If I have all this stock just sitting there, how can I lend it out to people for short selling?
"One alternative strategy you may want to consider is writing covered calls on the stock you have ""just sitting there"".  This will allow you to earn a return (the premium from the calls) without necessarily having to give up your holding. As a brief overview, ""options"" are derivatives that give the holder the right (or option) to buy or sell shares at a specified price.  Holders of call options with a strike prike $x on a particular security have the right to purchase that security at the strike price $x.  Conversely, holders of put options with a strike price of $x have the right to sell that security at the strike price $x.  Always on the other side of a call or put option is a person that has sold the option, which is called ""writing"" the option.  If this person writes a call option, then he will be obligated to sell a certain amount of stock (100 shares per contract) at the strike price if that option is exercised.  A writer of a put option will be obligated to by 100 shares per contract at the strike price if that option is exercised. Covered calls involve writing call contracts on stock that you own.  For example, say you own 100 shares of AAPL, and that AAPL is currently trading for $330.  You decide to write a Jan 21, 2012 call on these shares at a strike price of $340, earning you a premium of say $300. Two things can now happen: if the price of AAPL is not at least $340 on January 21, then the options are ""out of the money"" and will expire unexercised (why exercise an option to buy at $340 when you can buy at the currently cheaper market price?).  You keep your AAPL stock plus the $300 premium you earn.  If, however, the price of AAPL is greater than $340, the option will be exercised and you will now be required to sell the shares you own at $340.  You will earn a return of $10/share ($340-$330), plus the $300 premium from the call option.  You still make out in the end, but have unfortunately incurred an opportunity cost, as had you not written the call option you would have been able to sell at the market price, which is higher than the $340 strike price. Covered calls are considered relatively safe and conservative, however the strategy is most effective for stocks that are expected to stay within a relatively narrow price range for the duration of the contract.  They do provide one option of earning additional money on stocks you are currently holding, albeit at the risk of giving up some returns if the stock price rises above the strike price." Typically, as an individual, you can't just decide you want to lend out some securities. There is a lot of legalities that must take place in order to engage in such a transaction. It's a regulated industry and the contractual obligations that exist between borrower and seller are taken care of ahead of time by the broker with their client, prior to any actual transaction taking place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_lending I say typically, becuase I'm guessing that if you are a large enough client and own a substantial block of shares (I really mean a lot) you may be in the unique position of being able to lend out. I'm not sure what the logistics of this would look like, but I think the brokerage house would approach you and negotiate a borrowing rate. In that situation, you may negotiate lending to the the brokerage house and not necessarily directly to the borrower. You just disclosed that you are new investor to the stock market. I'd advise that you first understand investing a bit better, as most will advise that investors need to be above a certain level before picking individual stocks.  That said, most stocks trade in high enough volume and have low enough short interest that they don't fall under the category you seek. You want to first ask your broker if they have such a process, not all do. If so, they would need to provide you with the stocks that fall into this odd situation, specifically, the shares that have traders seeking to short the stock, but the stock is unavailable. Even then, the broker may have requirements that you don't fall into, minimum history with broker, minimum size account, etc. Worse, they are not likely to offer this for 100 shares, but may have a 1000 or higher share requirement. Are you willing to buy some obscure $50/sh priced stock to lend out at 1%/mo? The guy trying to short it is far smarter than both you and I, at least regarding this particular stock. This strategy is more appropriate for the 7 figure net worth investor.  If any reader has actual experience with this, I'm happy to hear it. This response is from my recollection of two articles I read about 3 years ago, coincidence they both were published within weeks of each other. Lending of securities is done by institutional investors and mutual funds. The costs of dealing with thousands of individual investors, small share blocks and the various screw-ups and drama associated with each individual are too high. Like many exotic financial transactions, if you have to ask about it, you're probably not qualified to do it.
