query: Why does short selling require borrowing?

positive: why can't I just use the same trick with my own shares to make money on the way    down? Because if you sell shares out of your own portfolio, by definition, you are not selling short at all. If you sell something you own (and deliver it) - then there is no short involved. A short is defined as a net negative position - i.e. you sell shares you do not have. Selling shares you own is selling shares you own - no short involved. You must borrow the shares for a short because in the stock market, you must DELIVER. You can not deliver shares you do not own. The stock market does not work on promises - the person who bought the shares expects ownership of them with all rights that gives them. So you borrow them to deliver them, then return them when you buy them back.

positive: In order to compare the two, you need to compare your entire portfolio, which is not just how much money you have, but how much stock. In both scenarios, you start with (at least, but let's assume) £20 and 0 stock. In your scenario, you buy 10 shares, leaving you with £0 and 10 shares. You then sell it at £1.50/share to cut your losses, leaving you with £15 and 0 shares. That concludes the first transaction with a net loss of £5. In a second transaction, you then buy 10 shares again at £1/share, leaving you with £5 and 10 shares. You are still down £15 from the start, but you also still have 10 shares. Any further profit or loss depends on what you can get for those 10 shares in the future. In a short sale, you borrow 10 shares and sell them, leaving you with £40 (your initial £20 plus what you just made on the short sale) and -10 shares of stock. At the end of the contract, you must buy 10 shares to return them; you are able to do so at £1.50/share, leaving you with £25 and 0 shares. At this point, your exposure to the stock is complete, and you have a net gain of £5.

positive: "Concerning the general problem of short selling and the need to borrow shares to complete the transaction : Selling short is a cash transaction.  Unlike a futures contract, where a short seller is entering into a legal agreement to sell something in the future, in the case of short selling a share the buyer of the share is taking immediate delivery and is therefore entitled to all of the benefits and rights that come with share ownership.  In particular, the buyer of the shares is entitled to any dividends payable and, where applicable, to vote on motions at AGMs.  If the short seller has not borrowed the shares to sell, then buyer of non-existent shares will have none of the rights associated with ownership. The cash market is based on the idea of matching buyers and sellers.  It does not accommodate people making promises. Consider that to allow short sellers to sell shares they have not borrowed opens up the possibility of the aggregate market selling more shares than actually exist.  This would lead to all sorts of problematic consequences such as heavily distorting the price of the underlying share.  If everyone is selling shares they have not borrowed willy-nilly, then it will drive the price of the share down, much to the disadvantage of existing share holders. In this case, short sellers who have sold shares they have not already borrowed would be paying out more in dividends to the buyers than the total dividends being paid out by the underlying company. There are instruments that allow for short selling of unowned shares on a futures basis.  One example is a CFD = Contract for Difference.  In the case of CFDs, sellers are obliged to pay dividends to buyers as well as other  costs related to financing. EDIT Regarding your comment, note that borrowing shares is not a market transaction.  Your account does not show you buying a share and then selling it.  It simply shows you selling a share short.  The borrowing is the result of an agreement between yourself and the lender and this agreement is off market.  You do not actually pay the lender for the shares, but you do pay financing costs for the borrowing so long as you maintain your short position. EDIT I realise that I have not actually read your question correctly.  You are not actually talking about ""naked"" short selling.  You are talking about selling shares you already own in a hope of maintaining both a long and short position (gross).  The problem with this approach is that you must deliver the shares to the buyer.  Otherwise, ask yourself what shares is the buyer actually buying if you want the bought shares to remain in your account. If you are not going to deliver your long position shares, then you will need to borrow the shares you are selling short for the reasons I have outlined above."

positive: "Selling short is simply by definition the selling, then later re-buying of stock you don't initially own. Say you tally your entire portfolio balance: the quantity of each stock you own, and your cash assets. Let's call this your ""initial position"". We define ""profit"" as any increase in assets, relative to this initial position. If you know a particular stock will go down, you can realize a profit by selling some of that stock, waiting for the price to go down, then buying it back. In the end you will have returned to your initial position, except you will have more cash. If you sell 10 shares of a stock valued at £1.50, then buy them back at £1.00, you will make a £5.00 profit while having otherwise returned to your previous position. If you do the same, but you initially owned 1000 shares, sold just 10 of those, then bought 10 back, that's still a profit of £5.00. Selling short is doing the same thing, but with an initial and ending balance of 0 shares. If you initially own 0 shares, sell 10, then buy 10 back, you return to your initial position (0 shares) plus a profit of £5.00. (And in practice you must also pay a borrowing fee to do this.) The advantage of selling short is it can be done with any stock, not just those currently owned."

positive: This can be best explained with an example. Bob thinks the price of a stock that Alice has is going to go down by the end of the week, so he borrows a share at $25 from Alice. The current price of the shares are $25 per share. Bob immediately sells the shares to Charlie for $25, it is fair, it is the current market price. A week goes by, and the price does fall to $20. Bob buys a share from David at $20. This is fair, it is the current market value. Then Bob gives the share back to Alice to settle what he borrowed from her, one share. Now, in reality, there is interest charged be Alice on the borrowed value, but to keep it simple, we'll say she was a friend and it was a zero interest loan. So then Bob was able to sell something he didn't own for $25 and return it spending $20 to buy it, settling his loan and making $5 in the transaction. It is the selling to Charlie and buying from David (or even Charlie later, if he decided to dump the shares), without having invested any of your own money that earns the profit.

positive: "A simple way to ask the question might be to say ""why can't I just use the same trick with my own shares to make money on the way down? Why is borrowing someone else's shares necessary to make the concept a viable one? Why isn't it just the inverse of 'going long'?"" A simple way to think about it is this: to make money by trading something, you must buy it for less than you sell it for.  This applies to stocks like anything else.  If you believe the price will go up, then you can buy them first and sell them later for a higher price.  But if you believe the price will go down, the only way to buy low and sell high is to sell first and buy later.  If you buy the stock and it goes down, any sale you make will lose you money. I'm still not sure I fully understand the point of your example, but one thing to note is that in both cases (i.e., whether you buy the share back at the end or not), you lost money.  You say that you ""made $5 on the share price dropping"", but that isn't true at all: you can see in your example that your final account balance is negative in both cases.  You paid $20 for the shares but only got $15 back; you lost $5 (or, in the other version of your example, paid $20 and got back $5 plus the depreciated shares). If you had bought the shares for $20 and sold them for, say, $25, then your account would end up with a positive $5 balance; that is what a gain would look like.  But you can't achieve that if you buy the shares for $20 and later sell them for less. At a guess, you seem to be confusing the concept of making a profit with the concept of cutting your losses.  It is true that if you buy the shares for $20 and sell them for $15, you lose only $5, whereas if you buy them for $20 and sell for $10, you lose the larger amount of $10.  But those are both losses.  Selling ""early"" as the price goes down doesn't make you any money; it just stops you from losing more money than you would if you sold later."

positive: You can't make money on the way down if it was your money that bought the shares when the market was up.  When you sell short, borrowing lets you tap into the value without paying for it. That way, when the price (hopefully) drops you profit from the difference. In your example, if you hadn't paid the £20 in the first place, then you would actually be up £5. But since you started with £20, you still show loss. As others said, borrowing is the definition of selling short. It is also simply the only way the math works. Of course, there is a large risk you must assume to enjoy benefiting from something you do not own!

positive: It's actually quite simple. You're actually confusing two concept. Which are taking a short position and short selling itself. Basically when taking a short position is by believing that the stock is going to drop and you sell it. You can or not buy it back later depending on the believe it grows again or not. So basically you didn't make any profit with the drop in the price's value but you didn't lose money either.  Ok but what if you believe the market or specific company is going to drop and you want to profit on it while it's dropping. You can't do this by buying stock because you would be going long right? So back to the basics. To obtain any type of profit I need to buy low and sell high, right? This is natural for use in long positions. Well, now knowing that you can sell high at the current moment and buy low in the future what do you do? You can't sell what you don't have. So acquire it. Ask someone to lend it to you for some time and sell it. So selling high, check.  Now buying low? You promised the person you would return him his stock, as it's intangible he won't even notice it's a different unit, so you buy low and return the lender his stock. Thus you bought low and sold high, meaning having a profit. So technically short selling is a type of short position. If you have multiple portfolios and lend yourself (i.e. maintaining a long-term long position while making some money with a short term short-term strategy) you're actually short selling with your own stock. This happens often in hedge funds where multiple strategies are used and to optimise the transaction costs and borrowing fees, they have algorithms that clear (match) long and short coming in from different traders, algorithms, etc. Keep in mind that you while have a opportunities risk associated.  So basically, yes, you need to always 'borrow' a product to be able to short sell it. What can happen is that you lend yourself but this only makes sense if:

negative: The assumption that bonds have been issued with a negative coupon is not correct, or at least is has not occurred thus far.  We'll look at this future possibility in the final paragraph. For now, lets look at the current bond market. The issuance of government bonds which carry a negative gross redemption yield is the result of governments issuing bonds at an issue price which exceed the nominal/redemption price and any coupon yield receivable over the life of the bond.  I can find no instances of bonds with a negative coupon, though many have tiny positive coupon yields. The short seller of a bond with a negative gross redemption yield will be liable to pay the buyer the interest amount determined by the coupon.  If the short seller has borrowed the bonds in order to sell them, then the short seller will receive the interest due from the lender to offset the interest paid to the buyer.  If the short seller has not borrowed the bonds, but has sold them using some sort of synthetic contract such as a Contract for Difference, then the short seller will pay the coupon without receiving any offsetting payment. I thought this was an interesting question and it will be interesting to see if, at some time in the future, governments do ever issue bonds with a negative coupon.  To date, this does not appear to have happened. So what would happen if we assume that a government issues a bond with a negative coupon.  The buyer of the bond would be required to pay the equivalent yield to the government according to the bond contract specification.  If an investor sells short such a bond, they would then become entitled to receive the interest from the buyer.  If they have borrowed the bonds in order to sell them short, then they would pay any interest received back to the lender - this chain should eventually end with the ultimate owner/lender paying the government their dues.  If they have sold short using a synthetic contract, then presumably they would keep the interest from themselves.

negative: "And what exactly do I profit from the short? I understand it is the difference in the value of the stock. So if my initial investment was $4000 (200 * $20) and I bought it at $3800 (200 * $19) I profit from the difference, which is $200. Do I also receive back the extra $2000 I gave the bank to perform the trade? Either this is extremely poorly worded or you misunderstand the mechanics of a short position.  When you open a short position, your are expecting that the stock will decline from here.  In a short position you are borrowing shares you don't own and selling them.  If the price goes down you get to buy the same shares back for less money and return them to the person you borrowed from.  Your profit is the delta between the original sell price and the new lower buy price (less commissions and fees/interest).  Opening and closing a short position is two trades, a sell then a buy.  Just like a long trade there is no maximum holding period. If you place your order to sell (short) 200 shares at $19, your initial investment is $3,800.   In order to open your $3,800 short position your broker may require your account to have at least $5,700 (according to the 1.5 ratio in your question).  It's not advisable to open a short position this close to the ratio requirement.  Most brokers require a buffer in your account in case the stock goes up, because in a short trade if the stock goes up you're losing money.  If the stock goes up such that you've exhausted your buffer you'll receive what's known as a ""margin call"" where your broker either requires you to wire in more money or sell part or all of your position at a loss to avoid further losses.  And remember, you may be charged interest on the value of the shares you're borrowing. When you hold a position long your maximum loss is the money you put in; a position can only fall to zero (though you may owe interest or other fees if you're trading on margin).  When you hold a position short your maximum loss is unlimited; there's no limit to how high the value of something can go.  There are less risky ways to make short trades by using put options, but you should ensure that you have a firm grasp on what's happening before you use real money. The timing of the trades and execution of the trades is no different than when you take a plain vanilla long position.  You place your order, either market or limit or whatever, and it executes when your trade criteria occurs."

negative: There are 2 primary ways to bet against a stock if you think it will decline. The first is to short sell shares of that stock the second is to buy put options (I would also add that selling naked call options would also be a bet against but I don't believe that is as common as the other 2 mentioned methods). The problem with short selling an IPO is that you first have to borrow the shares you are going to sell. Since the shares are privately held prior to the IPO that can be problematic. Even after the IPO you may have to wait a bit before shares become available to borrow.  The problem with options (either buying puts or seeking naked calls) is similar. Options are traded on a different exchange than the stock and they have their own requirements that a stock must meet to have options traded. Both of these problems eventually correct themselves however, not in time for you to catch the initial fall you seem to be looking for.

negative: Brokerage firms are required to report the number of shares being shorted.  This information is reported to the exchange (NYSE of NASDAQ) and is made public.  Most financial sites indicate the number of shares being shorted for a particular stock.  The image below from Yahoo finance shows 3.29 million shares of CMG were being shorted at the close of 9-28-2012.  This is over 12% of the total outstanding shares of CMG.  For naked short selling additional information is tracked.  If the brokerage is unable to borrow shares to deliver before the settlement date of a short sale then the transaction is recorded as fails-to-deliver.  No money or shares are exchanged since the brokerage is unable to deliver the shares that were agreed upon.  A large amount of fails-to-deliver transactions for a stock usually indicates an excessive amount of naked shorting.  When investors and brokerage firms start to aggressively short a stock they will do so without having borrowed the shares to sell.  This will result in a large amount of naked short selling.  When there are a large number of naked short sellers not all the sellers will be able to borrow the necessary shares before the settlement date and many fails-to-deliver transactions will be recorded. The SEC records the number of fails-to-deliver transactions. The table below summarizes the fails-to-deliver transactions from 1-1-2012 through 9-14-2012 (data obtained from here). The “Ext Amount” column shows the total dollar value of the transactions that failed ( i.e. Fail Qty * Share price ).  The “Volume” column is the total number of shares traded in the same time period.  The “% Volume” shows the percentage of shares that failed to deliver as a percentage of the total market volume. The table orders the data in descending order by the quantity of shares that were not delivered.  Most of the companies at the top of the list no longer exist.  For many of these companies, the quantity of shares that failed to deliver where many multiples of the number of shares traded during the same time period.  This indicates massive naked short selling as many brokerages where unable to find shares to borrow before the settlement date. More information here.

negative: That's because they literally could not help you. It's not that they were just unwilling to. A hedge fund manager might be able to do it, because the person who bet on Facebook would be willing to let him borrow their shares.  An IPO in explain like I'm five:  A bank helps underwrite the shares pre offering. This means they buy the shares wholesale. They buy a large majority of the company in order to offer them to the public when the stock goes public. The bank does this for profit, the company does this become it helps raise their price. The bank that underwrites the stock is legally prohibited from short selling that stock for ***at least***  30 days before the IPO. This is to prevent the bank from trying to commit fraud by selling stock out the front door and betting against it out the back.   ***  So, now let's jump forward to the day of the IPO. The bank is offering stock to everyone who wants to buy it (other banks who will cut it up and sell it to more people). In order to short the stock someone must be willing to let you borrow their shares. Only the bank that underwrote it prohibited from short selling. It's possible but hard. The underwriter has the majority of the shares for the first thirty days anyways. They're just going to release enough of them to raise volume on the ticker symbol (volume is the amount of people buying and selling). The others the underwriter sold to are unwilling to let someone borrow their stock because they want to ride the price hike and shares are in short supply. So while it's possible to short shares, it's very hard. The underwriters limit the supply of shares to prevent that from happening. The underwriters can't just let you short their own shares because they are legally prohibited from it.   Basically, you're left with the fact that the only person who has enough supply to let you short, is prohibited by law from letting you do it. I'm sure Morgan Stanley would have been happy to let their customers short Facebook (as long as you did it through them) to hedge their bets. But they can't.

