1

When you short-sell a stock, you are borrowing the stock from a lender, and the lender always has a right to say that they need their shares back, which might result in a forced buy-in by your broker. According to this site, buy-ins are very rare, and almost never happen.

But wouldn't it make sense that if a certain stock started plummeting (because of some negative company event, etc.), most of the lenders of that stock would want to sell their positions right away, to avoid losing even more money? If so, then forced buy-ins should happen a lot more frequently - every time some stock nosedives sharply. How come that is not the case?

Improve this question

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
2

Nobody is going to short sell stocks through a lender that forces people to buy in as soon as it is getting good for them.

Improve this answer
1
  • Your understanding is incorrect. If the owner of the shares loaned out for shorting sells his shares, the lending broker must find replacement shares. If replacement shares cannot be found, there is a forced buy in.
    – Bob Baerker
    Commented Dec 19, 2019 at 17:02
1

Many investors don't invest for the short term and so a stock "nose-diving" in the short run will not affect their long term strategy so they will simply hold on to it until it recovers. Additionally funds that track an index have to hold on to the constituents of that index no matter what happens to its value over the period (within trading limits). Both of these kinds of investors will be able to lend stock in a company out and not trigger a forced buy-in on a short term change. If the underlying long-term health of the company changes or it is removed from indices it is likely that this will change, however. Employee stock plans and other investors who are linked directly to the company or who have a vested interest in the company other than in a financial way will also be unwilling (or unable) to sell on a down turn in the company. They will similarly be able to lend their stock in the short term.

Improve this answer
0

For the lenders to sell their positions they need buyers on the other side. For a large brokerage that means they should always be able to find another lender. For many contracts the client may have no idea they are a lender as lending is part of their agreement with the broker

Improve this answer
3
  • Could you explain in more detail how this specifically answers the question? Finding stock in a different company to lend isn't a solution.
    – Ellie K
    Commented Mar 29, 2015 at 9:12
  • @EllieKesselman, not a different company, different lender. For every seller there is a buyer, and at large brokerage firms they will have many people buying as well as selling. So if A sells KO and B buys KO, the brokerage can change from borrowing A's KO shares to borrowing B's KO shares. (Roughly)
    – Shannon Severance
    Commented Feb 20, 2017 at 20:02
  • Finding stock from a different lender assumes liquidity. If there isn't any, you get a buy-in notice.
    – Bob Baerker
    Commented Dec 19, 2019 at 17:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .