Why don't forced buy-ins of short sold stock happen much more frequently?
Nobody is going to short sell stocks through a lender that forces people to buy in as soon as it is getting good for them. For the lenders to sell their positions they need buyers on the other side. For a large brokerage that means they should always be able to find another lender. For many contracts the client may have no idea they are a lender as lending is part of their agreement with the broker "Many investors don't invest for the short term and so a stock ""nose-diving"" in the short run will not affect their long term strategy so they will simply hold on to it until it recovers. Additionally funds that track an index have to hold on to the constituents of that index no matter what happens to its value over the period (within trading limits). Both of these kinds of investors will be able to lend stock in a company out and not trigger a forced buy-in on a short term change. If the underlying long-term health of the company changes or it is removed from indices it is likely that this will change, however. Employee stock plans and other investors who are linked directly to the company or who have a vested interest in the company other than in a financial way will also be unwilling (or unable) to sell on a down turn in the company. They will similarly be able to lend their stock in the short term."
Cyprus could be *forced* into such a position because the deposits are euro-denominated and the issuing central bank sits outside the sovereign authority of Cyprus. So they could go, hat in hand, to the ECB asking them to backstop deposits. A lender of last resort function that is more or less a given in countries with their own sovereign currencies.  In a country like the US, where deposits are denominated in US dollars and the US is the issuer of the dollar, there would always be a option. Bail-ins are certainly possible as a political choice but they'd never be the only option. Which is why you didn't see them or depositor losses of any kind in spite of hundreds of bank failures in the wake of the 2008 crisis. Can a company not bargain with a dying company for example and buy a   falling stock at lower than market value? Of course. If the shareholders agree to it. But why would they, if the market value is higher, agree to sell to someone who offers less? If there's a compelling reason - it can happen. It might happen during a hostile takeover, for example. In the case of buying the company for more than market value, are the   stocks bought for significantly more, or slightly more than the   current market value? Again, depends on how valuable the shareholders think the company is. If the shareholders think that the company has a potential which has not yet affected the stock price, they'll want a higher premium (and they'd think that, otherwise why would they hold the stock?). How much higher? Depends on the bargaining abilities of the sides. I've had a few buy ins at 2-400, done nothing until it came in the news. I sold a few coins 800 before it hit 1000 the first time, I sold 20 coins at 1600 this last time (and then saw it keep going...) I planed on buying back in after it crashed but it's been holding tight so.  The actual markets seem like insane bubbles with endless new ICOs. I've thus stayed away from them. Alright bud- I took the day off today so I'll play along. I'm going to focus my answers to be US-centric because this is the realm in which I have experience; if you're from elsewhere then accept my apology in advance.  &gt; So you're saying a company has no responsibility whatsoever to ensure its employees make fair wages?   No, I'm not saying that- a company has a legal responsibility to ensure employees make wages considered fair under the FLSA, for one, including any municipal or state laws surrounding employee pay. As far as I know, litigation surrounding Uber's FLSA issues is still pending and as I'm not a federal judge I can't weigh in on the legality of their various pending lawsuits.  &gt; That the market will determine a person's salary based on their valuability?  I'm also not saying that- it's weird of you to keep putting words in my mouth. I don't disagree with that sentiment but I definitely didn't argue it as a point in my earlier comment.  &gt; What if market forces align to reduce wages in order to increase profitability?  Market forces do this on a regular basis at the corporate level- this is called a negative profit margin and it's literally happening right now (or probably in about 10 minutes when the NYSE opens) with a company who's product you're using to write this comment. It'll also probably trend back upward in the time it takes me to finish this comment. Unfortunately salaries and compensation packages for employees of most types are flat and focused on averages based on something called math. The concept is more technically referred to as profit equals revenue minus cost, with cost being a floating variable dependent on (you guessed it) market forces. This gets a lot more complicated as you delve into specifics and as you seem to have a fairly untenable grasp on business operations as it is I'm worried it's futile to get too much more specific.  &gt; That's exactly what's happened in the last 30 years and people like you protecting corporate greed is the reason why living wages has stagnated barely matching inflation while executive salaries have skyrocteted.   I'm not certain what I did to 'protect corporate greed' in my comment besides buy a product I want at a cost I deemed fair, but ignoring that- the CEO pay vs employee pay argument has been debunked about a thousand times over by anyone who, again, understands math- it's division this time so be careful not to sprain something. A quick google search shows a figure reflecting Wal-Mart's CEO's total compensation at ~$22mm including stock options, salary, and bonuses. Another google search shows a total 2.1mm employees of the company. Quick division reflects that each employee could pocket about $10.5 a year if the firm outright did not pay their CEO by which that means they don't have a CEO, and thus do not have a functioning company. Congratulations, your logic just made 2 million people unemployed.  &gt; You're either ignorant of the big picture, or a shill for a system that exploits the masses.  Sorry- I'm new to this subreddit so I don't know if this is what passes for intelligent discussion around here; but that's a very narrow way of looking at the world. I could also say '[you're] either ignorant of business operations, or a shill for non-functioning economies'; but I'd like to believe an individual with the ability to use a computer is not that illiterate.  I'm confused about your argument as a whole- are you saying I shouldn't shop at Wal-Mart or take an Uber because these companies don't pay their employees salaries you've deemed 'fair'? Can I get a list of places I'm allowed to buy things from, then? In addition to the higher risk as pointed out by @JamesRoth, you also need to consider that there are regulations against 'naked shorting' so you generally need to either own the security, or have someone that is willing to 'loan' the security to you in order to sell short.  If you own a stock you are shorting, the IRS could view the transaction as a Sell followed by a buy taking place in a less than 30 day period and you could be subject to wash-sale rules.  This added complexity (most often the finding of someone to loan you the security you are shorting) is another reason such trades are considered more advanced. You should also be aware that there are currently a number of proposals to re-instate the 'uptick rule' or some circuit-breaker variant. Designed to prevent short-sellers from driving down the price of a stock (and conducting 'bear raids etc) the first requires that a stock trade at the same or higher price as prior trades before you can submit a short.  In the latter shorting would be prohibited after a stock price had fallen a given percentage in a given amount of time.  In either case, should such a rule be (re)established then you could face limitations attempting to execute a short which you would not need to worry about doing simple buys or sells.   As to vehicles that would do this kind of thing (if you are convinced we are in a bear market and willing to take the risk) there are a number of ETF's classified as 'Inverse Exchange Traded Funds (ETF's) for a variety of markets that via various means seek to deliver a return similar to that of 'shorting the market' in question.  One such example for a common broad market is ticker SH the ProShares Short S&P500 ETF, which seeks to deliver a return that is the inverse of the S&P500 (and as would be predicted based on the roughly +15% performance of the S&P500 over the last 12 months, SH is down roughly -15% over the same period).  The Wikipedia article on inverse ETF's lists a number of other such funds covering various markets.   I think it should be noted that using such a vehicle is a pretty 'aggressive bet' to take in reaction to the belief that a bear market is imminent.  A more conservative approach would be to simply take money out of the market and place it in something like CD's or Treasury instruments.  In that case, you preserve your capital, regardless of what happens in the market. Using an inverse ETF OTOH means that if the market went bull instead of bear, you would lose money instead of merely holding your position. "The simple answer could be that one or more ""people"" decided to buy. By ""people,"" I don't mean individual buyers of 100 shares like you or me, but typically large institutional investors like Fidelity, who might buy millions of shares at a time. Or if you're talking about a human person, perhaps someone like Warren Buffett. In a ""thinly"" traded small cap stock that typically trades a few hundred shares in a day, an order for ""thousands"" could significantly move the price. This is one situation where more or less ""average"" people could move a single stock." It is a general truism but the reasons are that the rules change dramatically when you simply have more capital. Here are some examples, limited to particular kinds of markets: Under $2,000 in capital Nobody is going to offer you a margin account, and if you do get one it isn't with the best broker on commissions and other capabilities. So this means cash only trading, enjoy your 3 business day settlement periods. This means no shorting, confining a trader to only buy and hold strategies, making them more dependent on luck than a more capable trader. This means it is more expensive to buy stock, since you have to put down 100% of the cash to hold a share, whereas someone with more money puts down less capital to hold the exact same number of shares. This means no covered options strategies or spreads, again limiting the market directions where a trader could earn Under $25,000 in capital In the stock market, the pattern day trader rule applies to retail margin accounts with a balance under $25,000 and this severally limits the kinds of trades you are able to take because of the limit in the number of trades you can take in a given time period. Forget managing a multi-leg option position when the market isn't moving your direction. Under $125,000 in capital Worse margin rules. You excluded portfolio margin from your post, but it is a key part of the answer Over $1,000,000 in capital Participate in private placements, regulation D offerings reserved for accredited investors. These days, as buy and hold investments, these generally have more growth potential than publicly traded offerings. Over $5,000,000 in capital You can easily get the compliance and risk manager to turn the other way on margin rules. This is not conjecture, leverage up to infinity, try not to bankrupt yourself and the trading firm. "That's the way the markets work in THEORY. In actual fact, markets are subject to ""real world"" pressures. That is, there are so many things going on in the market that the end of the ""Lined In"" lock up is just one of many. To produce the result you describe, traders would have to hold cash in reserve for this so-called ""contingency"" to buy at the end of the lock-up. In most cases, they wouldn't want to because of everything else that is going on.  To use a real world analogy, would you want to wait until the last possible moment before going to the bathroom? Or would you go now while you had the chance? That's what the decision about ""holding cash in reserve for a contingency"" is like."