negative: "Vitalik has mentioned this in a comment but I think it ought to be expanded upon: Companies that aren't already penny stocks really don't stand to gain anything from trying to prevent short interest.  Short selling does not inherently lower the stock price - not any more so than any other kind of selling.  When somebody shorts a stock, it's simply borrowed from another investor's margin; as long as it's not a naked short resulting in an FTD (Failure To Deliver) then it does not add any ""artificial"" selling pressure. In fact, shorting can actually drive the price up in the long term due to stops and margin calls.  Not a guarantee, of course, but if a rally occurs then a high short interest can cause a cascade effect from the short ""squeeze"", resulting in an even bigger rally than what would have occurred with zero short interest.  Many investors actually treat a high short interest as a bullish signal. Compare with margin buying - essentially the opposite of short selling - which has the opposite effect.  If investors buy stocks on margin, then if the value of that stock decreases too rapidly they will be forced to sell, which can cause the exact same cascade effect as a short interest but in the opposite direction.  Shorting is (in a sense) evening out the odds by inflating the buying pressure at lower stock prices when the borrowers decide to cover and take profits. Bottom line is that, aside from (illegal) insider trading, it doesn't do businesses any good to try to manipulate their stock price or any trading activity.  Yes, a company can raise capital by selling additional common shares, but a split really has no effect on the amount of capital they'd be able to raise because it doesn't change the actual market cap, and a dilution is a dilution regardless of the current stock price.  If a company's market cap is $1 billion then it doesn't matter if they issue 1 million shares at $50.00 each or 10 million shares at $5.00 each; either way it nets them $50 million from the sale and causes a 5% dilution, to which the market will react accordingly. They don't do it because there'd be no point."

negative: I believe that it's not possible for the public to know what shares are being exchanged as shorts because broker-dealers (not the exchanges) handle the shorting arrangements.  I don't think exchanges can even tell the difference between a person selling a share that belongs to her vs. a share that she's just borrowing.  (There are SEC regulations requiring some traders to declare that trades are shorts, but (a) I don't think this applies to all traders, (b) it only applies to the sells, and (c) this information isn't public.) That being said, you can view the short interest in a symbol using any of a number of tools, such as Nasdaq's here.  This is often cited as an indicator similar to what you proposed, though I don't know how helpful it would be from an intra-day perspective.

negative: No is and should be the standard answer. When your vacations have been planned ahead, why didn't the money saving start ? You should treat it as a punishment and forgo your vacation. But human beings aren't always that sensible so we go for plan B. Did you purchase your tickets/hotels or anything ? If yes, then check out the cancellation charges. Does the cancellation charges exceed the borrowing amount, then probably borrow and go on a vacation. But you should also consider, how the borrowed amount is to be paid. Is it within your means and your timeframe ? Does paying back the amount now, hamper your next vacation plans or other required spendings ?

negative: "I know its not legal to have open long and short position on specific security (on two stock exchanges - NSE/BSE) There is nothing illegal about it. There are prescribed ways on how this is addressed.  In Cash Segment / Intra Day trades:   One can short sell a security. If by end of day he does not buy the security; it goes into Auction. The said security is purchased on your behalf. Any profit or loss arising out of this is charged to you. Similarly one can buy a security; if one does not pay the amount by end of day; it would go into auction and sold. Any profit or loss arising out of this is charged to you. If you short sell a security on one exchange; you have to buy it on same exchange. If you buy on other exchange; it will not be adjusted against this short position. Also is it legal to have long position on stock and short its derivative (future/option)? There are no restrictions. Edit: @yety Party A shorts 10 shares of HDFC today in Intra-Day Cash Segment purchased by Party B. Rather than buying back 10 shares or allowing it to go into auction... Party A borrows 10 HDFC Shares from ""X"" via SLB for a period of say 6 months [1 month to 1 year]. This is recorded as Party A obligation to ""X"". These 10 borrowed shares are transferred to Party B. So Party ""X"" doesn't have any HDFC shares at this point in time. However in exchange, Party X receives fees for borrowing from Party A. If there is dividend, are declared, Company pays Party B. However SLB recovers identical amount from Party A and pays Party X. If there is 1:1 split, now party A owes Party X 20 HDFC Shares. On maturity [after 6 months], Party A has to buy these from market and given back the borrowed shares to Party X. If there are some other corporate actions, i.e. mergers / amalgamations ... the obligation of Party A to Party X is closed immediately and position settled. Of course there are provisions whereby party A can pay back the shares earlier or party X can ask for shares earlier and there are rules/trades/mechanisms to facilitate this."

negative: "He didn't sell in the ""normal"" way that most people think of when they hear the term ""sell."" He engaged in a (perfectly legitimate) technique known as short selling, in which he borrows shares from his broker and sells them immediately. He's betting that the price of the stock will drop so he can buy them back at a lower price to return the borrowed shares back to his broker. He gets to pocket the difference. He had about $37,000 of cash in his account. Since he borrowed ~8400 shares and sold them immediately at $2/share, he got $16,800 in cash and owed his broker 8400 shares. So, his net purchasing power at the time of the short sale was $37,000 + $16,800 - 4800 shares * $2/share. As the price of the stock changes, his purchasing power will change according to this equation. He's allowed to continue to borrow these 8400 shares as long as his purchasing power remains above 0. That is, the broker requires him to have enough cash on hand to buy back all of his borrowed shares at any given moment. If his purchasing power ever goes negative, he'll be subject to a margin call: the broker will make him either deposit cash into his account or close his positions (sell long positions or buy back short positions) until it's positive again. The stock jumped up to $13.85 the next morning before the market opened (during ""before-hours"" trading). His purchasing power at that time was $37,000 + $16,800 - 8400 shares * $13.85/share = -$62,540. Since his purchasing power was negative, he was subject to a margin call. By the time he got out, he had to pay $17.50/share to buy back the 8400 shares that he borrowed, making his purchasing power -$101,600. This $101,600 was money that he borrowed from his broker to buy back the shares to fulfill his margin call. His huge loss was from borrowing shares from his broker. Note that his maximum potential loss is unlimited, since there is no limit to how much a stock can grow. Evidently, he failed to grasp the most important concept of short selling, which is that he's borrowing stock from his broker and he's obligated to give that stock back whenever his broker wants, no matter what it costs him to fulfill that obligation."

