Wells Fargo Brokerage has no shares of stock to short
This is the bird's eye view of how shorting works: When you place an order to sell a stock short, your broker attempts to grab the desired number of shares from any accounts of its other customers and makes them available for you to sell. If no other customers own shares of this stock, then generally you are out of luck (It is more complicated like that in practice, but this is just an overview).    Your odds are better if the particular stock has a large float (i.e. a large number of shares that are actually available for trading) and its short ratio is low (which means relatively few shares   are currently being sold short). Also, a large brokerage may be more likely to have access to the shares than a small niche-market broker.   The example you've given, Angie's List (ANGI) is a $600M small-cap with a comparatively low float, and though I haven't been able to glean the short ratio, it appears that a lot of investors are bearish on this stock and probably already had the same idea to short it.  There is really no way to find out if a specific broker has shares in inventory available for shorting, short of (forgive the pun) checking directly with the broker.
"The correct answer to this question is:  the person who the short sells the stock to. Here's why this is the case.  Say we have A, who owns the stock and lends it to B, who then sells it short to C. After this the price drops and B buys the stock back from D and returns it to A. The outcome for A is neutral.  Typically stock that is sold short must be held in a margin account; the broker can borrow the shares from A, collect interest from B, and A has no idea this is going on, because the shares are held in a street name (the brokerage's name) and not A. If A decides during this period to sell, the transaction will occur immediately, and the brokerage must shuffle things around so the shares can be delivered.  If this is going to be difficult then the cost for borrowing shares becomes very high. The outcome for B is obviously a profit: they sold high first and bought (back) low afterwards. This leaves either C or D as having lost this money.  Why isn't it D? One way of looking at this is that the profit to B comes from the difference in the price from selling to C and buying from D.  D is sitting on the low end, and thus is not paying out the profit.  D bought low, compared to C and this did not lose any money, so C is the only remaining choice. Another way of looking at it is that C actually ""lost"" all the money when purchasing the stock.  After all, all the money went directly from C to B.  In return, C got some stock with the hope that in the future C could sell it for more than was paid for it.  But C literally gave the money to B, so how could anybody else ""pay"" the loss? Another way of looking at it is that C buys a stock which then decreases in value.  C is thus now sitting on a loss.  The fact that it is currently only a paper loss makes this less obvious; if the stock were to recover to the price C bought at, one might conclude that C did not lose the money to B.  However, in this same scenario, D also makes money that C could have made had C bought at D's price, proving that C really did lose the money to B. The final way of seeing that the answer is C is to consider what happens when somebody sells a stock which they already hold but the price goes up; who did they lose out on the gain to?  The person again is; who bought their stock.  The person would buys the stock is always the person who the gain goes to when the price appreciates, or the loss comes out of if the price falls." This is really an extended comment on the last paragraph of @BenMiller's answer. When (the manager of) a mutual fund sells securities that the fund holds for a profit, or receives dividends (stock dividends, bond interest, etc.), the fund has the option of paying taxes on that money (at corporate rates) and distributing the rest to shareholders in the fund, or passing on the entire amount (categorized as dividends, qualified dividends, net short-term capital gains, and net long-term capital gains) to the shareholders who then pay taxes on the money that they receive at their own respective tax rates. (If the net gains are negative, i.e. losses, they are not passed on to the shareholders. See the last paragraph below).  A shareholder doesn't have to reinvest the distribution amount into the mutual fund: the option of receiving the money as cash always exists, as does the option of investing the distribution into a different mutual fund in the same family, e.g. invest the distributions from Vanguard's S&P 500 Index Fund into Vanguard's Total Bond Index Fund (and/or vice versa). This last can be done without needing a brokerage account, but doing it across fund families will require the money to transit through a brokerage account or a personal account. Such cross-transfers can be helpful in reducing the amounts of money being transferred in re-balancing asset allocations as is recommended be done once or twice a year. Those investing in load funds instead of no-load funds should keep in mind that several load funds waive the load for re-investment of distributions but some funds don't: the sales charge for the reinvestment is pure profit for the fund if the fund was purchased directly or passed on to the brokerage if the fund was purchased through a brokerage account. As Ben points out, a shareholder in a mutual fund must pay taxes (in the appropriate categories) on the distributions  from the fund even though no actual cash has been received because the entire distribution has been reinvested. It is worth keeping in mind that when the mutual fund declares a distribution (say $1.22 a share), the Net Asset Value per share drops by the same amount (assuming no change in the prices of the securities that the fund holds) and the new shares issued are at this lower price. That is, there is no change in the value of the investment: if you had $10,000 in the fund the day before the distribution was declared, you still have $10,000 after the distribution is declared but you own more shares in the fund than you had previously. (In actuality, the new shares appear in your account a couple of days later, not immediately when the distribution is declared).  