Shorting: What if you can't find lenders?
"If you can't find anyone to lend you the shares, then you can't short. You can attempt to raise the interest rate at which you will borrow at, in order to entice others to lend you their shares. In practice, broadcasting this information is pretty convoluted. If there aren't any stocks for you to buy back, then you have to buy back at a higher price. As in, place a limit buy order higher and higher until someone decides to sell to you. This affects your profit. Regarding the public ledger: This functions different in different markets. United States stock markets have an evolving body of regulations to alleviate the exact concerns you detailed, but Canada's or Dubai's stock markets would have different provisions. You make the assumption that it is an efficient process, but it is not and it is indeed ripe for abuse. In US stocks, the public ledger has a 3 business day delay between showing change of ownership. Many times brokers and clearing firms and other market participants allow a customer to go short with fake shares, with the idea that they will find real shares within the 3 business day time period to cover the position. During the time period that there is no real shares hitting the market, this is called a ""naked short"". The only legal system that attempts to deter this practice is the ""fail to deliver"" (FTD) list. If someone fails to deliver, that means there is a short position active with fake shares for which no real shares have been borrowed against. Too many FTD's allow for a short selling restriction to be placed, meaning nobody else can be short, and existing short sellers may be forced to cover." Your question has 6 questions marks along with comments on what you'd like to know.  Yes, there are stocks that are tough to short, a combination of low float, high current short positions, etc. Interest charged on the position rises in a supply/demand fashion.  To unwind the position, there's always going to be stock available to buy. A shortage of willing sellers will cause the price to go up, but you'll see a bid/ask and the market will clear, i.e. The buy order fills. "You at least have some understanding of the pitfalls of shorting. You might not be able to borrow stock. You might not be able to buy it back when the time comes. You're moves are monitored, so you can't ""run away"" because the rules are enforced. (You don't want to find out how, personally.) ""Shorting"" is a tough, risky business. To answer your implicit question, if you have to ask about it on a public forum like this, you're not good enough to do it."
"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." The biggest issue I can see is that in order to have your parents protected properly, they'll have to register an interest in the property (ie, the 25%). I can't see the mortgage lender being too happy to have a second lienholder on the house for a total of 100% of the purchase price. Usually their conditions state that they'll need to be informed of other debts secured on the house and might actually have a say in that. Another way of accomplishing this is putting your parents on the house's deeds but that might also complicate matters with the lender and cause additional problems when it comes to selling the property. Not to mention that if anything bad happens to your parents, their stake in your property would be counted as one of their assets and you might find yourself in the situation where you have to come up with 25% of the property value right now or you might find that you have to sell the property to the first bidder simply because you do need the money as quickly as possible. Personally I wouldn't do it (especially without legal advice), the legal structure can be a nightmare and you'll just end up painted into a corner. At the most basic level of financing a business -- you are trying to acquire capital as cheaply as you can to invest in your projects.  The measure for how expensive your capital is to acquire is Weighted Average Cost of Capital.    The formula for WACC:  Equity Ratio * Cost of Equity + Debt Ratio * Cost of Debt * (1 - Tax Rate) This is also your discount rate when you're making a DCF model.  Debt tends to be cheaper than equity when you don't already have any, and is also advantaged by tax rates since you don't pay taxes on interest.  In the real world, banks and lenders will ratchet up rates the more debt you acquire, or shut you out once you've taken on too much and your debt service coverage is too low for them.  In a classroom though, most teachers are too lazy to make a curvilinear formula for borrowing and will just state a rate for borrowing so you can load up on debt so long as you don't fall below being able to service your debt (cash flow to make your debt payments).  This will ultimately juice the returns on equity.  Realistically, you would find lenders would let you have ~20% equity in the business and ~80% debt without raising your teacher's eyebrow.  If you haven't taken accounting yet; be careful about the difference between cash and revenue in your analyses.  Revenue is recognition for work done; not cash in hand.  You can have all the revenue in the world but if no one's paid you for it yet, you can't pay anyone. "I guess I don't understand how you figure that taking out a car loan for $20k will result in adding $20k in equity.  A car loan is a liability, not an asset like your $100k in cash.  Besides, you don't get a dollar-for-dollar consideration when figuring a car's value against the loan it is encumbered by.  In other words, the car is only worth what someone's willing to pay for it, not what your loan amount on it is. Remember that taking on a loan will increase your debt-to-income ratio, which is always a factor when trying to obtain a mortgage.  At the same time, taking on new debt just prior to shopping for a mortgage could make it more difficult to find a lender.  Every time a credit report (hard inquiry) is run on you, it temporarily impacts your credit score.  The only exception to this rule is when it comes to mortgages.  In the U.S., the way it works is that once you start shopping for a mortgage with lenders, for the next 30 days, additional inquiries into your credit report for purposes of mortgage funding do not count against your credit score, so it's a ""freebie"" in a way.  You can't use this to shop for any other kind of credit, but the purpose is to allow you a chance to shop for the best mortgage rate you can get without adversely impacting your credit. In the end, my advice is to stop looking at how much house you can buy, and instead focus on a house with payments you can live with and afford.  Trying to buy the most house based on what someone's willing to lend you leaves no room in the near-term for being able to borrow if the property has some repair needs, you want to furnish/upgrade it, or for any other unanticipated need which may arise that requires credit.  Don't paint yourself into a corner.  Just because you can borrow big doesn't mean you should borrow big. I hope this helps. Good luck!" Well, if the short seller has to pay the dividend out of their pocket, what happens to the dividend the company paid out ??  Sounds like there are 2 divdends floating around, the short's, and the company's, but only 1 share of stock. No that will not count as a short sale although it may still affect your chances of getting a loan because some lenders wont want to see it on your credit if you are pursuing a new FHA loan. In the best case scenario you will need an explanation letter of why you did this. In the worst case scenario the lender will want you to wait to get financing.  Try and find a lender with NO FHA overages which means they don't put additional restrictions on giving you an FHA insured loan. That type of lender will be your best choice because they just follow FHA rules and don't add any additional requirements. "Market makers, traders, and value investors would be who I'd suspect for buying the stock that is declining. Some companies stocks can come down considerably which could make some speculators buy the stock at the lower price thinking it may bounce back soon. ""Short sellers"" are out to sell borrowed stocks that if the stock is in free fall, unless the person that shorted wants to close the position, they would let it ride. Worthless stocks are a bit of a special case and quite different than the crash of 1929 where various blue chip stocks like those of the Dow Jones Industrials had severe declines. Thus, the companies going down would be like Apple, Coca-Cola and other large companies that people would be shocked to see come down so much yet there are some examples in recent history if one remembers Enron or Worldcom. Stocks getting delisted tend to cause some selling and there are some speculators may buy the stock believing that the shares may be worth something only to lose the money possibly as one could look at the bankrupt cases of airlines and car companies to study some recent cases here. Circuit breakers are worth noting as these are cases when trading may be halted because of a big swing in prices that it is believed stopping the market may cause things to settle down." Your original example is a little confusing because just shorting for 1k and buying for 1k is 100% leveraged or an infinitive leverage ratio. (and not allowed) Brokerage houses would require you to invest some capital in the trade.  One example might be requiring you to hold $100 in the brokerage.  This is where the 10:1 ratio comes from. (1000/10) Thus a return of 4.5% on the 1000k bond and no movement on the short position would net you $45 and voila a 45% return on your $100 investment. A 40 to 1 leverage ratio would mean that you would only have to invest $25 to make this trade.  Something that no individual investor are allowed to do, but for some reason some financial firms have been able to.