negative: "Simplest way to answer this is that on margin, one is using borrowed assets and thus there are strings that come with doing that. Thus, if the amount of equity left gets too low, the broker has a legal obligation to close the position which can be selling purchased shares or buying back borrowed shares depending on if this is a long or short position respectively. Investopedia has an example that they walk through as the call is where you are asked to either put in more money to the account or the position may be closed because the broker wants their money back. What is Maintenance Margin? A maintenance margin is the required   amount of securities an investor must hold in his account if he either   purchases shares on margin, or if he sells shares short. If an   investor's margin balance falls below the set maintenance margin, the   investor would then need to contribute additional funds to the account   or liquidate stocks in the account to bring the account back to the   initial margin requirement. This request is known as a margin call. As discussed previously, the Federal Reserve Board sets the initial   margin requirement (currently at 50%). The Federal Reserve Board also   sets the maintenance margin. The maintenance margin, the amount of   equity an investor needs to hold in his account if he buys stock on   margin or sells shares short, is 25%. Keep in mind, however, that this   25% level is the minimum level set, brokerage firms can increase, but   not decrease this level as they desire. Example: Determining when a margin call would occur. Assume that an   investor had purchased 500 shares of Newco's stock. The shares were   trading at $50 when the transaction was executed. The initial margin   requirement on the account was 70% and the maintenance margin is 30%.   Assume no transaction costs. Determine the price at which the investor   will receive a margin call. Answer: Calculate the price as follows: $50 (1- 0.70) = $21.43 1 - 0.30 A margin call would be received when the price of Newco's stock fell   below $21.43 per share. At that time, the investor would either need   to deposit additional funds or liquidate shares to satisfy the initial   margin requirement. Most people don't want ""Margin Calls"" but stocks may move in unexpected ways and this is where there are mechanisms to limit losses, especially for the brokerage firm that wants to make as much money as possible. Cancel what trade? No, the broker will close the position if the requirement isn't kept. Basically think of this as a way for the broker to get their money back if necessary while following federal rules. This would be selling in a long position or buying in a short sale situation. The Margin Investor walks through an example where an e-mail would be sent and if the requirement isn't met then the position gets exited as per the law."

negative: "Money is a commodity like any other, and loans are a way to ""buy"" money. Like any other financial decision, you need to weigh the costs against the benefits. To me, I'm happy to take advantage of a 0% for six months or a modest 5-6% rate to make ""capital"" purchases of stuff, especially for major purchases. For example, I took out a 5.5% loan to put a roof on my home a few years ago, although I had the money to make the purchase.  Why did I borrow? Selling assets to buy the roof would require me to sell investments, pay taxes and spend a bunch of time computing them. I don't believe in borrowing money to invest, as I don't have enough borrowing capacity for it to me worth the risk. Feels too much like gambling vs. investing from my point of view."

negative: Bank have their own Capital, Deposits from Depositors and lend money to Borrowers.   In a liquidity problem, it is typically that either the Borrowers are taking time to repay [they are not yet defaulters] or there is more pressure on withdrawals from Depositors or there is a short term of mismatch between deposits and loans ... in all these valid scenarios FED does lend out the banks to met these short terms obligations.   Banks fail when the losses are actually booked in comparison to the overall Capital or loss would materialize ... for example the Mortgage crisis in US meant that quite a few Banks the actual loss had materialized or would have any ways materialized. In such situations the short term leading does not help and they would burn it out anyways as the borrowers are not paying back any time soon ...

negative: "Some investors worry about interest rate risk because they Additional reason is margin trading which is borrowing money to invest in capital markets. Since margin trading includes minimum margin requirements and maintenance margin to protect lender ""such as a broker""  , a decrease in the value of bonds might trigger a threat of a margin call There are other reasons why investors care about interest rate risk  such as spread trade investors who benefit from difference in short term/ long term interest rates. Such investors borrow short term loans -which enables them to pay low interest- and lend long term loans - which enables them to gain high interest-. Any disturbance between the interest rate spread between short term and long term bonds might affect investor's profit and might even lead to losses. In summary , it all depends on you investment objective and financial condition. You should consult with your financial adviser to help plan for your financial goals."

negative: "Depends on the country, whether its a currency issuer with floating exchange rate, and what the debt is denominated in. For instance, the US has no real debt, b/c its all in US dollars and can be printed at any time. It has no need to borrow anything, it issues its own currency. It used to be different 4 decades ago, on the gold standard, so in general people still think currency issuers need to borrow (or earn) to spend. Just a relic in thinking.  But when the country does not issue its own currency, then it does need to earn or borrow in order to spend. In this case, it could borrow from anywhere that will lend it money. In US, a state would fit this description. Or Greece, as it borrowed Euros, for which it is not an issuer of.  EDIT: just came across this blog http://pragcap.com/where-does-the-money-come-from Its title, ""Where does the money come from"". Maybe he saw this question. Anyway, the US does not need to borrow money. Why would it borrow what it creates? From the video: ""Thinking is hard, that's why we don't do it a lot"". Great line."

negative: In short (pun intended), the shareholder lending the shares does not believe that the shares will fall, even though the potential investor does. The shareholder believes that the shares will rise. Because the two individuals believe that a different outcome will occur, they are able to make a trade. By using the available data in the market, they have arrived at a particular conclusion of the fair price for the trade, but each individual wants to be on the other side of it. Consider a simpler form of your question: Why would a shareholder agree to sell his/her shares? Why don't they just wait to sell, when the price is higher? After all, that is why the buyer wants to purchase the shares. On review, I realize I've only stated here why the original shareholder wouldn't simply sell and rebuy the share themselves (because they have a different view of the market). As to why they would actually allow the trade to occur - Zak (and other answers) point out that the shares being lent are compensated for by an initial fee on the transaction + the chance for interest during the period that the shares are owed for.

negative: The people who cause this sort of sell-off immediately are mostly speculators, short-term day-traders and the like. They realize that, because of the lowered potential for earnings in the future, the companies in question won't be worth as much in the future. They will sell shares at the elevated price, including sometimes shares that they borrow for the explicit purpose of selling (short selling), until the share price is more reasonable. Now, the other question is why the companies in question won't sell for as much in the future: Even if every other company in the world looks less attractive all at once (global economic catastrophe etc) people have other options. They could just put the money in the bank, or in corporate bonds, or in mortgage bonds, or Treasury bonds, or some other low-risk instrument, or something crazy like gold. If the expected return on a stock doesn't justify the price, you're unlikely to find someone paying that price. So you don't actually need to have a huge sell-off to lower the price. You just need a sell-off that's big enough that you run out of people willing to pay elevated prices.

negative: There are rules that prevent two of the reactive measures you suggest from occurring. First, on the date of and shortly following an IPO, there is no stock available to borrow for shorting. Second, there are no put options available for purchase. At least, none that are listed, of the sort you probably have in mind. In fact, within a day or two of the LinkedIn IPO, most (all?) of the active equity traders I know were bemoaning the fact that they couldn't yet do exactly what you described i.e. buying puts, or finding shares to sell short. There was a great deal of conviction that LinkedIn shares were overpriced, but scant means available to translate that market assessment into an influence of market value. This does not mean that the Efficient Markets Hypothesis is deficient. Equilibrium is reached quickly enough, once the market is able to clear as usual.

negative: "Pay someone a fee to borrow their private Uber shares, then sell those private shares to someone else, then find someone else you can buy their private shares from for less than the net of the proceeds you made selling the borrowed shares you sold plus the fees you've paid to the first person and return your newly purchased shares back to the person you initially borrowed the shares from. On a serious note, Uber is private; there is no liquid public market for the shares so there is no mechanism to short the company.  The valuations you see might not even be legitimate because the company's financials are not public.  You could try to short a proxy for Uber but to my knowledge there is no public ""rideshare""/taxi service business similar enough to Uber to be a reasonably legitimate proxy."

negative: ">Seriously, a 20 minute thought experiment pre-IPO of ""is Facebook worth $100bn, and does it have growth prospects?"" ought to immediately discount the stock. The smart money was always on ""short it as soon as you can""  You couldn't borrow shares to short, nor get put-options."