In finance, short selling (also known as shorting or going short) is the practice of selling assets, usually securities, that have been borrowed from a third party (usually a broker) with the intention of buying identical assets back at a later date to return to the lender. Remember your broker has to borrow it from somewhere, other clients or if they hold those specific stocks themselves. So if it isn't possible for them to lend you those stocks, they wouldn't. High P/E stocks would find more sellers than buyers, and if the broker has to deliver them, it would be a nightmare for him to deliver all those stocks, which he had lent you(others) back to whom he had borrowed from, as well as to people who had gone long(buy) when you went short(sell). And if every body is selling there is going to be a dearth of stocks to be borrowed from as everybody around is selling instead of buying. "The question is, how do I exit? I can't really sell the puts because there isn't   enough open interest in them now that they are so far out of the money. I have about $150K of funds outside of this position that I could use, but I'm   confused by the rules of exercising a put. Do I have to start shorting the stock? You certainly don't want to give your broker any instructions to short the stock! Shorting the stock at this point would actually be increasing your bet that the stock is going to go down more. Worse, a short position in the stock also puts you in a situation of unlimited risk on the stock's upside – a risk you avoided in the first place by using puts. The puts limited your potential loss to only your cost for the options. There is a scenario where a short position could come into play indirectly, if you aren't careful.  If your broker were to permit you to exercise your puts without you having first bought enough underlying shares, then yes, you would end up with a short position in the stock. I say ""permit you"" because most brokers don't allow clients to take on short positions unless they've applied and been approved for short positions in their account. In any case, since you are interested in closing out your position and taking your profit, exercising only and thus ending up with a resulting open short position in the underlying is not the right approach. It's not really a correct intermediate step, either. Rather, you have two typical ways out: Sell the puts.  @quantycuenta has pointed out in his answer that you should be able to sell for no less than the intrinsic value, although you may be leaving a small amount of time value on the table if you aren't careful.  My suggestion is to consider using limit orders and test various prices approaching the intrinsic value of the put.  Don't use market orders where you'll take any price offered, or you might be sorry. If you have multiple put contracts, you don't need to sell them all at once. With the kind of profit you're talking about, don't sweat paying a few extra transactions worth of commission. Exercise the puts.  Remember that at the other end of your long put position is one (or more) trader who wrote (created) the put contract in the first place. This trader is obligated to buy your stock from you at the contract price should you choose to exercise your option.  But, in order for you to fulfill your end of the contract when you choose to exercise, you're obligated to deliver the underlying shares in exchange for receiving the option strike price. So, you would first need to buy underlying shares sufficient to exercise at least one of the contracts.  Again, you don't need to do this all at once.  @PeterGum's answer has described an approach. (Note that you'll lose any remaining time value in the option if you choose to exercise.) Finally, I'll suggest that you ought to discuss the timing and apportioning of closing out your position with a qualified tax professional. There are tax implications and, being near the end of the year, there may be an opportunity* to shift some/all of the income into the following tax year to minimize and defer tax due. * Be careful if your options are near expiry!  Options typically expire on the 3rd Friday of the month." "One wonders where the author thinks the monies for the generous Boomer pension payouts will come from?  And of course they utterly ignore the fact that things like 401k's and IRA's *require* that a person begin divesting (at a progressive rate) after one hits age 70-1/2.  Yes, post retirement fund sales (minus the taxes on the proceeds of course, which taxes are not to be ignored) these people COULD turn the entire remainder of those monies back around and then re-invest them back into the stock market as (non tax-deferred) retail stock purchasers ... but that is pretty unlikely to happen.  In addition, the Boomers as a generation have become accustomed to a far higher lifestyle (newer cars, larger &amp; fancier homes, more vacations, etc) than the previous generation(s), and so -- just as with many other things where Boomers ""broke the mold"" -- relying the the data from those generations as an economic model of how much wealth retirees tend to ""cash in"" and how they spend (versus what they ""sit on"" and hoard for their heirs) may be rather foolish. (Somewhat akin to building an economic model on 20 years of data that proclaimed ""Americans don't default on their mortgages""... yeah that turned out to NOT be very wise.)  And then finally, I wonder if this author really comprehends the meaning of the phrase ""at the margin""; after all *everyone* in a neighborhood doesn't have to default on their mortgage to drive house prices down, in fact all it takes is a lack of BUYERS and prices cannot be sustained.  So, the problem with the Boomer ""en masse"" retirement is not JUST the possibility that they will ""all sell everything at the same time""; but rather that the ""demographic bulge"" will at a certain tipping point, change from buyer-hoarders, to divester-sellers, and that inevitably WILL have a major affect on the float and thus the prices of stocks... and just as inevitably, at some stage of that change, herd behavior (even *panicked* herd behavior) will take over.  It really doesn't take much to drive a stock down... nor even an entire stock market. (If the authors' wisdom were true, would we EVER have had any stock market crashes in the first place?)" Trying to make money on something going down is inherently more complicated, risky and speculative than making money on it going up.  Selling short allows for unlimited losses.  Put options expire and have to be rebought if you want to keep playing that game.  If you are that confident that the European market will completely crash (I'm not, but then again, I tend to be fairly contrarian) I'd recommend just sitting it out in cash (possibly something other than the Euro) and waiting until it gets so ridiculously cheap due to panic selling that it defies all common sense.  For example, when companies that aren't completely falling apart are selling for less than book value and/or less than five times prior peak earnings that's a good sign.  Another indicator is when you hear absolutely nothing other than doom-and-gloom and people swearing they'll never buy another stock as long as they live.  Then buy at these depressed prices and when all the panic sellers realize that the world didn't end, it will go back up. "It may be margin loans or credit lines given to brokerages. I have no idea what a loan book is though so don't I don't really know. Also no one ""plays"" in equity markets with borrowed money unless they know for sure what they are doing or they have collateral as in the case of margin." The 'normal' series of events when trading a stock is to buy it, time passes, then you sell it. If you believe the stock will drop in price, you can reverse the order, selling shares, waiting for the price drop, then buying them back. During that time you own say, -100 shares, and are 'short' those shares. In order to short a stock, you have to borrow the number of shares that you're shorting from someone else who holds the shares, so that you can deliver the shares you're shorting if it becomes necessary to do so (usually; there's also naked short selling, where you don't have to do this, but it's banned in a number of jurisdictions including the US). If a stock has poor liquidity, or is in high demand for shorting, then it may well be impossible to find anyone from whom it can be borrowed, which is what has happened in this instance. Adding to the answers above, there is another source of risk: if one of the companies you are short receives a bid to be purchased by another company, the price will most probably rocket...