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?

Newsletter

Subscribe to our email list for regular free market updates
as well as a chance to get coupons!