Why do shareholders participate in shorting stocks?
In short (pun intended), the shareholder lending the shares does not believe that the shares will fall, even though the potential investor does. The shareholder believes that the shares will rise. Because the two individuals believe that a different outcome will occur, they are able to make a trade. By using the available data in the market, they have arrived at a particular conclusion of the fair price for the trade, but each individual wants to be on the other side of it. Consider a simpler form of your question: Why would a shareholder agree to sell his/her shares? Why don't they just wait to sell, when the price is higher? After all, that is why the buyer wants to purchase the shares. On review, I realize I've only stated here why the original shareholder wouldn't simply sell and rebuy the share themselves (because they have a different view of the market). As to why they would actually allow the trade to occur - Zak (and other answers) point out that the shares being lent are compensated for by an initial fee on the transaction + the chance for interest during the period that the shares are owed for. Why would a shareholder lend the investor the shares? Some brokers like IB will pay you to lend your shares: http://ibkb.interactivebrokers.com/node/1838 If you buy shares on margin, you don't have much of a choice. Your broker is allowed to lend your shares to short-sellers. "When I have stock at my brokerage account, the title is in street name - the brokerage's name and the quantity I own is on the books of the brokerage (insured by SIPC, etc).  The brokerage loans ""my"" shares to a short seller and is happy to facilitate trades in both directions for commissions (it's a nice trick to get other parties to hold the inventory while you reap income from the churn); by selecting the account I have I don't get to choose to not loan out the shares." "There are two primary reasons shares are sold short:  (1) to speculate that a stock's price will decline and (2) to hedge some other related financial exposure. The first is acknowledged by the question.  The second reason may be done for taxes (shorting ""against the box"" was once permitted for tax purposes), for arbitrage positions such as merger arbitrage and situations when an outright sale of stock is not permitted, such as owning restricted stock such as employer-granted shares. Why would a shareholder lend the investor the shares? The investor loaning his stock out to short-sellers earns interest on those shares that the borrower pays.  It is not unusual for the annualized cost of borrowing stock to be double digits when there is high demand for heavily shorted shares.  This benefit is however not available to all investors." Short sellers have to pay interest on the borrowings to the shareholders. Although many times brokers don't pass on these earnings to the shareholders, this is the exchange. "For the same reason that people bet on different teams. Some think the Tigers will win, others thing the Yankees will win. They wager $5 on it. One of them wins, the other loses. In a short, one person bets that the stock goes down, the other bets that the stock goes up (or hold). You're basically saying ""I think this stock is going to hold it's value or go up. If I thought it would go down, like you do, I would sell it myself right now. Instead, I'll let you have it for a while because when I get it back I think I'll come out on top.""" Because they receive compensation (generally interest + dividends) for loaning out the shares. I own an asset X.   Somebody else wants to borrow asset X for some time period.   I agree to loan them asset X in return for some form of compensation (generally a rate of interest plus, in this specific case, any dividend payments).  The reasons why I own asset X, and why they want to borrow asset X are irrelevant to the transaction. The only relevant points are the amount of compensation and the risk that they might default on the loan. This applies equally well to shares as to money or any other kind of loan-able asset. One thing no one else has touched on is the issue of time frame. If I'm looking to hold my shares over the next few years, I don't mind riding out a few short-term bumps, while the short-seller is looking to make a quick profit on some bad news. Sure, I could sell and rebuy, but that's a lot of hassle, not to mention commissions and tax issues.
"Market makers, traders, and value investors would be who I'd suspect for buying the stock that is declining. Some companies stocks can come down considerably which could make some speculators buy the stock at the lower price thinking it may bounce back soon. ""Short sellers"" are out to sell borrowed stocks that if the stock is in free fall, unless the person that shorted wants to close the position, they would let it ride. Worthless stocks are a bit of a special case and quite different than the crash of 1929 where various blue chip stocks like those of the Dow Jones Industrials had severe declines. Thus, the companies going down would be like Apple, Coca-Cola and other large companies that people would be shocked to see come down so much yet there are some examples in recent history if one remembers Enron or Worldcom. Stocks getting delisted tend to cause some selling and there are some speculators may buy the stock believing that the shares may be worth something only to lose the money possibly as one could look at the bankrupt cases of airlines and car companies to study some recent cases here. Circuit breakers are worth noting as these are cases when trading may be halted because of a big swing in prices that it is believed stopping the market may cause things to settle down." Shares are partial ownership of the company. A company can issue (not create) more of the shares it owns at any time, to anyone, at any price -- subject to antitrust and similar regulations. If they wanted to, for example, flat-out give 10% of their retained interest to charity, they could do so. It shouldn't substantially affect the stock's trading for others unless there's a completely irrational demand for shares. No. You shorted the stock so you are not a shareholder. If you covered your short, again you are not a shareholder as you statement of account must show. You cannot participate in the net settlement fund. Some investors (pension funds or insurance companies) need to pay out a certain amount of money to their clients. They need cash on a periodical basis, and thus prefer dividend paying stock more. In order to short a stock, you have to borrow the number of shares that you're shorting from someone else who holds the shares, so that you can deliver the shares you're shorting if it becomes necessary to do so (usually; there's also naked short selling, where you don't have to do this, but it's banned in a number of jurisdictions including the US). If a stock has poor liquidity, or is in high demand for shorting, then it may well be impossible to find anyone from whom it can be borrowed, which is what has happened in this instance. Yes in order for you to short a stock, some one has to be willing to lend it to you to short, the more people that want to short this stock, the higher the borrowing rate is to short it. in some instances such as groupon so many people are shorting it that there are practically no shares left to short and if you do end up getting some it would be at a very high borrowing cost. In this example, Client A has to buy shares to return them to Client B for his sale (closing Client A's short position).  