokerage holding the underlying equity NOT lend out shares to others who may want to short it?  If so, why wouldn't every owner of a stock do so? 

Here's why I ask: Perhaps I'm missing something about shorting stocks, but isn't it absolutely in the interest of every shareholder to make the float as scarce as possible so the price goes HIGHER?  Allowing anyone to borrow shares of a stock I own clearly is counter to my financial interest, since I'd be enabling someone to drive down the price of that stock lower.

If that assumption is correct, and taking for a given that every share of a stock is either owned by an institution or an individual (both of whom want to see that equity APPRECIATE in value), who in their right mind would lend out their shares for shorting??  The interest received while shares are loaned out couldn't possibly offset the potential of a stock dropping 40-50% if the shorts got the upper hand, as they sometimes do.

Please educate me to what I'm missing...because it seems it's in no one's interest to lend out shares, other than the shorts themselves.

And if owners of shares cannot control the shares they own (ie., opt not make them available for shorting), why is that legal?  Aren't those shares mine, not the broker's?

immediately cratered back to $1201: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-25/something-appears-be-going-gold

Anyone have a plausible explanation for what happened (if it even did)??

Love the work you've done on this Matt. 

Here's my question:  While the 8 SMA has been up 24 straight days, it appears this indicator is hugging the price line.  In other words, if I place the trade and place a sell order when price closes below the 8 SMA, the percentage gain is likely to be small, unless of course the market falls off a cliff.  Absent that scenario, I suspect placing this trade calls for the individual to put up more $$ than usual, simply because the expected gain (while near certain since it has occurred 100% of the time) will be small on a percentage basis.  Am I correct?

for how long a swing trader should stay in a stock trading sideways (or slightly lower)after a large move up? 

Of late, I find myself jumping into a stock about the 3rd or 4th day after it begins flagging on a daily chart, then hang on for too many days, only to see the stock drop.  Yes, I'm stopped out at a modest loss since I always put in a stop loss order, but I'm wondering if I'm staying in too long hoping for the pattern to play out.

Thoughts?  After about 6 days of sideways movement, my gut says the pattern isn't following through so "get out", but I rarely listen to it and hold too long.  

approaching its 50 day simple moving average.  Will it bounce there or crash through?

Starting to poke above the 8 EMA.  Thoughts?

Same old story.  Tell me why.............

your statement: " Yes, and remember, unlike Google, this issue is not actually shares in the company....."

Thanks.

Flagging and ready to pop!

if it pushes above its 9 EMA (currently at 1.81)?  The stock has been drifting lower on low volume for slightly more than a month after making a monster move higher on heavy volume.  Would a good entry point be low $1.80's?

when you say DUST had the "typical wedge overshoot the other day that faked out newbies, then reversed".  What technical evidence supported any interpretation other than a breakdown from the wedge?  Still learning.  Thanks.

Bought in last week at $3.36.  Want to give it room but place a sensible stop.  Anyone have suggestions on whether $3.39 (just below the pennant on the daiy), $3.43 (a few cents below the 50 ema on the 60 minute) or horizontal support of some kind makes the most sense?  I tend to enter/exit based on the daily in most circumstances.  

Noticed that Matt mentioned USO as a possible short-term trade in last night's newsletter.  

I just want to remind anyone who takes this trade inside a retirement account that they will be subject to receiving a K-1 and paying tax for 2013 on any gain DESPITE the fact that they are doing so inside a tax deferred account.  That's because USO is a limited partnership (LP).  

Found this out the hard way a few year's back when I made $$$ trading USO through my retirement account at Fidelity.  Received a K-1 for the gain at end of year. When I questioned Fidelity about it, they brought to my attention a little known tax rule that supports the issuance of a K-1 in this situation and the susequent requirement to pay tax on the gain that year...even though the trade occured within a tax deferred instrument (my retirement account).

Just thought I'd make others aware of this rule; its helpful to know if you're trading through a brokerage within a retirement account.  PS: I have no idea if the tax law has changed since my trade about 5 years ago...but I tend to doubt it.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101106134

Rich Ilczsyzn, founder of iiTrader is quoted as saying: "We don't know if its a mistake or not".  Really?

Which begs the question: "Who placed the order and did they actually have the inventory to sell?"  I know - there's no manipulation going on.  Please.

another deal whereby the US borrows another $1 trillion we can't repay: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101104493  

finally broke higher today after long consolidation.  Jumped in a few days ago.  Anyone have thoughts on where to place my stop?

might conclude this week's statements by Bernanke ("No taper"), followed two days later (Friday) by St Louis Fed President James Bullard ("Possible taper in October") were nothing more than a way to serve up juicy profits to those possessing advance knowledge of what they would say.

Yes, there are times I'm a skeptical trader.  What other explanation is there for the sequence of events and the action in the gold and gold mining markets that ensued?  Does Bullard routinely contradict Bernanke?

More importantly, perhaps someone can help me understand why so many view the Fed as the Puppetmaster of the world capable of controlling and pulling all the financial strings.

Me thinks some profited greatly from this inside information. 

The daily link wasn't emailed and its not showing up on this site.  I hope everyone is okay and its nothing more than a technical glitch.  Just used to watching the video to start my day.