negative: A large number of bond holders decide to sell their bonds.  If they all decide to do this at the same time then there will be a large supply of bonds being sold in the market.  This will drive down the price of the bonds which will increase yields. Why do bond yields move inversely to bond prices? You purchase a $100 bond today that yields 5%.  You spent $100.  The very next day the same bonds are being sold with a yield of 10%.  If you wanted to sell your bond to someone you would have to sell it so it competed with the new bonds being sold.  You could not sell it for $100 which is what you paid for it.  You would have to sell it for less than the $100 you paid for it in order for it to have the equivalent yield of the new bonds being sold with a 10% yield.  This is why bond yields move inversely to bond prices. Why does rising yields increase the cost of borrowing? If someone is trying to sell new bonds they will have to sell bonds that compete with the yields of the current bonds already in the market. If yields are rising on the existing bonds then the issuer of the new bonds will have to pay higher interest rates to offer equivalent yields on the new bonds. The issuer is now paying more in interest making it more expensive to borrow money. What are the incentives for the bond vigilante to sell his/her bonds? One reason a bond holder will sell his/her bonds is they believe inflation will outpace the yield on the bond they are holding.  If a bond yields 3% and inflation is at 5% then the bond holder is essentially losing purchasing power if they continue to hold onto the bond.  Another reason to sell would be if the bond holder has doubts in the ability of the issuer to repay the interest and/or principal of the bond.

negative: Rich's answer captures the basic essence of short selling with example. I'd like to add these additional points: You typically need a specially-privileged brokerage account to perform short selling.  If you didn't request short selling when you opened your account, odds are good you don't have it, and that's good because it's not something most people should ever consider doing.  Short selling is an advanced trading strategy.  Be sure you truly grok selling short before doing it. Consider that when buying stock (a.k.a. going long or taking a long position, in contrast to short) then your potential loss as a buyer is limited (i.e. stock goes to zero) and your potential gain unlimited (stock keeps going up, if you're lucky!)   Whereas, with short selling, it's reversed: Your loss can be unlimited (stock keeps going up, if you're unlucky!) and your potential gain is limited (i.e. stock goes to zero.)   The proceeds you receive from a short sale – and then some – need to stay in your account to offset the short position.  Brokers require this.  Typically, margin equivalent to 150% the market value of the shares sold short must be maintained in the account while the short position is open. The owner of the borrowed shares is still expecting his dividends, if any.  You are responsible for covering the cost of those dividends out of your own pocket.  To close or cover your short position, you initiate a buy to cover.  This is simply a buy order with the intention that it will close out your matching short position.   You may be forced to cover your short position before you want to and when it is to your disadvantage!  Even if you have sufficient margin available to cover your short, there are cases when lenders need their shares back.  If too many short sellers are forced to close out positions at the same time, they push up demand for the stock, increasing price and deepening their losses.  When this happens, it's called a short squeeze. In the eyes of the public who mostly go long buying stock, short sellers are often reviled. However, some people and many short sellers believe they are providing balance to the market and preventing it sometimes from getting ahead of itself. [Disambiguation: A short sale in the stock market is not related to the real estate concept of a short sale, which is when a property owner sells his property for less than he owes the bank.] Additional references:

negative: The whole point of buying puts is cheaper cost and lower downside risk. If you short the box, you are assuming he already holds gold holdings to short against. It's not the same as short selling where you borrow shares.  Either way, you are far more vulnerable to downside risk if you are short the stock (whether you borrowed or shorted already owned shares). If Gold suddenly has a 20% pop over the next year, which could be possible given the volatility and uncertainty in the marketplace, you have big trouble. Whereas, if you buy puts, you only lose your costs for the contracts. The amount that you miss by in your bet isn't going to factor into anything.

negative: I'm just began playing in the stock   market. I assume you mean that you're not using real money, but rather you have an account with a stock simulator like the one Investopedia offers. I am hopeful that's the case due to the high level of risk involved in short selling like you're describing. Here is another post about short selling that expands a bit on that point. To learn much more about the ins and outs of short selling I will point again to Investopedia. I swear I don't work for them, but they do have a great short selling tutorial.  When you short sell a stock you are borrowing the stock from your broker. (The broker typically uses stock held by one or more of his clients to cover the loan.) Since it's basically a loan you pay interest. Of course the longer you hold it the more interest you pay. Also, as Joe mentioned there are scenarios in which you may be forced to buy the stock (at a higher price than you sold it). This tends to happen when the stock price is going against the short sell (i.e. you lose money). Finally, did anyone mention that the potential losses in a short sell are infinite?

negative: Firstly, the banks are far less risky than the people they lend to. Most of the interest banks charge borrowers covers defaults, but banks rarely default to the fed, especially those able to borrow from the Fed.  Secondly, most banks borrowing is in the form of overnight loans to cover short term reserve fluctuations; they are not borrowing dollars to lend to you.  Thirdly, if govt does it's job of keeping some competition in the banking sector, then the rates offered you and me should be near the actual cost to service such loans, so are the true value of those loans. Since there are a significant number of banks that I can borrow from with a multitude of options in how to borrow, there is likely still decent competition for my business.  Finally, the Fed funds rate is not currently 0%, so the banks are not getting interest free money.

negative: "First, there will always be people who think the market is about to crash. It doesn't really crash very often. When it does crash, they always say they predicted it. Well, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. You could go short (short selling stocks), which requires a margin account that you have to qualify for (typically you can only short up to half the value of your account, in the US). And if you've maxed out your margin limits and your account continues to drop in value, you risk a margin call, which would force you to cover your shorts, which you may not be able to afford. You could invest in a fund that does the shorting for you. You could also consider actually buying good investments while their prices are low. Since you cannot predict the start, or end, of a ""crash"" you should consider dollar-cost-averaging until your stocks hit a price you've pre-determined is your ""trigger"", then purchase larger quantities at the bargain prices. The equity markets have never failed to recover from crashes. Ever."

negative: It still does not address the difference in risk between lending to a large bank that must meet reserve requirements and between lending to more risky parties.  And is borrowing from BOJ to buy U.S. treasuries a bad thing if there is rate arbitrage?

negative: "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."

negative: "The settlement date for any trade is the date on which the seller gets the buyer's money and the buyer gets the seller's product.  In US equities markets the settlement date is (almost universally) three trading days after the trade date.  This settlement period gives the exchanges, the clearing houses, and the brokers time to figure out how many shares and how many dollars need to actually be moved around in order to give everyone what they're owed (and then to actually do all that moving around). So, ""settling"" a short trade is the same thing as settling any other trade.  It has nothing to do with ""closing"" (or covering) the seller's short position. Q: Is this referring to when a short is initiated, or closed? A: Initiated.  If you initiate a short position by selling borrowed shares on day 1, then settlement occurs on day 4.  (Regardless of whether your short position is still open or has been closed.) Q: All open shorts which are still open by the settlement date have to be reported by the due date. A: Not exactly.  The requirement is that all short positions evaluated based on their settlement dates (rather than their trade dates) still open on the deadline have to be reported by the due date. You sell short 100 AAPL on day 1.  You then cover that short by buying 100 AAPL on day 2. As far as the clearing houses and brokers are concerned, however, you don't even get into the short position until your sell settles at the end of day 4, and you finally get out of your short position (in their eyes) when your buy settles at the end of day 5. So imagine the following scenarios: The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 2.  Since your (FINRA member) broker has been told to report based on settlement date, it would report no open position for you in AAPL even though you executed a trade to sell on day 1. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 3.  Your sell still has not settled, so there's still no open position to report for you. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 4.  Your sell has settled but your buy has not, so the broker reports a 100 share open short position for you. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 5.  Your sell and buy have both settled, so the broker once again has no open position to report for you. So, the point is that when dealing with settlement dates you just pretend the world is 3 days behind where it actually is."

