Why can't I short a stock that sells for less than $5? Is there another way to “go short” on them?
I think George's answer explains fairly well why the brokerages don't allow this - it's not an exchange rule, it's just that the brokerage has to have the shares to lend, and normally those shares come from people's margin, which is impossible on a non-marginable stock. To address the question of what the alternatives are, on popular stocks like SIRI, a deep In-The-Money put is a fairly accurate emulation of an actual short interest.  If you look at the options on SIRI you will see that a $3 (or higher) put has a delta of -$1, which is the same delta as an actual short share. You also don't have to worry about problems like margin calls when buying options.  The only thing you have to worry about is the expiration date, which isn't generally a major issue if you're buying in-the-money options... unless you're very wrong about the direction of the stock, in which case you could lose everything, but that's always a risk with penny stocks no matter how you trade them. At least with a put option, the maximum amount you can lose is whatever you spent on the contract.  With a short sale, a bull rush on the stock could potentially wipe out your entire margin.  That's why, when betting on downward motion in a microcap or penny stock, I actually prefer to use options.  Just be aware that option contracts can generally only move in increments of $0.05, and that your brokerage will probably impose a bid-ask spread of up to $0.10, so the share price has to move down at least 10 cents (or 10% on a roughly $1 stock like SIRI) for you to just break even; definitely don't attempt to use this as a day-trading tool and go for longer expirations if you can. A bit of poking around brought me to this thread on the Motley Fool, asking the same basic question: I think the problem is the stock price. For a stock to be sold short, it has to be marginable which means it has to trade over $ 5.00. The broker, therefore, can't borrow the stock for you to sell short because it isn't held in their clients' margin accounts. My guess is that Etrade, along with other brokers, simply exclude these stocks for short selling. Ivestopedia has an explanation of non-marginable securities. Specific to stocks under $5: Other securities, such as stocks with share prices under $5 or with extremely high betas, may be excluded at the discretion of the broker itself. Timothy Sykes specializes in this type of trade, according to his website. He has some recommendations for brokers that allow shorting low-priced stocks: If this is the initial transaction, the rules of a short margin account say that if you shorted 1000 share of ABC at $5/share your credit balance would be $5000 from the short plus you would have to put up yourself $5000 cash or $10,000 of marginal securities. So this is not really leveraging using margin. You have to put in just as much as the short generates. Is that what this relates to? Once the initial purchase has been made the minimum maintenance for a stock trading under $5 per share is 100% of the short market value in the margin account or $2.50 per share whichever is greater. For stock trading at $5/share or greater the minimum maintenance requirement is $5/share or 30% of the short market value, whichever is greater. The minimum maintenance requirements can be tighter.
"I'm not an expert by any means, but pretty much every source I've seen says that one year is far too short for any sort of real ""investment"".  Most guides suggest that anything less than 3-5 years should stay in no-risk accounts like savings or CDs.  If you need to be sure you get all of the money back after just one year, any sort of market-based investment (e.g., stocks or bonds) is too risky. One option is to buy I-bonds.  You can buy up to $10,000 worth in a calendar year, and 12 months is the minimum holding period.  The advantage of I bonds is that the interest rate is indexed to inflation, so that (roughly speaking) they cannot lose value in real dollars.  Right now they pay 1.94% per year, which is substantially better than you're likely to get with a savings account or 12-month CD.  This would come to $194 if you buy $10k of I Bonds. If you sell before holding them for five years (which you will under your plan) you forfeit the last 3 months' worth of interest.  Even so, your effective rate will likely be better than a savings account or CD.  (Also you could get 12 months' worth of interest if you're able to buy them slightly early and/or postpone your sabbatical slightly so that you hold them for 15 months.) Your other option is to find the best rate you can in a CD or savings account.  Nerdwallet for instance suggests you could get between 1% and 1.1% for a $10k deposit in a 1-year CD, which would be about $100. As you can see, either way your money is not going to grow that much.  You'll be gaining somewhere in the ballpark of a couple hundred dollars at most.  There just isn't a way to earn more than that in one year without some risk of losing principal. (I'm assuming based on your Texas flag pic that you live in the USA. :-)  To buy I Bonds you must be a US citizen, resident, or government employee.)" "There are people (well, companies) who make money doing roughly what you describe, but not exactly. They're called ""market makers"". Their value for X% is somewhere on the scale of 1% (that is to say: a scale at which almost everything is ""volatile""), but they use leverage, shorting and hedging to complicate things to the point where it's nothing like a simple as making a 1% profit every time they trade. Their actions tend to reduce volatility and increase liquidity. The reason you can't do this is that you don't have enough capital to do what market makers do, and you don't receive any advantages that the exchange might offer to official market makers in return for them contracting to always make both buy bids and sell offers (at different prices, hence the ""bid-offer spread""). They have to be able to cover large short-term losses on individual stocks, but when the stock doesn't move too much they do make profits from the spread. The reason you can't just buy a lot of volatile stocks ""assuming I don't make too many poor choices"", is that the reason the stocks are volatile is that nobody knows which ones are the good choices and which ones are the poor choices. So if you buy volatile stocks then you will buy a bunch of losers, so what's your strategy for ensuring there aren't ""too many""? Supposing that you're going to hold 10 stocks, with 10% of your money in each, what do you do the first time all 10 of them fall the day after you bought them? Or maybe not all 10, but suppose 75% of your holdings give no impression that they're going to hit your target any time soon. Do you just sit tight and stop trading until one of them hits your X% target (in which case you start to look a little bit more like a long-term investor after all), or are you tempted to change your strategy as the months and years roll by? If you will eventually sell things at a loss to make cash available for new trades, then you cannot assess your strategy ""as if"" you always make an X% gain, since that isn't true. If you don't ever sell at a loss, then you'll inevitably sometimes have no cash to trade with through picking losers. The big practical question then is when that state of affairs persists, for how long, and whether it's in force when you want to spend the money on something other than investing. So sure, if you used a short-term time machine to know in advance which volatile stocks are the good ones today, then it would be more profitable to day-trade those than it would be to invest for the long term. Investing on the assumption that you'll only pick short-term winners is basically the same as assuming you have that time machine ;-) There are various strategies for analysing the market and trying to find ways to more modestly do what market makers do, which is to take profit from the inherent volatility of the market. The simple strategy you describe isn't complete and cannot be assessed since you don't say how to decide what to buy, but the selling strategy ""sell as soon as I've made X% but not otherwise"" can certainly be improved. If you're keen you can test a give strategy for yourself using historical share price data (or current share price data: run an imaginary account and see how you're doing in 12 months). When using historical data you have to be realistic about how you'd choose what stocks to buy each day, or else you're just cheating at solitaire. When using current data you have to beware that there might not be a major market slump in the next 12 months, in which case you won't know how your strategy performs under conditions that it inevitably will meet eventually if you run it for real. You also have to be sure in either case to factor in the transaction costs you'd be paying, and the fact that you're buying at the offer price and selling at the bid price, you can't trade at the headline mid-market price. Finally, you have to consider that to do pure technical analysis as an individual, you are in effect competing against a bank that's camped on top of the exchange to get fastest possible access to trade, it has a supercomputer and a team of whizz-kids, and it's trying to find and extract the same opportunities you are. This is not to say the plucky underdog can't do well, but there are systematic reasons not to just assume you will. So folks investing for their retirement generally prefer a low-risk strategy that plays the averages and settles for taking long-term trends." Why do people buy them when they would be cheap to make for themselves? Convenience. While you could easily find some pictures and lay them out with a sentiment, buy some card stock, print in colour, trim it, and perhaps glue on some glitter or whatnot, and then find an envelope that fits it, it's likely to take you an hour or more to do so. And you'll invest far more than $6 on your printer and various inventories. I made cards for my kids- we had construction paper, glitter, coloured markers etc and there was no need for an envelope. But most people will find it quicker and simpler to buy one fully assembled. The cost of the online ones is weird I agree. Perhaps people are also not confident they can compose a good greeting? Why do stores stock $6 cards that they buy for $3 (retail markup is 50-100% and I'm sure it's closer to 100% for cards) when a different supplier might provide them for $2? Well, even if such a supplier existed, I'm sure the store would be happy to sell for $6 still (see: people buy them) so there would be no consumer impact. A store that sells cards for $5 isn't going to siphon customers from elsewhere because most of us just don't buy cards often enough for it to matter.  