I watched @MelissaLeeCNBC's discussion with @timseymour and @GuyAdami on @CNBCFastMoney. Blurting "naked short" is hardly evidence that a conspiracy of #NakedShorting exists. It's illegal, and as a result most firms go to great lengths to prohibit their customers from it (2/)
Obviously because something is illegal and discouraged doesn't mean that it isn't going on somewhere. I can't prove that #NakedShorting isn't going on. But I suspect that some are confusing naked short sales (illegal) with naked options writing (legal but risky) (3/)
Here's a potential source of confusion. A @markets story quotes a Jefferies memo: "Until further notice, Jefferies Prime Brokerage will no longer offer custody on naked options in GME, AMC and MVIS". Naked options are VERY different than naked stock (4/) bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
When you short a stock, you are required to locate someone who will lend it to you. Most firms require that in advance, specifically to avoid #NakedShorting. The stock buyer expects delivery, but they don't know if they are being delivered outright or borrowed shares (5/)
Naked options don't require a buyer. As long as your broker believes you have sufficient margin to cover your risk, the only requirement for shorting an option is finding a buyer. You are not exchanging a security, you are exchanging a promise guaranteed by the OCC (6/)
btw, if you're a holder who wants to discourage shorts you should hold your stock in a cash account. If you have it in a margin account, your broker can lend your shares - even if they're fully paid. (7/)
tldr version - I can't say that there is no #NakedShorting of $AMC stock, but I doubt that it is much. Stock shorting is arcane and poorly understood. Stock options can and are sold short, but it is legal and very risky
Typo in #6! Naked options don't require a BORROW. They do require a buyer. Someone has to buy it. But OCC is the guarantor to the options buyer, not a lender.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh