Awesomeseating or anyone who knows.~~I have a few questions.
I ask this in the light that naked shorts borrow shares from Brokers who never actually locate the shares that they loan to the naked shorter. The naked shorter then sells the borrowed shares, that have not actually been located and borrowed by the Broker, to a third party who is now entitled to an SNDH dividend. Now there are dividend bearing shares sold that have never really located (or existed). Now the naked shorter and the Broker who authorized the shares to be borrowed are on the hook to cover any dividends issued by the company of the parent stock, even thought the parent stock, that was initially borrowed by the Broker, was never located. Further HQNT issued forth, via a transfer Agent, approximately 4 million shares of SNDH.
Question 1: If there is a share sold for every share bought, is it possible for naked shorting to create a situation where the aggregate number of SNDH dividend shares needed by the shorts/brokers to cover the dividend is greater than the aggregate number shares issued at the 1:10 ratio (Approximately 4 million issued by HQNT)?
Question 2: Are the shares issued by HQNT different than the shares that the shorts have to replace? How are these shares different and how are they treated, covered by shorts, bought by brokers, etc?
Question 3: If the answers to Question 1 and 2 is YES, can you explain:
How it possible for naked shorting to create a situation where the aggregate number of SNDH dividend shares needed by the shorts/brokers to cover the dividend is greater than the aggregate number shares issued?
How the shares issued by HQNT are different than the shares that the shorts have to give back to the broker? How are these shares different and how are they treated, covered by shorts, bought by brokers, etc?
Res
