Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Please be patient, I seem to be experiencing some genuine cognitive dissonance. Rare to catch oneself at it so I hope you'll help.

In your example, if I understand it, I go to Alice, take her share and give her an IOU. I give the share to Bob, and take his money. Then I go to bob, take his share and give him an IOU. I give the share to Christy, and take her money.

I have two people's money, and two people have my IOU's. If ten shares exist and these are the only shares that changed hands, it would be 20% shorted - or am I misunderstanding already?

Assuming I'm not, I would think I need to buy any two of these ten shares to give one each to Alice and Bob, and it could be the same one if Bob or Alice sell it back to me after I return it for my IOU. Okay, so far so good for a 20% short position.

If the shares were 140% shorted, that would imply that I've sold each of the ten shares once, and four of them twice. This sounds like the same situation in theory except that now rather than having the option of buying a share from someone whom I've just returned it to for an IOU I now have to do that - four times at least in total. The difference practically though seems to be that people know I don't have much bargaining power. If ten of the twenty-four people who own either a share or one of my IOU's conspire to not sell me a share back at any price, I'm in a world of hurt - and the more shares I've sold, the higher the odds that enough of the people owning these shares would want to do exactly that.

Am I misunderstanding something?



Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: