It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
What I don't like is states and politicians claiming they don't need federal assistance and shouldn't have to pay taxes while taking loads of federal assistance.When COVID-19 began to rapidly spread across the United States in March 2020, the economy quickly shed more than 20 million jobs. Amid intense fear and hardship, federal policymakers responded, enacting five relief bills in 2020 that provided an estimated $3.3 trillion of relief and the American Rescue Plan in 2021, which added another $1.8 trillion. This robust policy response helped make the COVID-19 recession the shortest on record and helped fuel an economic recovery that has brought the unemployment rate, which peaked at 14.8 percent in April 2020, down to 4.0 percent. One measure of annual poverty declined by the most on record in 2020, in data back to 1967, and the number of uninsured people remained stable, rather than rising as typically happens with large-scale job loss. Various data indicate that in 2021, relief measures reduced poverty, helped people access health coverage, and reduced hardships like inability to afford food or meet other basic needs.
These positive results contrast with the Great Recession of 2007-2009, when the federal response was large compared to measures taken in other post-World War II recessions but less than one-third as large as the fiscal policy measures adopted in 2020-2021, when measured as a share of the economy. While decried by some at the time as too large, the relief measures enacted during the Great Recession were undersized and ended too soon. As a result, the economy remained weak for longer than was necessary — and families suffered avoidable hardship. Two years after the Great Recession began, unemployment was still 9.9 percent and food insecurity remained one-third above its pre-recession level. While some of that difference stems from differences in the trigger to the downturn, some is clearly due to the strength of the policy response.
I'll get to "do not exist" branch later. There's an interesting twist on it. First I'll look at the "have not been borrowed" branch.Naked short selling is not legal. ... [N]aked shorting involves the selling of shares that do not exist, or have not been borrowed. ... Put simply, if shares are not available to "cover" a short sale, the short position is said to be naked.
What I wrote follows the "have not borrowed" branch from Seeking Alpha. Real shares located but not borrowed at trade time T that are unavailable to "cover", i.e. become unavailable at cover- (delivery-) time T+2. Seeking Alpha says that, put simply, this constitutes a naked short, and naked shorts are not legal. Full stop.>> One might not be able to deliver shares that had already been located. That's different from being unable to locate shares.
Surely there is if not a cite for this an example from experience, or case law?
https://ibkr.info/node/845 (Interactive Brokers)Prior to executing the short sale, the broker must make a good faith determination that shares will likely be available to borrow when needed and this is accomplished by verifying their current availability. Note that, absent a pre-borrow arrangement, there is no assurance that shares available to borrow on the date of trade will remain available to borrow 2 days later
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved. Powered by Vanilla