Why does nobody become that supplier who will sell them cheaper? Selling stuff is more expensive than making stuff, and getting your product into retail stores is hard. Hard means time and time means money and all of that contributes more to the card price than the ink and paper do. That said, dollar stores sell cards, for a dollar typically, and people do buy them. I find they have less colours and the artwork is cruder. Perhaps you even get what you pay for when it comes to design, layout, printing etc. "Spend your first 50 euros on research materials. Warren Buffett got started as a boy by reading every book in the Library of Congress on investing and stock market analysis. You can research the company filings for Canadian companies at http://www.sedar.com, U.S companies at http://www.edgar.com, and European companies at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/companies-house. Find conflicting arguments and strategies and decide for yourself which ones are right. The Motley Fool http://www.fool.ca offers articles on good stocks to add to your portfolio and why, as well as why not. They provide a balanced judgement instead of just hype. They also sell advice through their newsletter. In Canada the Globe & Mail runs a daily column on screening stocks. Every day they present a different stock-picking strategy and the filters used to reach their end list. They then show how much that portfolio would have increased or decreased as well as talking about some of the good & bad points of the stocks in the list. It's interesting to see over time a very few stocks show up on multiple lists for different strategies. These ones in my opinion are the stocks to be investing in. While the Globe's stock picks focus on Canadian and US exchanges, you might find the strategies worthwhile. You can subscribe to the digital version at http://www.theglobeandmail.com  Once you have your analytical tools ready, pick any bank or stock house that offers a free practice account. Use that account and their screening tools to try out your strategies and see if you can make money picking stocks.  My personal stock-picking strategy is to look for companies with: - a long uninterrupted history of paying dividends, - that are regularly increased, - and do not exceed the net profit per share of the company - and whose share price has a long history of increasing These are called unicorn companies, because there are so very few of them.  Another great read is, ""Do Stocks Outperform Treasury Bills?"" by Hendrik Bessembinder. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2900447 In this paper the author looks at the entire history of the U.S. stock universe and finds that less than 4% of stocks are responsible for 100% of the wealth creation in the U.S. stock market. He discusses his strategies for picking the winners, but it also suggests that if you don't want to do any research, you could pick pretty much any stock at random, short it, and wait. I avoid mutual funds because they are a winner only for the fellas selling them. A great description on why the mutual fund industry is skewed against the investor can be found in a book called ""The RRSP Secret"" by Greg Habstritt. ""Unshakeable"" by Tony Robbins also discusses why mutual funds are not the best way to invest in stocks. The investor puts up 100% of the money, takes 100% of the risk, and gets at best 30% of the return. Rich people don't invest like that." "Could have done a [put option](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Put_option) if you wanted to bet against it in another way. It's not technically ""shorting"", but in a layman-shorthand it's the same thing - making money gambling on the ""pessimistic side"" of possibility. You don't actually need to borrow any shares to do that, just find someone who thinks the price at some later date will be higher than you think it will be." "A stock split can force short sellers of penny stocks to cover their shorts and cauuse the price to appreciate.  Example:  Someone shorts a worthless pump and dump stock, 10,000 shares at .50.  They have to put up $25,000.00 in margin ($2.50 per share for stocks under $2.50).  The company announces a 3 to 1 split.  Now the short investor must come up with $50,000.00 additional margin or be be ""bought in"". The short squeeze is on." To short a stock you actually borrow shares and sell them. The shorter gets the money from selling immediately, and pays interest for the share he borrows until he covers the short. The amount of interest varies depending on the stock. It's typically under 1% a year for large cap stocks, but can be 20% or more for small, illiquid, or heavily shorted stocks. In this scam only a few people own the shares that are lent to shorters, so they essentially have a monopoly and can set really high borrow costs. The shorter probably assumes that a pump-and-dump will crash quickly, so wouldn't mind paying a high borrow cost. Problems with shorting  1. The price could become even more insanely high.   2. The stock you borrowed could be recalled leaving you sitting on a loss.  3. High borrowing costs.  4. Potentially limited loss potential e.g. when a takeover is announced, or when the company has a windfall, or fraudulently announces phony good news.  Shorting could still be useful as a niche 10% of your portfolio; the risk is limited that way. Also high short interest tend to make me look a bit harder before buying.