Schwab wants to charge me interest on the money I received for selling TSLA short
Brokers have the right to charge interest on any stock that they lend you. Since you borrowed the TSLA to short it, the owner of those shares can charge you interest until you return them. If you are not getting charged interest on some shares that you have borrowed to short, consider it generosity on the part of the lender. I agree with Mark.  I was quite confuse about the short position at first but then I did a lot of learning and found out that as long as you have enough cash to cover your margin requirement you do not pay any interest since you do not have a debit on your margin balance.  This is not true for a long position though, supposed you have 5k cash and 5k margin balance, if you buy 10K worth of stocks then you will need to pay interest on the 5k of the margin balance since it is a debit.  Since shorting is done at a credit basis, you actually get interest from the transaction but you still may need to pay the borrowing fees for the stocks so they could simply balance each other out.  I have shorted stocks twice through two different companies and neither time I noticed any interest charges.  But make sure you have enough cash to cover your margin requirement, because once your margin balance is used to covered your position then interest would accrual. Learn.
"You won't be able to sell the car with a lien outstanding on it, and whoever the lender is, they're almost certain to have a lien on the car.  You would have to pay the car off first and obtain a clear title, then you could sell it. When you took out the loan, did you not receive a copy of the finance contract?  I can't imagine you would have taken on a loan without signing paperwork and receiving your own copy at the time.   If the company you're dealing with is the lender, they are obligated by law to furnish you with a copy of the finance contract (all part of ""truth in lending"" laws) upon request.  It sounds to me like they know they're charging you an illegally high (called ""usury"") interest rate, and if you have a copy of the contract then you would have proof of it.  They'll do everything they can to prevent you from obtaining it, unless you have some help. I would start by filing a complaint with the Better Business Bureau, because if they want to keep their reputation intact then they'll have to respond to your complaint.   I would also contact the state consumer protection bureau (and/or the attorney general's office) in your state and ask them to look into the matter, and I would see if there are any local consumer watchdogs (local television stations are a good source for this) who can contact the lender on your behalf.  Knowing they have so many people looking into this could bring enough pressure for them to give you what you're asking for and be more cooperative with you. As has been pointed out, keep a good, detailed written record of all your contacts with the lender and, as also pointed out, start limiting your contacts to written letters (certified, return receipt requested) so that you have documentation of your efforts. Companies like this succeed only because they prey on the fact many people either don't know their rights or are too intimidated to assert them.  Don't let these guys bully you, and don't take ""no"" for an answer until you get what you're after. Another option might be to talk to a credit union or a bank (if you have decent credit) about taking out a loan with them to pay off the car so you can get this finance company out of your life." "As the other answer said, the person who owns the lent stock does not benefit directly.  They may benefit indirectly in that brokers can use the short lending profits to reduce their fees or in that they have the option to short other stocks at the same terms.   Follow-up question: what prevents the broker lending the shares for a very short time (less than a day), pocketing the interest and returning the lenders their shares without much change in share price (because borrowing period was very short). What prevents them from doing that many times a day ? Lack of market.   Short selling for short periods of time isn't so common as to allow for ""many"" times a day.  Some day traders may do it occasionally, but I don't know that it would be a reliable business model to supply them.  If there are enough people interested in shorting the stock, they will probably want to hold onto it long enough for the anticipated movement to happen.   There are transaction costs here.  Both fees for trading at all and the extra charges for short sale borrowing and interest.  Most stocks do not move down by large enough amounts ""many"" times a day.  Their fluctuations are smaller.  If the stock doesn't move enough to cover the transaction fees, then that seller lost money overall.  Over time, sellers like that will stop trading, as they will lose all their money.   All that said, there are no legal blocks to loaning the stock out many times, just practical ones.  If a stock was varying wildly for some bizarre reason, it could happen." "I'm just trying to visualize the costs of trading. Say I set up an account to trade something (forex, stock, even bitcoin) and I was going to let a random generator determine when I should buy or sell it. If I do this, I would assume I have an equal probability to make a profit or a loss. Your question is what a mathematician would call an ""ill-posed problem.""  It makes it a challenge to answer.  The short answer is ""no.""  We will have to consider three broad cases for types of assets and two time intervals. Let us start with a very short time interval.  The bid-ask spread covers the anticipated cost to the market maker of holding an asset bought in the market equal to the opportunity costs over the half-life of the holding period.  A consequence of this is that you are nearly guaranteed to lose money if your time interval between trades is less than the half-life of the actual portfolio of the market maker.  To use a dice analogy, imagine having to pay a fee per roll before you can gamble.  You can win, but it will be biased toward losing. Now let us go to the extreme opposite time period, which is that you will buy now and sell one minute before you die.  For stocks, you would have received the dividends plus any stocks you sold from mergers.  Conversely, you would have had to pay the dividends on your short sales and received a gain on every short stock that went bankrupt.  Because you have to pay interest on short sales and dividends passed, you will lose money on a net basis to the market maker.  Maybe you are seeing a pattern here.  The phrase ""market maker"" will come up a lot. Now let us look at currencies.  In the long run, if the current fiat money policy regime holds, you will lose a lot of money.  Deflation is not a big deal under a commodity money regime, but it is a problem under fiat money, so central banks avoid it.  So your long currency holdings will depreciate.  Your short would appreciate, except you have to pay interest on them at a rate greater than the rate of inflation to the market maker. Finally, for commodities, no one will allow perpetual holding of short positions in commodities because people want them delivered.  Because insider knowledge is presumed under the commodities trading laws, a random investor would be at a giant disadvantage similar to what a chess player who played randomly would face against a grand master chess player.  There is a very strong information asymmetry in commodity contracts.  There are people who actually do know how much cotton there is in the world, how much is planted in the ground, and what the demand will be and that knowledge is not shared with the world at large.  You would be fleeced. Can I also assume that probabilistically speaking, a trader cannot do   worst than random? Say, if I had to guess the roll of a dice, my   chance of being correct can't be less than 16.667%. A physicist, a con man, a magician and a statistician would tell you that dice rolls and coin tosses are not random.  While we teach ""fair"" coins and ""fair"" dice in introductory college classes to simplify many complex ideas, they also do not exist.  If you want to see a funny version of the dice roll game, watch the 1962 Japanese movie Zatoichi.  It is an action movie, but it begins with a dice game.   Consider adopting a Bayesian perspective on probability as it would be a healthier perspective based on how you are thinking about this problem.  A ""frequency"" approach always assumes the null model is true, which is what you are doing.  Had you tried this will real money, your model would have been falsified, but you still wouldn't know the true model. Yes, you can do much worse than 1/6th of the time.  Even if you are trying to be ""fair,"" you have not accounted for the variance. Extending that logic, then for an inexperienced trader, is it right to   say then that it's equally difficult to purposely make a loss then it   is to purposely make a profit? Because if I can purposely make a loss,   I would purposely just do the opposite of what I'm doing to make a   profit. So in the dice example, if I can somehow lower my chances of   winning below 16.6667%, it means I would simply need to bet on the   other 5 numbers to give myself a better than 83% chance of winning. If the game were ""fair,"" but for things like forex the rules of the game are purposefully changed by the market maker to maximize long-run profitability.  Under US law, forex is not regulated by anything other than common law.  As a result, the market maker can state any price, including prices far from the market, with the intent to make a system used by actors losing systems, such as to trigger margin calls.  The prices quoted by forex dealers in the US move loosely with the global rates, but vary enough that only the dealer should make money systematically.  A fixed strategy would promote loss. You are assuming that only you know the odds and they would let you profit from your 83.33 percentage chance of winning. So then, is the costs of trading from a purely probabilistic point of   view simply the transaction costs? No matter what, my chances cannot   be worse than random and if my trading system has an edge that is   greater than the percentage of the transaction that is transaction   cost, then I am probabilistically likely to make a profit? No, the cost of trading is the opportunity cost of the money.  The transaction costs are explicit costs, but you have ignored the implicit costs of foregone interest and foregone happiness using the money for other things. You will want to be careful here in understanding probability because the distribution of returns for all of these assets lack a first moment and so there cannot be a ""mean return.""  A modal return would be an intellectually more consistent perspective, implying you should use an ""all-or-nothing"" cost function to evaluate your methodology." The real value of a share of stock is the current cash value of all dividends the owner will receive, plus the current cash value of the final liquidation if any.  