In short, a distribution  from a mutual fund that is re-invested leads to no change in your net assets, but does increase your tax liability. Ditto for a distribution that is taken as cash or re-invested elsewhere. As a final remark, net capital losses inside a mutual fund are not distributed to shareholders but are retained within the fund to be written off against future capital gains. See also this previous answer  or this one. 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. "There are more than a few different ways to consider why someone may have a transaction in the stock market: Employee stock options - If part of my compensation comes from having options that vest over time, I may well sell shares at various points because I don't want so much of my new worth tied up in one company stock. Thus, some transactions may happen from people cashing out stock options. Shorting stocks - This is where one would sell borrowed stock that then gets replaced later. Thus, one could reverse the traditional buy and sell order in which case the buy is done to close the position rather than open one. Convertible debt - Some companies may have debt that come with warrants or options that allow the holder to acquire shares at a specific price. This would be similar to 1 in some ways though the holder may be a mutual fund or company in some cases. There is also some people that may seek high-yield stocks and want an income stream from the stock while others may just want capital appreciation and like stocks that may not pay dividends(Berkshire Hathaway being the classic example here). Others may be traders believing the stock will move one way or another in the short-term and want to profit from that. So, thus the stock market isn't necessarily as simple as you state initially. A terrorist attack may impact stocks in a couple ways to consider: Liquidity - In the case of the attacks of 9/11, the stock market was closed for a number of days which meant people couldn't trade to convert shares to cash or cash to shares. Thus, some people may pull out of the market out of fear of their money being ""locked up"" when they need to access it. If someone is retired and expects to get $x/quarter from their stocks and it appears that that may be in jeopardy, it could cause one to shift their asset allocation. Future profits - Some companies may have costs to rebuild offices and other losses that could put a temporary dent in profits. If there is a company that makes widgets and the factory is attacked, the company may have to stop making widgets for a while which would impact earnings, no? There can also be the perception that an attack is ""just the beginning"" and one could extrapolate out more attacks that may affect broader areas. Sometimes what recently happens with the stock market is expected to continue that can be dangerous as some people may believe the market has to continue like the recent past as that is how they think the future will be." Thanks for your reply. I’m not familiar with the term “Held-For-Trading Security”. My securities are generally held as collateral against my shorts. To clarify, I am just trying to track the “money in” and “money out” entries in my account for the shorts I write. The transaction is relatively straight forward, except there is a ton of information attached! In simple terms, for the ticker CSR and short contract CSRUQ8, the relevant entries look something like this: There are no entries for expiries. I need to ensure that funds are available for future margin calls and assignments. The sale side using covered calls is as involved. "Q: A: Everyone that is short is paying interest to the owners of the shares that the short seller borrowed. Although this quells your conundrum, this is also unrelated to the term. Interest in this context is just the number. In the options market, each contract also has an open interest, which tells you how many of that contract is being held. For your sake, think of it as ""how many are interested"", but really its just a completely different context." When you short a stock, you can lose an unlimited amount of money if the trade goes against you. If the shorted stock gaps up overnight you can lose more money than you have in your account. The best case is you make 100% if the stock goes to zero. And then you have margin fees on top of that. With long positions, it's the other way around. Your max loss is 100% and your gains are potentially unlimited. "It is true, as farnsy noted, that you generally do not know when stock that you're holding has been loaned by your broker to someone for a short sale, that you generally consent to that when you sign up somewhere in the small print, and that the person who borrows has to make repay and dividends. The broker is on the hook to make sure that your stock is available for you to sell when you want, so there's limited risk there. There are some risks to having your stock loaned though.  The main one is that you don't actually get the dividend.  Formally, you get a ""Substitute Payment in Lieu of Dividends.""  The payment in lieu will be taxed differently.  Whereas qualified dividends get reported on Form 1099-DIV and get special tax treatment, substitute payments get reported on Form 1099-MISC. (Box 8 is just for this purpose.)  Substitute payments get taxed as regular income, not at the preferred rate for dividends. The broker may or may not give you additional money beyond the dividend to compensate you for the extra tax. Whether or not this tax difference matters, depends on how much you're getting in dividends, your tax bracket, and to some extent your general perspective. If you want to vote your shares and exercise your ownership rights, then there are also some risks.  The company only issues ballots for the number of shares issued by them.  On the broker's books, however, the short sale may result in more long positions than there are total shares of stock. Financially the ""extra"" longs are offset by shorts, but for voting this does not balance. (I'm unclear how this is resolved - I've read that the the brokers essentially depend on shareholder apathy, but I'd guess there's more to it than that.) If you want to prevent your broker from loaning out your shares, you have some options:"