negative: "Because ETFs, unlike most other pooled investments, can be easily shorted, it is possible for institutional investors to take an arbitrage position that is long the underlying securities and short the ETF.  The result is that in a well functioning market (where ETF prices are what they should be) these institutional investors would earn a risk-free profit equal to the fee amount. How much is this amount, though? ETFs exist in a very competitive market.  Not only do they compete with each other, but with index and mutual funds and with the possibility of constructing one's own portfolio of the underlying.  ETF investors are very cost-conscious. As a result, ETF fees just barely cover their costs.  Typically, ETF providers do not even do their own trading.  They issue new shares only in exchange for a bundle of the underlying securities, so they have almost no costs.  In order for an institutional investor to make money with the arbitrage you describe, they would need to be able to carry it out for less than the fees earned by the ETF.  Unlike the ETF provider, these investors face borrowing and other shorting costs and limitations. As a result it is not profitable for them to attempt this.  Note that even if they had no costs, their maximum upside would be a few basis points per year.  Lots of low-risk investments do better than that. I'd also like to address your question about what would happen if there was an ETF with exorbitant fees.  Two things about your suggested outcome are incorrect.   If short sellers bid the price down significantly, then the shares would be cheap relative to their stream of future dividends and investors would again buy them.  In a well-functioning market, you can't bid the price of something that clearly is backed by valuable underlying assets down to near zero, as you suggest in your question. Notice that there are limitations to short selling.  The more shares are short-sold, the more difficult it is to locate share to borrow for this purpose.  At first brokers start charging additional fees.  As borrowable shares become harder to find, they require that you obtain a ""locate,"" which takes time and costs money.  Finally they will not allow you to short at all.  Unlimited short selling is not possible. If there was an ETF that charged exorbitant fees, it would fail, but not because of short sellers.  There is an even easier arbitrage strategy: Investors would buy the shares of the ETF (which would be cheaper than the value of the underlying because of the fees) and trade them back to the ETF provider in exchange for shares of the underlying.  This would drain down the underlying asset pool until it was empty.   In fact, it is this mechanism (the ability to trade ETF shares for shares of the underlying and vice versa) that keeps ETF prices fair (within a small tolerance) relative to the underlying indices."

negative: Since there was no sale, where does the money actually come from? From the refinancing bank. It's a new loan. How does a bank profit from this, i.e. why would they willingly help someone lower their mortgage payments? Because they sell a new loan. Big banks usually sell the mortgage loans to the institutional investors and only service them. So by creating a new loan - they create another product they can sell. The one they previously sold already brought them profits, and they don't care about it. The investors won't get the interest they could have gotten had the loan been held the whole term, but they spread the investments so that each refi doesn't affect them significantly. Credit unions usually don't sell their mortgages, but they actually do have the interest to help you reduce your payments - you're their shareholder. In any case, the bank that doesn't sell the mortgages can continue making profits, because with the money released (the paid-off loan) they can service another borrower.

negative: "The process of borrowing shares and selling them is called shorting a stock, or ""going short.""  When you use money to buy shares, it is called ""going long."" In general, your strategy of going long and short in the same stock in the same amounts does not gain you anything.  Let's look at your two scenarios to see why. When you start, LOOT is trading at $20 per share.  You purchased 100 shares for $2000, and you borrowed and sold 100 shares for $2000.  You are both long and short in the stock for $2000.  At this point, you have invested $2000, and you got your $2000 back from the short proceeds.  You own and owe 100 shares. Under scenario A, the price goes up to $30 per share.  Your long shares have gone up in value by $1000.  However, you have lost $1000 on your short shares.  Your short is called, and you return your 100 shares, and have to pay interest.  Under this scenario, after it is all done, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. Under scenario B, the prices goes down to $10 per share.  Your long shares have lost $1000 in value.  However, your short has gained $1000 in value, because you can buy the 100 shares for only $1000 and return them, and you are left with the $1000 out of the $2000 you got when you first sold the shorted shares.  However, because your long shares have lost $1000, you still haven't gained anything.  Here again, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. As explained in the Traders Exclusive article that @RonJohn posted in the comments, there are investors that go long and short on the same stock at the same time.  However, this might be done if the investor believes that the stock will go down in a short-term time frame, but up in the long-term time frame.  The investor might buy and hold for the long term, but go short for a brief time while holding the long position. However, that is not what you are suggesting.  Your proposal makes no prediction on what the stock might do in different periods of time.  You are only attempting to hedge your bets.  And it doesn't work.  A long position and a short position are opposites to each other, and no matter which way the stock moves, you'll lose the same amount with one position that you have gained in the other position.  And you'll be out the interest charges from the borrowed shares every time. With your comment, you have stated that your scenario is that you believe that the stock will go up long term, but you also believe that the stock is at a short-term peak and will drop in the near future.  This, however, doesn't really change things much.  Let's look again at your possible scenarios. You believe that the stock is a long-term buy, but for some reason you are guessing that the stock will drop in the short-term.  Under scenario A, you were incorrect about your short-term guess.  And, although you might have been correct about the long-term prospects, you have missed this gain.  You are out the interest charges, and if you still think the stock is headed up over the long term, you'll need to buy back in at a higher price. Under scenario B, it turns out that you were correct about the short-term drop.  You pocket some cash, but there is no guarantee that the stock will rise anytime soon.  Your investment has lost value, and the gain that you made with your short is still tied up in stocks that are currently down. Your strategy does prevent the possibility of the unlimited loss inherent in the short.  However, it also prevents the possibility of the unlimited gain inherent in the long position.    And this is a shame, since you fundamentally believe that the stock is undervalued and is headed up.  You are sabotaging your long-term gains for a chance at a small short-term gain."


query: Video recommendation for stock market education

positive: In general I would recommend to stay away from any video from a successful trader, at least those that claim to share their secrets. If they were that successful, why would they want company?  What they have most likely discovered is that they can make more money through videos and seminars than they can through trading. While not a video, GetSmarterAboutMoney has a good basic section on Stock markets without being purely Canada centric (as I see from your profile you are in NY). I know that also in our city, there are continuing education courses that often go over the basics like this, if you have a college nearby they might have something. Cheapest of all would be to hit your local library.  The fundamentals don't change that quickly that you need the latest and greatest - those are much more likely to be get-poor-quick schemes. Good Luck

positive: Before you go filling your head with useless information as there is way too much stuff out there on the stock market. First ask yourself a few questions: There is going to be a balance between the three... don't kid yourself. After you answer these questions find a trading strategy to get the returns you are looking for. Remember the higher returns you expect... the more time you have to put in. Find a trading strategy you like and that works for you. Ounce you have your strategy then find the stocks or ETF that work for that strategy.... Ignore everything else, it is designed to separate you from your money. Making money in the stock market is easy, don't let the media hype and negative people tell you any different. Find something that works for you and perfect it... stick to it.

negative: I rather like The Ascent of Money, by Niall Ferguson. This comes in several formats. There's a video version, a written version (ISBN-13: 978-1594201929), and an audio version. This book covers the history of financial instruments. It covers the rise of money, the history of bonds and stocks, insurance and hedge funds, real-estate, and the spread of finance across the world. It is a great introduction to finance, though its focus is very definitely on the history. It does not cover more advanced topics, and will not leave you with any sort of financial plan, but it's a great way to get a broad overview and historical understanding of money and markets. I strongly recommend both the video and the written or audio version.

negative: For economics I recommend mises or these videos to get you started. For daily critical analysis of financial markets, keynesian government policies, and other interesting reading I recommend zerohedge.  I've learned more about financial markets and government regulations by reading the comments section on zerohedge articles than anywhere else on the internet.  The comment section is very raw (i.e. lots of fucking cursing) but there are some jewels of information in there. For daily critical thinking I suggest lewrockwell.

negative: Actually, Education is where there's no need for humans: videos and recorded lectures, AI teaching at your own level and pace are much better than a class of 30 students at different levels trying to get the attention of one teacher.

