Some strange questions below, but hoping some people with knowledge can help me out...
1. To what extent does the SEC enforce their 'failure to deliver'/naked short-selling rules?
2. In cases of failure to deliver, the National Securities Clearing Corporation (NSCC) -- the clearing house that settles most trades in the US -- can step in, purchase shares on the open market and deliver the shares themselves, then bill the seller for the cost + an additional fee, correct?
3. If played by the rules, when shares are shorted, the shares must be borrowed from somewhere. Either the broker must have them available, borrow additional shares from somewhere else for a fee, or not permit the client's order (correct?).
4. When the loaner of the borrowed shares wants to sell their shares, or have them delivered in physical certificate form, the shares must be returned by the borrower (shorter), correct?
5. So, in theory, could a bunch of long-term investors converting their shares to physical certificates cause a short squeeze? As I understand this SEC page, physical stock certificates cannot be used as collateral by your broker (unless you want to apply them as collateral?). So, I assume they would no longer be able to loan out those shares.
6. Would the same thing happen if you just moved your shares from a margin account to a cash account? Can the broker loan your shares out if they are in a cash account?
Much thanks in advance to anyone who can answer these questions. :smile:
Good questions...Ill take a stab at some of these
1)I would say to a reasonable extent but that many brokers still have leeway or loopholes they can justify to go against it in certain cases or perhaps for certain large PB clients of theirs.
2)not 100% sure on this
3)or if the client indicates they have located the shares somewhere else a broker will let them short it. I'm not sure there is any real way the broker can make sure the client is telling the truth other than buying them in on T+3 when the trade settles if the locate isn't there. There are also other loopholes I think institutional Prime Brokers can exploit for their billion dollar hedge fund clients that I don't know all the details of but can involve SWAPs and market makers providing liquidity of the SWAPs do naked shorting the stock in turn to hedge themselves (ie. market makers I don't believe have to find a locate in order to short if they are doing so to provide a liquid market or bid/offer).
4)I believe so.
5)perhaps, but remember point 3 above
6)theoretically yes. I also think that if you are in a margin acct but not using any margin then the broker is not supposed to loan out (aka rehypothecate) any of your shares without your permission. I think the broker is only allowed to loan out your shares if you are actually borrowing cash on margin in which case they are allowed. To lend out your shares bc they are helping to finance them.
I suspect its possible that some brokers may try to embed, somewhere in their customer agreement, their ability to rehypothecate your shares even if you are not borrowing cash.
Also keep in mind there can theoretically be an infinite amount of shorting. If there are 100mm share outstanding and 100mm shares are then lent out to short, then those shorts will sell those 100mm shares to more longs who also have the ability to lend out their shares. If they all did too then it would be 200mm shares sold short on a stock with only 100mm shares outstanding.