Hacker News Reader

Comment by brian-armstrong | Hacker News Reader

What? Most (all?) platforms let you opt out of this, and you receive payment when your shares are borrowed. And shares are fungible, how would it matter if one share is borrowed by 10 people or by none?

View on HN

“What? Most (all?) platforms let you opt out of this.” Genuinely didn’t know that appreciate you pointing it out.

“Shares are fungible, how would it matter if one share is borrowed by 10 people or by none?” Lets hedge funds create disproportionate downward pressure

Why mess with all this shit unless you're trying to retroactively justify a really heavy bag you're holding.

If you invest in good companies making good profits you don't have to care about any of this stuff. Free yourself, you have nothing to lose but your bags

I am not messing with these just looked really fkd up how Citadel was able to abuse it's position

It wasn't, and the fact that you think market makers are "abusing positions" is so fundamentally wrong it's hard to even argue with you

I'm sorry but your brain has been fried by ape memes and you need a full reset on your understanding of finance

You literally produced 0 arguments. Market maker is pretty irrelevant to the situation influential institution who's goals are aligned with other major players having pull on DTCC actions would be more relevant. I again have not dug in too much as was not relevant to me but looked fairly suspicious. I have direct knowledge of relevant situation where investment bank arm or top 5 US bank had Knight Capital Group type moment. They had enough pull to make all transactions not clear and get unwound so exerting that type of influence would not surprise me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com