negative: You can never depend ONLY on pension. You must get financial education and invest your money. I recommend you to read The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham...it's the bible of Warren Buffet. Besides, you don't need to be a Billionaire for retiring and be happy. I recommend you to get education in ETFs. I quote The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham p. 131. According to Ibboston Associates, the leading financial research firm, if you had invested $12,000 in the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index at the beginning of september 1929, 10 years later you would have had only $7,223 left. But if you had started with a paltry $100 and simply invested another $100 every single month, then by August 1939, your money would have grown to $15,571! That's the power of disciplined buying-even in the face of the Great Depression and the worst bear market of all time. You are still young to make even bolder investments. But seriously you can never depend ONLY on pension. You won't regret learning how to invest your money, it doesn't matter if it's in the stock market, real state market, whatever market... Knowing what to do with your money is priceless. I hope this helps. Happy profits!

negative: Get an education. A bachelor's degree preferably, but AA or even a certificate are fine too. It will increase your earning potential significantly and over your lifetime it will earn you a lot of money.  You make around $30,000 a year now, median salary for someone with a bachelors in the humanities is around $45,000. If you degree is in the STEM field, that goes up to $55,000 - $65,000 range. Second best option is to start a small business of some kind that does not require substantial investment. Handyman comes to mind as an example or some sort of billing service maybe? I would not recommend self directed investment in the stock market - most people lose money and since you don't have a lot of money to invest, commissions and fees will eat up a significant portion of it. I would usually recommend a CD but interest rates it's not really worth it.

negative: > Honestly, I think this open access to the stock market whereby anyone can be a 'trader' is a terrible thing.  Really? Could you please elaborate? Do you think it's a flaw in the stock market system itself or in peoples' financial education?

negative: I can't speak to Schweser as I've never heard of it but CFAL1 does exactly what you're looking for.  The study prep I recommended has a guy that does a video overview for each topic and he's quite good

negative: > Risk tolerance is a psychological trait that is genetically based, but positively influenced by education, income, and wealth…  > There is an old adage: It is not a stock market, but a market of stocks.  Phrase-based search results from Google for [these two quotes appearing together](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Risk+tolerance+is+a+psychological+trait+that+is+genetically+based,+but+positively+influenced+by+education%22++%22There+is+an+old+adage:+It+is+not+a+stock+market,+but+a+market+of+stocks.%22&num=50&tbas=0&tbs=li:1&filter=0&biw=1568&bih=1031).

negative: It is easy to be a stock analyst.   #1.  Get a YouTube channel  #2.  Create a Twitter account  #3.  Every day make a video and tweet that the stock market crash is imminent  #4.  Hedge your prediction with a bullish long portfolio and lie to the public  #5. Watch viewership and following grow rapidly as you misinform the public

negative: >Actually, Education is where there's no need for humans: videos and recorded lectures, AI teaching at your own level and pace are much better than a class of 30...  Yes this is one advantange of automation yet I only see it as a complement to the education system. If there's one thing automation cannot provide it would be the same interactive environment provided by the classroom which allows students to learn from each other and _request a different explanation in real-time for clarification_.   Videos and recorded lectures tend to be monotonous. One way communication is stifling and overwhelming which kills the learning environment. This is one of many reasons why online courses aren't taken seriously, at least in this part of the world. The presence of the facilitator imparts certain values in the student. The role of the facilitator is just as crucial as the knowledge they impart.   I have never heard of AI Teaching maybe it will disrupt Education in the future but for now we are stuck with our vanilla Education system.

negative: Pre-finance major here and new to this sub. Quick background, I’m 18 and I’m starting school at the University of Iowa in January.  My question is: what resources are out there that you would recommend to help me get introduced to the world of finance? Could be books, online courses, videos, etc. and could be on any subject within the umbrella of finance.  Thanks in advance for any recommendations!

negative: specifically for YouTube, children have become one of the most lucrative niches to be in. Ad revenue for child marketed videos are huge because they know lots of kids tune in and they know children have great conversion rates.   Especially in tandem with tech like Amazon, a child sees some amazing product and nags their parents to get it, but instead of having to drive to the store, they log onto Amazon and 1 click order it.   Lots of tech evolving but the idea is as simple as it was with the advent of TV. Kids like things, parents spoil their kids, toys are bought with huge mark up, money is made.   Adults are hard to market to because they are educated and have self control. Kids see a flashy new toy and that's all they talk about for the next two weeks...until they see the next flashy toy.

negative: Business analytics is a huge umbrella term, but if you're interested in the web analytics part of it, I'd highly recommend google analytics' tutorials. The videos are very well done and they'll give you a dummy account to practice with.

negative: To add a bit to Daniel Anderson's great answer, if you want to 'peek' at what a the set of bid and ask spreads looks like, the otc market page could be interesting (NOTE:  I'm NOT recommending that you trade Over The Counter.  Many of these stocks are amusingly scary):  http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/ACBFF/quote You can see market makers essentially offering to buy or sell blocks of stock at a variety of prices.

negative: It’s a known fact that videos can take your advertising campaigns to the next level. But without animation, a video may seem to be a dead body. Decades back, creating cartoons was time-consuming and a strenuous process. But, now it’s extremely easy to create videos packed with loads of elements and components via animation video makers. Let’s know why you must opt for Animated Marketing Videos.

negative: "Consumer facing finance is heavily regulated. You are liable for the recommendations you make; if they are based on a black box you risk problems when sued. It is difficult to explain in a court of law why a neural network came to a particular conclusion. It is much easier to provide advice (models) in the ""educated counterparty"" market. Not only do institutional investors in general expect to pay for a quality advice (consumers in general expect to get online advice for free) but the legal implications are different."

negative: We should also use video marketing as nowadays people prefer going through videos and i think those advertisement between the videos is a great way to give your business more exposure. Also we can build strong relation with people relevant to our industry and can easily grow our business.

negative: Exactly, the way you phrase the question makes it too vague to explain. Futures are very complicated instruments, and you should not be going after futures contracts if you are not educated in exactly how they work.  I recommend getting a text on [derivative markets](http://books.google.com/books?id=6fNJGQAACAAJ&dq=Fundamentals%20of%20Derivative%20Markets%20McDonald&source=gbs_book_other_versions) and learn all the ropes before jumping in at all.

negative: I drive 20 miles highway with almost no human intervention, you can take your eyes off the road too. But it is highly not recommended for safety reasons. If you google tesla autopilot there are many videos online to show what I'm talking about.

negative: Unless you are buying millions of dollars worth of a stock at a time, your transaction is a drop in the bucket, unlikely to have any noticable effect on the stock price. As Ian says, it's more likely that you are just remembering the times when the price dropped after you bought. If you keep careful track, I suspect you will find that the price goes up more often than it goes down, or at least, that the stocks you buy go up as often as the average stock on the market goes up. If you actually kept records and found that's not true, the most likely explanation is bad luck. Or that someone has placed a voodoo curse on you. I suppose one could imagine other scenarios. Like, if you regularly buy stock based on recommendations by well-known market pundits, you could expect to see a temporary increase in price as thousands or millions of people who hear this recommendation rush to buy, and then a few days or weeks later people move on to the next recommendation, the market setttles down, and the price reverts to a more normal level. In that case, if you're on the tail end of the buying rush, you could end up paying a premium. I'm just speculating here, I haven't done a study to find if this actually happens, but it sounds plausible to me.

negative: I didn't take too many finance or economics courses so i can't comment.   In my post I recommended the YouTube video or audiobook 'why an economy grows and why it doesn't'  I guess it's more economy related than finance related, but is still relevant as it touches on loans and net worth and stuff.

