Why is short-selling considered more “advanced” than a simple buy?
When you short a stock, you can lose an unlimited amount of money if the trade goes against you. If the shorted stock gaps up overnight you can lose more money than you have in your account. The best case is you make 100% if the stock goes to zero. And then you have margin fees on top of that. With long positions, it's the other way around. Your max loss is 100% and your gains are potentially unlimited. In addition to the higher risk as pointed out by @JamesRoth, you also need to consider that there are regulations against 'naked shorting' so you generally need to either own the security, or have someone that is willing to 'loan' the security to you in order to sell short.  If you own a stock you are shorting, the IRS could view the transaction as a Sell followed by a buy taking place in a less than 30 day period and you could be subject to wash-sale rules.  This added complexity (most often the finding of someone to loan you the security you are shorting) is another reason such trades are considered more advanced. You should also be aware that there are currently a number of proposals to re-instate the 'uptick rule' or some circuit-breaker variant. Designed to prevent short-sellers from driving down the price of a stock (and conducting 'bear raids etc) the first requires that a stock trade at the same or higher price as prior trades before you can submit a short.  In the latter shorting would be prohibited after a stock price had fallen a given percentage in a given amount of time.  In either case, should such a rule be (re)established then you could face limitations attempting to execute a short which you would not need to worry about doing simple buys or sells.   As to vehicles that would do this kind of thing (if you are convinced we are in a bear market and willing to take the risk) there are a number of ETF's classified as 'Inverse Exchange Traded Funds (ETF's) for a variety of markets that via various means seek to deliver a return similar to that of 'shorting the market' in question.  One such example for a common broad market is ticker SH the ProShares Short S&P500 ETF, which seeks to deliver a return that is the inverse of the S&P500 (and as would be predicted based on the roughly +15% performance of the S&P500 over the last 12 months, SH is down roughly -15% over the same period).  The Wikipedia article on inverse ETF's lists a number of other such funds covering various markets.   I think it should be noted that using such a vehicle is a pretty 'aggressive bet' to take in reaction to the belief that a bear market is imminent.  A more conservative approach would be to simply take money out of the market and place it in something like CD's or Treasury instruments.  In that case, you preserve your capital, regardless of what happens in the market. Using an inverse ETF OTOH means that if the market went bull instead of bear, you would lose money instead of merely holding your position. "The margin rules are also more complicated.  A simple buy on a non-margin account will never run into margin rules and you can just wait out any dips if you have confidence the stock will recover.  A ""simple"" short sell might get you a call from your broker that you have a margin call, and you can't wait it out without putting more money in.  Personally I have trouble keeping the short sale margin rules straight in my head, at least compared to a long sale. I got in way over my head shorting AMZN once, and lost a lot of money because I thought it was overvalued at the time, but it just kept going up and I wanted it to go down.   I've never gotten stuck like that on a long position."
The point of short-selling as a separate instrument is that you can you do it when you can't sell the underlying asset... usually because you don't actually own any of it and in fact believe that it will go down. Shorting allows you to profit from a falling price. Another (non-speculative) possibility is that you don't have the underlying asset right now (and thus can't sell it) but will get it at a certain point in the future, e.g. because it's bonds that you've used to guarantee a loan... or grain that's still growing on your fields. "And what exactly do I profit from the short? I understand it is the difference in the value of the stock. So if my initial investment was $4000 (200 * $20) and I bought it at $3800 (200 * $19) I profit from the difference, which is $200. Do I also receive back the extra $2000 I gave the bank to perform the trade? Either this is extremely poorly worded or you misunderstand the mechanics of a short position.  When you open a short position, your are expecting that the stock will decline from here.  In a short position you are borrowing shares you don't own and selling them.  If the price goes down you get to buy the same shares back for less money and return them to the person you borrowed from.  Your profit is the delta between the original sell price and the new lower buy price (less commissions and fees/interest).  Opening and closing a short position is two trades, a sell then a buy.  Just like a long trade there is no maximum holding period. If you place your order to sell (short) 200 shares at $19, your initial investment is $3,800.   In order to open your $3,800 short position your broker may require your account to have at least $5,700 (according to the 1.5 ratio in your question).  