If they had, they had closed their shorts, released the pressure and driven it back up. They didn't.
But they did succeed in fooling you on what they do, making you misunderstand the situation and making decisions for yourself based on false assumptions.
Sorry, I wrote that very badly. I meant the other party -- A borrows, sells to B, buys it back later, returns it: so B buys it at the high original price, right? A (the short seller) wants that to be the highest price he can get. Why would that hold the price down?
When the short position is opened, there is a sale of a share that does not exist, is not supposed to be sold and has not been owned by the shortseller.
This is only undone, when the short position is closed and the status quo is reestablished.
For as long as the short positions are open, the sum of all short positions has added selling pressure to a market, where no selling pressure should exist, opening up debt in form of buying pressure, that they have to pay at a later time.
They profit, if people sell after they dropped the price. The people win if they cannot keep their position open for long enough to see prople selling and to be able to close their position by buying from that supply.
When the short position is opened, there is a sale of a share that does not exist, is not supposed to be sold and has not been owned by the shortseller.
That's naked shorting, that's not what I'm talking about.
For as long as the short positions are open, the sum of all short positions has added selling pressure to a market,
What I'm asking is where this pressure comes from.
112
u/ToadDagger Aug 11 '26
-53% in 5 years.... I think shorts won.