Since people with different needs may judge the current cash value of an income stream differently, there would be a market basis for people to buy and sell stocks even if everyone could predict all future payouts perfectly. If shareholders knew that a company wouldn't pay any dividends until it was liquidated in the year 2066, whereupon it would pay $2000/share, then each share would in 2016 effectively be a fifty-year zero-coupon bond with a $2000 maturity value.  While some investors would be willing to trade in such an instrument, the amount of money a company could charge for such an instrument would be far lower than the money it could charge for one with payouts that were more evenly distributed through time. Since the founders of most companies want their companies to be around for a long time, that would mean that shareholders would have no expectation of their shares ever yielding anything of value within any foreseeable timeframe.  Even those who would be more interested in share-price appreciation than dividends wouldn't be able to see share prices rise if there wasn't any likelihood of the stock being bought by someone who wanted the dividends. You will be charged a stock borrow fee, which is inversely related to the relative supply of the stock you are shorting. IB claims to pay a rebate on the short proceeds, which would offset part or all of that fee, but it doesn't appear relevant in your case because: It is a bit strange to me that IB would not require you to keep the cash in your account, as they need the cash to collateralize the stock borrow with the lending institution.  In fact, per Regulation​ T, the short position requires an initial margin of 150%, which includes the short proceeds. As described by Investopedia: In the first table of Figure 1, a short sale is initiated for 1,000   shares at a price of $50. The proceeds of the short sale are $50,000,   and this amount is deposited into the short sale margin account. Along   with the proceeds of the sale, an additional 50% margin amount of   $25,000 must be deposited in the account, bringing the total margin   requirement to $75,000. At this time, the proceeds of the short sale   must remain in the account; they cannot be removed or used to purchase   other securities. Here is a good answer to your question from The Street: Even though you might see a balance in your brokerage account after   shorting a stock, you're actually looking at a false credit, according   to one big brokerage firm. That money is acting as collateral for the   short position. So, you won't have use of these funds for investment   purposes and won't earn interest on it. And there are indeed costs associated with shorting a stock. The   broker has to find stock to loan to you. That might come out of a   broker's own inventory or might be borrowed from another stock lender. I called Bank of America today about the same problem on my account. The service representative said that part of money is available to me and I can use the money. "This type of structured product is called a capital protection product.  It's like an insurance product - where you give up some upside for protection against losses in certain cases.   From the bank's perspective they take your investment, treat it as an ""interest-free loan"" and buy derivatives (like options) that give them an expected return greater then  They make their money: With this product, you are giving up some potential upside in order to protect against losses (other than catastrophic losses if the lower index drops by 50% or more).   What's the catch? There's not really a catch. It's a lot like insurance, you might come out ahead (e.g. if the market goes down less than 50%), but you might also give up some upside.  The bank will sell enough of these in various flavors to reduce their risk overall (losses in your product will be covered by gains in another). Note that this product won't necessarily sell for $1,000. You might have to pay $1,100 (or $1,005, or whatever the bank can get people to buy them for) for each note whenever it's released.  That's where the gain or loss comes into play.  If you pay $1,100 but only get $1,000 back because the index didn't go up (or went down) you'd have a net loss of $100. It's subtle, but it is in the prospectus: The estimated value of the notes is only an estimate determined by reference to several factors.  The original issue price of the notes will    exceed the estimated value of the notes because costs associated with selling, structuring and hedging the notes are included in the original issue price of the notes.  These costs include the selling commissions, the projected profits, if any, that our affiliates expect to realize for assuming risks inherent in hedging our obligations under the notes and the estimated cost of hedging our obligations under the notes." Perhaps something else comes with the bond so it is a convertible security. Buffett's Negative-Interest Issues Sell Well from 2002 would be an example from more than a decade ago: Warren E. Buffett's new negative-interest bonds sold rapidly   yesterday, even after the size of the offering was increased to $400   million from $250 million, with a possible offering of another $100   million to cover overallotments. The new Berkshire Hathaway securities, which were underwritten by   Goldman, Sachs at the suggestion of Mr. Buffett, Berkshire's chairman   and chief executive, pay 3 percent annual interest. But they are   coupled with five-year warrants to buy Berkshire stock at $89,585, a   15 percent premium to Berkshire's stock price Tuesday of $77,900. To   maintain the warrant, an investor is required to pay 3.75 percent each   year. That provides a net negative rate of 0.75 percent.