adiggs
Well-Known Member
I may be off here, edit: I think I was, but keeping this for posterity. but I think your point regarding share reallocation is valid regarding counting, but not share availability.
Example: company has 100 shares total, brokerage owns 40, CEO has 30, and everyone else has 30. Now if brokerage lets someone short sell 10, the numbers of in-hand shares are 30 for brokerage, 30 for CEO, and 40 for everyone else. The loaned shares are no longer in play by the brokerage and a short cannot buy them to close their position.
Extreme case: float of 100 shares, everyone uses the same brokerage. Through a series of 40% margin transactions backed by cash or other stock, there are 200 shares shorted (due to the brokerage loaning them multiple times due to everyone having their accounts there).There are 300 entries, but only 100 shares are in people's accounts, along with 200 owed shares. When the shorts try to cover, there are only 100 shares available for them to purchase from.
Edit: it could be that there are 300 'shares' in people's accounts, but only 100 real shares at the brokerage. Like a bank, as long as you can pull 'your' money out, you don't care how full the vault is. So there are 300 possibilities for repurchase.
So how does the accounting work? The outstanding number can't change. And the float number is the outstanding minus CEO/restricted shares, so it is fixed also. If the brokerage reports the total number of shares it is responsible for (loaned and in-hand) then the sum of everyone will be more than the float. If they only report in hand shares, then the total will be the float.
The key for thinking about this is to look at it as micro transactions, rather than aggregate. Then work backwards to the aggregate.
I buy 1000 shares of Tesla and make them available through my broker to be borrowed. I own 1000 shares.
My broker lends them out to somebody that wants to be short Tesla by 1000 shares. This transaction results in me still owning 1000 shares AND the person buying the 1000 shares becoming the benefical owner of 1000 shares, with the short party having sold 1000 shares. The net position is +1000 for me, +1000 for the other buyer, and -1000 for the short party, for a net of 1000 shares.
But there are 2 of us that have 1000 share positions, with the person buying to open from the short having voting rights on the shares. I still have a 1000 share position and have given up my voting rights in exchange for interest.
For that second buyer, they own 1000 shares and can make them available through their broker to be borrowed. If they do, and they are then borrowed, a third buyer can buy the 1000 shares (with the help of somebody selling to open the 1000 shares), and now we have 3 beneficial owners of 1000 shares plus 2 short sellers. The net shares remains at 1000, but now we have 3 owners who possess 1000 shares (with 1 of the 3 of us having the voting rights).
This is why Tesla can have 170M shares outstanding, with 40M shares short - this means there are 210M shares beneficially owned, for a net of 170M. If the ownership gets too far out of whack with total shares outstanding, it's the shorts that are guaranteeing all of those extra shares with their own cash and other holdings.
The voting rights are key to understanding, I believe, why some owners of shares don't make their shares available. If your'e Elon, if you make your shares available to borrow, then your voting rights are diminished while those shares are lent out. In an extreme case, if you can't get your shares back in time, you could lose your position in the company (though it'd be hard to lose your ownership claim - you might find yourself on the outside looking in). So Elon doesn't make his shares available, nor does anybody else with a significant holding and a desire to be involved in corporate decision making.
I figure the shares held by brokerages such as Fidelity, are moving in and out of being lent and returned, constantly. If you're Fidelity, the best shares to lend our are your own - you get 100% of the interest paid by the shorts. You only turn to people like me to borrow shares when you're at the limit of your own shares you can lend out, based on internal risk assessment and management guidelines.
I figure most mutual fund holdings are similar to my own - available to be borrowed when desired (because the fund will be happy to get the interest when its available), but ok to not have them lent out too. That's based on my belief that most mutual funds are indifferent to the most direct exercise of corporate governance.
Of course, any individual share holder vote can also change the dynamic, where individuals and/or funds decide they DO want to vote their shares to be sure those shares are voted the right way.
Going back to my made up example, there are 3 owners of 1000 shares, and only 1 of us has the voting rights. If I decide I want to vote my shares, my broker has made me a direct and personal guarantee that I can get my shares back on demand. If these were the only 3000 shares, then the broker and 2 shorts are going to find a price that will lever the other 2000 shares of the hands of the other 2 owners, or go into default trying (returning cash instead of shares IS default - it's a backstop, not an acceptable substitute). The broker won't ever allow themselves to be that exposed, so they'll keep their own pool of owned shares they can use worst case to satisfy my demand to recover my shares so I can vote.