It's not advisable to open a short position this close to the ratio requirement.  Most brokers require a buffer in your account in case the stock goes up, because in a short trade if the stock goes up you're losing money.  If the stock goes up such that you've exhausted your buffer you'll receive what's known as a ""margin call"" where your broker either requires you to wire in more money or sell part or all of your position at a loss to avoid further losses.  And remember, you may be charged interest on the value of the shares you're borrowing. When you hold a position long your maximum loss is the money you put in; a position can only fall to zero (though you may owe interest or other fees if you're trading on margin).  When you hold a position short your maximum loss is unlimited; there's no limit to how high the value of something can go.  There are less risky ways to make short trades by using put options, but you should ensure that you have a firm grasp on what's happening before you use real money. The timing of the trades and execution of the trades is no different than when you take a plain vanilla long position.  You place your order, either market or limit or whatever, and it executes when your trade criteria occurs." A lot of people here talk about shorting stocks, buying options, and messing around with leveraged ETFs. While these are excellent tools, that offer novel opportunities for the sophisticated investor, Don't mess around with these until you have been in the game for a few years. Even if you can make money consistently right out of the gate, don't do it. Why? Making money isn't your challenge, NOT LOSING money is your challenge. It's hard to measure the scope of the risk you are assuming with these strategies, much less manage it when things head south. So even if you've gotten lucky enough to have figured  out how to make money, you surely haven't learned out how to hold on to it. I am certain that every beginner still hasn't figured out how to comprehend risk and manage losing positions. It's one of those things you only figure out after dealing with it. Stocks (with little to no margin) are a great place to learn how to lose because your risk of losing everything is drastically lower than with the aforementioned tools of the sophisticated investor. Despite what others may say you can make out really well just trading stocks.  That being said, one of my favorite beginner strategies is buying stocks that dip for reasons that don't fundamentally affect the company's ability to make money in the mid term (2 quarters).  Wallstreet loves these plays because it shakes out amateur investors (release bad news, push the stock down shorting it or selling your position, amateurs sell, which you buy at a discount to the 'fair price'.) A good example is Netflix back in 2007. There was a lawsuit because netflix was throttling movie deliveries to high traffic consumers. The stock dropped a good chunk overnight.  A more recent example is petrobras after their huge bond sale and subsequent corruption scandal. A lot of people questioned Petrobras' long-term ability to maintain sufficient liquidity to pay back the loans, but the cashflow and long term projections are more than solid. A year later the stock was pushed further down because a lot of amateur Brazilians invest in Petrobras and they sold while the stock was artificially depressed due to a string of corruption scandals and poor, though temporary, economic conditions. One of my favorite plays back in 2008-2011 was First Solar on the run-up to earnings calls. Analysts would always come out of these meetings downgrading the stock and the forums were full of pikers and pumpers claiming heavy put positions. The stock would go down considerably, but would always pop around earnings. I've made huge returns on this move. Those were the good ole days. Start off just googling financial news and blogs and look for lawsuits and/or scandals. Manufacturing defects or recalls. Starting looking for companies that react predictably to certain events. Plot those events on your chart. If you don't know how to back-test events, learn it.  Google Finance had a tool for that back in the day that was rudimentary but helpful for those starting out. Eventually though, moreso than learning any particular strategy, you should learn these three skills: 1) Tooling: to gather, manipulate, and visualize data on your own.  These days automated trading also seems to be ever more important, even for the small fish. 2) Analytical Thinking learn to spot patterns of the three types:  event based (lawsuits, arbitrage, earnings etc), technical (emas, price action, sup/res), or business-oriented (accounting, strategy, marketing). Don't just listen to what someone else says you should do at any particular moment, critical thinking is essential. 3) Emotions and Attitude: learn how to comprehend risk and manage your trigger finger. Your emotions are like a blade that you must sharpen every day if you want to stay in the game. Disclaimer: I stopped using this strategy in 2011, and moved to a pure technical trading regime. I've been out totally out of the game since 2015. There is no magic bullet here.   If you want professional management, because you think they know more about entry and exit points for short positions, have more time to monitor a position, etc... (but they might not) try a mutual fund or exchange traded fund that specializes in shorts. Note:  a lot of these may not have done so well, your mileage may vary In finance, short selling (also known as shorting or going short) is the practice of selling assets, usually securities, that have been borrowed from a third party (usually a broker) with the intention of buying identical assets back at a later date to return to the lender. Remember your broker has to borrow it from somewhere, other clients or if they hold those specific stocks themselves. So if it isn't possible for them to lend you those stocks, they wouldn't. High P/E stocks would find more sellers than buyers, and if the broker has to deliver them, it would be a nightmare for him to deliver all those stocks, which he had lent you(others) back to whom he had borrowed from, as well as to people who had gone long(buy) when you went short(sell). And if every body is selling there is going to be a dearth of stocks to be borrowed from as everybody around is selling instead of buying. "As the other answer said, the person who owns the lent stock does not benefit directly.  They may benefit indirectly in that brokers can use the short lending profits to reduce their fees or in that they have the option to short other stocks at the same terms.   Follow-up question: what prevents the broker lending the shares for a very short time (less than a day), pocketing the interest and returning the lenders their shares without much change in share price (because borrowing period was very short). What prevents them from doing that many times a day ? Lack of market.   Short selling for short periods of time isn't so common as to allow for ""many"" times a day.  Some day traders may do it occasionally, but I don't know that it would be a reliable business model to supply them.  If there are enough people interested in shorting the stock, they will probably want to hold onto it long enough for the anticipated movement to happen.   There are transaction costs here.  Both fees for trading at all and the extra charges for short sale borrowing and interest.  Most stocks do not move down by large enough amounts ""many"" times a day.  Their fluctuations are smaller.  If the stock doesn't move enough to cover the transaction fees, then that seller lost money overall.  Over time, sellers like that will stop trading, as they will lose all their money.   All that said, there are no legal blocks to loaning the stock out many times, just practical ones.  If a stock was varying wildly for some bizarre reason, it could happen." This is often the case where traders are closing out short positions they don't want to hold overnight, for a variety of reasons that matter to them.  Most frequently, this is from day traders or high-frequency traders settling their accounts before the markets close. Your original example is a little confusing because just shorting for 1k and buying for 1k is 100% leveraged or an infinitive leverage ratio. (and not allowed) Brokerage houses would require you to invest some capital in the trade.  One example might be requiring you to hold $100 in the brokerage.  This is where the 10:1 ratio comes from. (1000/10) Thus a return of 4.5% on the 1000k bond and no movement on the short position would net you $45 and voila a 45% return on your $100 investment. A 40 to 1 leverage ratio would mean that you would only have to invest $25 to make this trade.  Something that no individual investor are allowed to do, but for some reason some financial firms have been able to. This can arise with very thinly traded stocks for large blocks of shares. If the market only has a few thousand dollars available at between 8.37 and 12.5 the price is largely meaningless for people who want to invest in hundreds of thousands/millions of dollars worth, as the quoted price can't get them anywhere near the number of shares they want. How liquid is the stock in question? Differences in liquidity explain why American-style options are generally worth more than their European-style counterparts. As far as I can tell, no one mentioned liquidity in their answer to this question, they just introduced needlessly complex math and logic while ignoring basic economic principles. That's not to say the previous answers are all wrong - they just deal with periphery factors instead of the central cause.  Liquidity is a key determinant of pricing/valuation in financial markets. Liquidity simply describes the ease with which an asset can be bought and sold (converted to cash). Without going into the reasons why, treasury bills are one of the most liquid securities - they can be bought or sold almost instantly at any time for an exact price. The near-perfect liquidity of treasuries is one of the major reasons why the price (yield) of a t-bill will always be higher (lower yield) than that of an otherwise identical corporate or municipal bond. Stated in general terms, a relatively liquid asset is always worth more than an relatively illiquid asset, all else being equal.  The value of liquidity is easy to understand - we experience it everyday in real life. If you're buying a house or car, the ability to resell it if needed is an important component of the decision. It's the same for investors - most people would prefer an asset that they can quickly and easily liquidate if the need for cash arises.  