negative: Forecasting prices to the level of accuracy they purport is a fool's errand. Sell side analysts are there to get you to buy something, not to make you money.  If they truly believed their analysis was significantly better than anyone else's in the market, they would trade on their own analysis.  No one ever got rich by following analyst recommendations.  Don't believe me? Track the buy/sell recommendations in a spreadsheet for 50+ stocks. I would be shocked if you significantly outperformed the market.

negative: What is your goal? I would, under most circumstances, not recommend the Masters. I did it because I studied engineering in undergrad but wanted to transition to finance right away. The reality is that a good undergrad will give you most of the tools you need for success in a junior finance role. The critical piece is networking with professionals and working in the markets to elevate your stance before graduation. I am not an advocate for a lot of investment in education as the payback is less than most alternatives (IB analyst training, CFA, internships, etc.)

negative: Frederic Mishkin wrote a few text books on financial concepts that are widely used in colleges.  If you're not looking for a textbook - I'd really recommend Khan Academy on YouTube.  He's got some great videos on supply and demand - bonds, exchange rates - monetary policy by the federal reserve. All academically sound. They're very easy to digest and watch over again for reference.

negative: I think you are right. I hear people all the time with horror stories about futures and trading horror stories in general. I want to learn about this market, but I don't want to go in without some education on the matter. I watched their video on options on futures, but the valuation method needs a bit more explaining to be (beta, gamma, etc.). I get the basic idea of options on futures, but I need to formulate a strategy, and that is where study would come in.   I have wanted to play around with a few strategies I had in my head for regular options, and by the time I get the grasp of it, I might be able to trade options on futures. I guess my biggest thing with options on futures is not to be sophisticated, but more so I can have access to new markets. On the topic of options though, I do think there is some strategies that could boost my returns a bit on my existing strategies. I think selling various options (selling call options on weak dividend stocks stuck as bulk shipper or mortgage reits and as of late oil trusts or selling put options on some stronger oil reits or other stronger dividend stocks). The only problem is I don't know if the premium would be enough to make it worth while with the weak dividend stocks. So either way, even if you are only earning a conservative 9% on dividends, if you add in another 4% for premium, you could be making 13% off of one trade, and could repeat the process (assuming the target stayed weak or strong).

negative: How do I start? (What broker do I use?) We don't make specific recommendations because in a few  years that might not be the best recommendation any more. You are willing to do your own research, so here are some things to look for when choosing a broker: What criticism do you have for my plan? Seeking dividend paying stock is a sensible way to generate income, but share prices can still be very volatile for a conservative investor. A good strategy might be to invest in several broad market index and bond funds in a specific allocation (for example you might choose 50% stocks and 50% bonds).  Then as the market moves, your stocks might increase by 15% one year while bonds stay relatively flat, so at the beginning of the next year you can sell some of your stocks and buy bonds so that you are back to a 50-50 allocation. The next year there might be a stock market correction, so you sell some of your bonds and buy stock until you are back to a 50-50 allocation. This is called rebalancing, and it doesn't require you to look at the market daily, just on a regular interval (every 3 months, 6 months, or 1 year, whatever interval you are comfortable with). Rebalancing will give you greater gains than a static portfolio, and it can insulate you from losses when the stock market panics occasionally if you choose a conservative allocation.

negative: "If by ""can we trust the analyst recommendations"" you mean ""are they right 100% of the time"" the answer is absolutely no.  Analysts are human and make mistakes, some more than others.  There are many stories of ""superstar managers"" that make killings for several straight years, then have a few bad years and lose it all back. However, don't take ""you can't trust them"" to mean that they are nefarious in some way. While there may be some that recommend stocks for selfish purposes, I suspect that the vast majority are just going off what information they have, and can't predict market behavior or future performance with perfect accuracy.  Look at many analysts' recommendations.  Do your own analysis. If you're still not comfortable buying individual stocks, then don't buy them.  Buy index funds if you are satisfied with market returns, or other mutual funds if you want to invest in specific sectors.  Or at the very least make sure you are sufficiently diversified so that you don't lose your entire investment by one bad decision.  One rule of thumb is to not have more than 10% of your entire portfolio in any one company."

negative: First, congratulations on even thinking about investing while you are still young!  Before you start investing, I'd suggest you pay off your cc balance if you have any.  The logic is simple: if you invest and make say 8% in the market but keep paying 14% on your cc balance, you aren't really saving. Have a good supply of emergency fund that is liquid (high yielding savings bank like a credit union. I can recommend Alliant).   Start small with investing.  Educate yourself on the markets before getting in. Ignorance can be expensive. Learn about IRA (opening an IRA and investing in the markets have (good)tax implications. I didn't do this when I was young and I regret that now) Learn what is 'wash sales' and 'tax loss harvesting' before putting money in the market. Don't start out by investing in individual stocks. Learn about indexing. What I've give you are pointers.  Google  (shameless plug: you can read my blog, where I do touch upon most of these topics) for the terms I've mentioned.  That'll steer you in the right direction. Good luck and stay prosperous!

negative: "I'd refer you to Is it true that 90% of investors lose their money? The answer there is ""no, not true,"" and much of the discussion applies to this question.  The stock market rises over time. Even after adjusting for inflation, a positive return. Those who try to beat the market, choosing individual stocks, on average, lag the market quite a bit. Even in a year of great returns, as is this year ('13 is up nearly 25% as measured by the S&P) there are stocks that are up, and stocks that are down. Simply look at a dozen stock funds and see the variety of returns. I don't even look anymore, because I'm sure that of 12, 2 or three will be ahead, 3-4 well behind, and the rest clustered near 25.  Still, if you wish to embark on individual stock purchases, I recommend starting when you can invest in 20 different stocks, spread over different industries, and be willing to commit time to follow them, so each year you might be selling 3-5 and replacing with stocks you prefer. It's the ETF I recommend for most, along with a buy and hold strategy, buying in over time will show decent returns over the long run, and the ETF strategy will keep costs low."

negative: At 22 years old, you can afford to be invested 100% in the stock market. Like many others, I recommend that you consider low cost index funds if those are available in your 401(k) plan. Since your 401(k) contributions are usually made with each paycheck this gives you the added benefit of dollar cost averaging throughout your career.  There used to be a common rule that you should put 100 minus your age as the percentage invested in the stock market and the rest in bonds, but with interest rates being so low, bonds have underperformed, so many experts now recommend 110 or even 120 minus your age for stocks percentage. My recommendation is that you wait until you are 40 and then move 25% into bonds, then increase it to 40% at 55 years old. At 65 I would jump to a 50-50 stock/bonds mix and when you start taking distributions I would move to a stable-value income portfolio. I also recommend that you roll your funds into a Vanguard IRA when you change jobs so that you take advantage of their low management fee index mutual funds (that have no fees for trading).  You can pick whatever mix feels best for you, but at your age I would suggest a 50-50 mix between the S&P 500 (large cap) and the Russell 2000 (small cap). Those with quarterly rebalancing will put you a little ahead of the market with very little effort.

negative: The meaning is quite literal - a representative stock list is a list of stocks that would reasonably be expected to have about the same results as the whole market, i.e. be representative of an investment that invests in all those stocks. Of course, you don't want to invest in all stocks individually, that would be impractical, but you can either choose a diverse array of stocks that are (should be) representative, as the article recommends, or alternatively choose to invest in an index fund which offers a practical way to invest in all the stocks in the index at once.

negative: I'm going to be a bit off topic and recommend 'The Only Investment Book You'll Ever Need' by Andrew Tobias. It doesn't start with describe the workings of the stock market. Instead, it starts with making sure you have a budget and have your basic finances in order BEFORE going into the stock market. This may not sound like what you are looking for, but it really is a valuable book to read, even if you think you are all set up in that department.