Can i short securities in a normal(non-margin) account
"The broker will charge borrowing fees and sometimes a charge called ""hard-to-borrow fee"". Other than that you will earn interest on the cash you get from selling the stocks, but you will have to pay dividends.  This is because someone else (the party you sold the stocks off to) will now get the dividends and the party who lent you the stocks will miss out on these, that's why you have to remunerate them. The type of account you need is entirely up to your broker (and besides, it depends on what a 'normal' account for you is, you should at least mention your country or your broker)." Exact rules may be different depending on the size of the investor, the specific broker, and the country.  For both the US and Canada, short sales occur only through one's margin account.  And shares that are borrowed for shorting only come from a margin account. Shares held in a cash account are not available for shorting.  From Wikipedia Short (finance) - The speculator instructs the broker to sell the shares and the   proceeds are credited to his broker's account at the firm upon which   the firm can earn interest. Generally, the short seller does not earn   interest on the short proceeds and cannot use or encumber the proceeds   for another transaction. As with many questions, I'd suggest you contact your broker for the exact details governing your account.
With margin accounts you will be able to use the proceeds from a closed trade INSTANTLY.  Without margin accounts this is the time you close the trade + 3 business days for clearing. In practice this means 4-5 days if there is a weekend or holiday involved between those 3 business days. This ties up your capital for an unfavorable amount of time, where as a margin account lets you continue to use the capital over and over again for more opportunities. You CANNOT sell to open a position in cash accounts. This means no short selling. This means no covered calls or spreads and MANY other strategies. These are the real differences you'll notice in a margin account vs a cash account.  Then there are the myriad of regulations that dictate how much cash you should keep in your account for any margin position. "In summary: In long form: Spreads and shorts are not allowed in cash accounts, except for covered options. Brokers will allow clients to roll option positions in a single transaction, which look like spreads, but these are not actually ""sell to open"" transactions. ""Sell to open"" is forbidden in cash accounts. Short positions from closing the long half of a covered trade are verboten. Day-trading is allowed in both margin and cash accounts. However, ""pattern day-trading"" only applies to margin accounts, and requires a minimum account balance of $25,000. Cash accounts are free to buy and sell the same security on the same day over and over, provided that there is sufficient buying power to pay for opening a new position. Since proceeds are held for both stock and option sales in a cash account, that means buying power available at the start of the day will drop with each purchase and not rise again until settlement. Unsettled funds are available immediately within margin accounts, without restriction. In cash accounts, using unsettled funds to purchase securities will require you to hold the new position until funds settle -- otherwise your account will be blocked for ""free-riding"". Legally, you can buy securities in a cash account without available cash on deposit with the broker, but most brokers don't allow this, and some will aggressively liquidate any position that you are somehow able to enter for which you didn't have available cash already on deposit. In a margin account, margin can help gloss over the few days between purchase and deposit, allowing you to be somewhat more aggressive in investing funds. A margin account will allow you to make an investment if you feel the opportunity is right before requiring you to deposit the funds. See a great opportunity? With sufficient margin, you can open the trade immediately and then run to the bank to deposit funds, rather than being stuck waiting for funds to be credited to your account. Margin accounts might show up on your credit report. The possibility of losing more than you invested, having positions liquidated when you least expect it, your broker doing possibly stupid things in order to close out an over-margined account, and other consequences are all very serious risks of margin accounts. Although you mentioned awareness of this issue, any answer is not complete with mentioning those risks." "&gt; Interests change. So do careers.   Of course. A janitor can become a landscaper, a teacher with teaching diplomas can end up as an accountant, an actor can become a great president of the USA (Ronald Reagan) and a business man can also become a great president of the USA (Trump!)  However, do you understand that Information Security is a highly specialized technical engineering field that requires tons of specific knowledge and understanding of technologies, protocols, cryptography, database, etc, etc, etc?  There's no way that Ronald Reagan, Trump or Susan can become a Chief Info Security officer, medical surgeon, rocket scientist, or even a Rabbi. Am I right?   These professions require many many years of specialized studies, residency/apprenticeship to get experience and dedication from the start to a life-long narrow and specialized field.  You don't need to be brilliant with specialized knowledge to be an accountant, actor, president of the USA, janitor or even a ""Vice president of sales"".  &gt; Undergrad is meaningless at that level and point in career.  This is not the point, and I said it already 18 times: I will hire a music major if they have the experience and knowledge needed for an unrelated job.  There's almost zero chances the Music major or Fashion major is the type to be an expert in security, so knowledgeable as to become the CHIEF Information Security Officer.  **And, again, based on the recent interview with Susan and her answers, anybody, even non-experts, can tell she has no clue about security.**  &gt;&gt; I also never agreed that she got the job due to connections:  &gt; So give me a possible way how Susan got her job.  Can you answer and guess the answer?  As for HR and contractors:  &gt;  Contractors give flexibility to staff up for projects and down again as conditions dictate, and are paid higher rates to compensate for the impermanence.  If contractors are more expensive than in-house employees, nobody will use contractors.  Trust me!!!! I also have to hire and work with contractors, in IT, where they really get paid well. They get ZERO benefits, ZERO bonuses, ZERO security, and many in-house employees in similar jobs, per-hour, get paid much more if you account their bonus, medical insurance, facilities, severance packages, training, etc, etc." "Basically, the idea of an IRA is that the money is earned by you and would normally be taxed at the individual rate, but the government is allowing you to avoid paying the taxes on it now by instead putting it in the account. This ""tax deferral"" encourages retirement savings by reducing your current taxable income (providing a short-term ""carrot"").  However, the government will want their cut; specifically, when you begin withdrawing from that account, the principal which wasn't taxed when you put it in will be taxed at the current individual rate when you take it out. When you think about it, that's only fair; you didn't pay taxes on it when it came out of your paycheck, so you should pay that tax once you're withdrawing it to live on. Here's the rub; the interest is also taxed at the individual rate. At the time, that was a good thing; the capital gains rate in 1976 (when the Regular IRA was established) was 35%, the highest it's ever been. Now, that's not looking so good because the current cap gains rate is only 15%. However, these rates rise and fall, cap gains more than individual rates, and so by contributing to a Traditional IRA you simplify your tax bill; the principal and interest is taxed at the individual rate as if you were still making a paycheck. A Roth IRA is basically the government trying to get money now by giving up money later. You pay the marginal individual rate on the contributions as you earn them (it becomes a ""post-tax deduction"") but then that money is completely yours, and the kicker is that the government won't tax the interest on it if you don't withdraw it before retirement age. This makes Roths very attractive to retirement investors as a hedge against higher overall tax rates later in life. If you think that, for any reason, you'll be paying more taxes in 30 years than you would be paying for the same money now, you should be investing in a Roth. A normal (non-IRA) investment account, at first, seems to be the worst of both worlds; you pay individual tax on all earned wages that you invest, then capital gains on the money your investment earns (stock gains and dividends, bond interest, etc) whenever you cash out. However, a traditional account has the most flexibility; you can keep your money in and take your money out on a timeline you choose. This means you can react both to market moves AND to tax changes; when a conservative administration slashes tax rates on capital gains, you can cash out, pay that low rate on the money you made from your account, and then the money's yours to spend or to reinvest. You can, if you're market- and tax-savvy, use all three of these instruments to your overall advantage. When tax rates are high now, contribute to a traditional IRA, and then withdraw the money during your retirement in times where individual tax rates are low. When tax rates are low (like right now), max out your Roth contributions, and use that money after retirement when tax rates are high. Use a regular investment account as an overage to Roth contributions when taxes are low; contribute when the individual rate is low, then capitalize and reinvest during times when capital gains taxes are low (perhaps replacing a paycheck deduction in annual contributions to a Roth, or you can simply fold it back into the investment account). This isn't as good as a Roth but is better than a Traditional; by capitalizing at an advantageous time, you turn interest earned into principal invested and pay a low tax on it at that time to avoid a higher tax later. However, the market and the tax structure have to coincide to make ordinary investing pay off; you may have bought in in the early 90s, taking advantage of the lowest individual rates since the Great Depression. While now, capital gains taxes are the lowest they've ever been, if you cash out you may not be realizing much of a gain in the first place." The problem with short would be that even if the stock eventually falls, it might raise a lot in the meantime, and unless you have enough collateral, you may not survive till it happens.  To sell shares short, you first need to borrow them (as naked short is currently prohibited in US, as far as I know). Now, to borrow you need some collateral, which is supposed to be worth more that the asset you are borrowing, and usually substantially more, otherwise the risk for the creditor is too high. Suppose you borrowed 10K worth of shares, and gave 15K collateral (numbers are totally imaginary of course). Suppose the shares rose so that total cost is now 14K. At this moment, you will probably be demanded to either raise more collateral or close the position if you can not, thus generating you a 4K loss. Little use it would be to you if next day it fell to 1K - you already lost your money!  As Keynes once said, Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. See also another answer which enumerates other issues with short selling. As noted by @MichaelPryor, options may be a safer way to do it. Or a short ETF like PSQ - lists of those are easy to find online. 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. There is no way to know anything about who has shorted stuff or how concentrated the positions are in a few investors.  Short positions are not even reported in 13(F) institutional filings. I'll take the bonus points, though, and point you to the US Equity Short Interest data source at quandl. "You can't short a stock unless there is someone willing and able to ""lend"" shares to you. And there are several reasons why that might not be the case. First, BSFT is a ""new"" stock, which means that NO ONE has held it very long. It's much easier to short IBM or Exxon Mobil, where there are some long-term holders who would like to earn a little extra money lending you THEIR shares. But if ""everyone"" involved is busy buying or selling the stock, there won't be many people to lend it. That's not manipulation, that's just the market. Another reason may be a large ""short"" interest. That is many OTHERS have shorted it before you. That's dangerous for you, because if some lenders want to pull their shares off the market, they can cause a ""short squeeze"" that will drive the price much higher.  And stock shortages can be orchestrated by the company or large investors to artificially drive the price higher. Unless you have a lot of experience, don't try shorting small cap stocks. Try to gain some experience with large caps like IBM or Exxon Mobil first. Those are stocks that people at least can't ""play games"" with. YOu will win or lose based on the market itself."