It's no different with options. American-style options allow the holder to exercise (liquidate) at any time, whereas the buyer of a European option has his cash tied up until a specific date. Obviously, it rarely makes sense to exercise an option early in terms of net returns, but sometimes an investor has a desperate need for cash and this need outweighs the reduction in net profits from early exercise.  It could be argued that this liquidity advantage is eliminated by the fact that you can trade (sell) either type of option without restriction before expiration, thus closing the long position. This is a valid point, but it ignores the fact that there's always a buyer on the other side of an option trade, meaning the long position, and the right/restriction of early exercise, is never eliminated, it simply changes hands. It follows that the American-style liquidity advantage increases an options market value regardless of one's position (call/put or short/long). Without putting an exact number on it, the general interest rate (time value of money) could be used to approximate the additional cost of an American-style option over a similar European-style contract. An option gives you an option.  That is, you aren't buying any security - you are simply buying an option to buy a security.  The sole value of what you buy is the option to buy something. An American option offers more flexibility - i.e. it offers you more options on buying the stock.  Since you have more options, the cost of the option is higher. Of course, a good example makes sense why this is the case.  Consider the VIX.  Options on the VIX are European style.  Sometimes the VIX spikes like crazy - tripling in value in days.  It usually comes back down pretty quick though - within a couple of weeks.  So far out options on the VIX aren't worth just a whole lot more, because the VIX will probably  be back to normal.  However, if the person could have excercised them right when it got to the top, they would have made a fortune many times what their option was worth.  Since they are Euroopean style, though, they would have to wait till their option was redeemable, right when the VIX would be about back to normal.  In this case, an American style option would be far more valuable - especially for something that is difficult to predict, like the VIX. Some platforms/brokers have HTB indication for a stock symbol, meaning Hard To Borrow. That usually means you can't sell it short at the moment. "During market hours, there are a lot of dealers offering to buy and sell all exchange traded stocks. Dealers don't actually care about the company's fundamentals and they set their prices purely based on order flow. If more people start to buy than sell, the dealer notices his inventory going down and starts upping the price (both his bid and ask). There are also traders who may not be ""dealers"", but are willing to sell if the price goes high enough or buy if the price goes low enough. This keeps the prices humming along smoothly. During normal trading hours, if you buy something and turn around and sell it two minutes later, you'll probably be losing a couple cents per share. Outside normal market hours, the dealers who continue to have a bid and ask listed know that they don't have access to good price information --  there isn't a liquid market of continuous buying and selling for the dealer to set prices he considers safe. So what does he do? He widens the spread. He doesn't know what the market will open tomorrow at and doesn't know if he'll be able to react quickly to news. So instead of bidding $34.48 and offering at $34.52, he'll move that out to $33 and $36. The dealer still makes money sometimes off this because maybe some trader realized that he has options expiring tomorrow, or a short position that he's going to get a margin call on, or some kind of event that pretty much forces him to trade. Or maybe he's just panicking and overreacting to some news. So why not trade after hours? Because there's no liquidity, and trading when there's no liquidity costs you a lot." When you set up a short sale for equities you are borrowing stock from someone else; typically another client at the broker.  The broker usually buries an agreement to let your shares be borrowed for short sales in your account details.  So if Client A wants to short a stock, he borrows stock from Client B to do the short sale (it's usually not this direct as they can borrow from many clients).  If Client B then wants to sell his shares; if the broker can't shift around assets to find another client's shares to let Client A borrow; then he has to close the short position out because he doesn't have the shares in the brokerage to let Client A borrow to short anymore. A lot depends on how much is in the account, and whether you expect to be returning (or having any sort of financial dealings) in Europe in the future. My own experience (about 10 years out of date, and with Switzerland) is that the easiest way to transfer reasonable amounts (a few thousand dollars) was simply to get it in $100 bills from the European bank.  I also kept the account open for a number of years while living in the US (doing contracting that was paid into the European bank), and could withdraw money from American ATMs. I eventually had to close the account due to issues between the bank and the IRS.  I think it was only that particular bank (UBS) that was the problem, though.