Can someone please help me understand and find the hole in my logic on short-selling (not naked short-selling).
Before the split:
(A) buys 1 share in the market. Lends it to (B). (B) sells the share to (C) for cash (and hopes to re-buy later at a lower price).
(A) has 1 "synthetic" share; (C) has a real share.
After the split
(C) gets 4 additional shares.
(A) still has only 1 "synthetic" share but wants 4 more "synthetic" shares
(B) "makes profit" - yay - the one share owed is only 20% of the value - however, (B) also owes 4 more shares to (A) - to honour the split - so sadly "no profit". Normally that's not a big deal: shares are only 20% and you can buy the in the open market, right? - i.e. this is in theory a "neutral" situation. Unless you can't buy shares in the open market because all of a sudden there are so many shorted shares and the float is too little.
What we have right now might exactly NOT be naked short-selling but large scale short-selling and the effects of a significant reduction in float: the synthetic shares did not multiply, and of course people expect a settlement in shares not in USD. So if there are no naked shorts, this creates massive "ownership pressure" of shares which might contribute to the "buying pressure" we see right now.
Thoughts?