Client B then sells the shares.  The end result is there are no shares within the brokerage clientele anymore, so Client A can't borrow them anymore.    The broker is just an intermediary, they wouldn't go out and acquire securities on their own for the benefit of a client wanting to short it, as they would be taking on the risk of the opposite position.  This would be in addition to the risk they already take on when allowing people to short sell -- which is that Client A won't have the money to buy the shares it owes to Client B, in which case the broker has to make Client B whole. Instead of giving part of their profits back as dividends, management puts it back into the company so the company can grow and produce higher profits. When these companies do well, there is high demand for them as in the long term higher profits equates to a higher share price. So if a company invests in itself to grow its profits higher and higher, one of the main reasons investors will buy the shares, is in the expectation of future capital gains. "Not sure I fully understand your question but my take on it is this: There a lot of people out there that admire companies and own the stock just because they like the company. For example, I know some kids who own Disney stock. They only have a share or two but they keep it because they want to say ""I own a part of Disney.""  Realistically speaking, if they hold or sell the stock it is so minuscule to have any realizable affect on the overall value of the stock which does not really make the company look better from an investor perspective. However, if a company has people that just want to own the stock just like your uncle are indeed ""better"" because they must have provided a product or service that is valued intrinsically." What about in the case of a company with unexpectedly low cash (and therefore an inability to easily pay out dividends) but with a surplus of inventory?  Obviously the investors should receive some premium for that, because I think anyone would prefer cash, but there are certainly extreme circumstances where it might be appropriate. people buy stocks because there is more to Return on Investment than whether dividends are issued or not. Some people want ownership and the ability to influence decisions by using the rights associated with their class of stock. Another reason would be to park capital in a place that would grow faster than the rate of inflation. these are only a few of many reasons why people would buy stock. "Q: A: Everyone that is short is paying interest to the owners of the shares that the short seller borrowed. Although this quells your conundrum, this is also unrelated to the term. Interest in this context is just the number. In the options market, each contract also has an open interest, which tells you how many of that contract is being held. For your sake, think of it as ""how many are interested"", but really its just a completely different context." To short a stock you actually borrow shares and sell them. The shorter gets the money from selling immediately, and pays interest for the share he borrows until he covers the short. The amount of interest varies depending on the stock. It's typically under 1% a year for large cap stocks, but can be 20% or more for small, illiquid, or heavily shorted stocks. In this scam only a few people own the shares that are lent to shorters, so they essentially have a monopoly and can set really high borrow costs. The shorter probably assumes that a pump-and-dump will crash quickly, so wouldn't mind paying a high borrow cost. From Wikipedia: Investment has different meanings in finance and economics. In Finance   investment is putting money into something with the expectation of   gain, that upon thorough analysis, has a high degree of security for   the principal amount, as well as security of return, within an   expected period of time. In contrast putting money into something with   an expectation of gain without thorough analysis, without security of   principal, and without security of return is speculation or gambling. The second part of the question can be addressed by analyzing the change in gold price vs inflation year by year over the long term. As Chuck mentioned, there are periods in which it didn't exceed inflation. More important, over any sufficiently long length of time the US stock market will outperform. Those who bought at the '87 peak aren't doing too bad, yet those who bought in the last gold bubble haven't kept up with inflation. $850 put into gold at the '80 top would inflate today to $2220 per the inflation calculator. You can find with a bit of charting some periods where gold outpaced inflation, and some where it missed. Back to the definition of investment. I think gold fits speculation far better than it does investment. I've heard the word used in ways I'd disagree with, spend what you will on the shoes, but no, they aren't an investment, I tell my wife. The treadmill purchase may improve my health, and people may use the word colloquially, but it's not an investment. "Since these indices only try to follow VIX and don't have the underlying constituents (as the constituents don't really exist in most meaningful senses) they will always deviate from the exact numbers but should follow the general pattern. You're right, however, in stating that the graphs that you have presented are substantially different and look like the indices other than VIX are always decreasing. The problem with this analysis is that the basis of your graphs is different; they all start at different dates... We can fix this by putting them all on the same graph:  this shows that the funds did broadly follow VIX over the period (5 years) and this also encompasses a time when some of the funds started. The funds do decline faster than VIX from the beginning of 2012 onward and I had a theory for why so I grabbed a graph for that period. My theory was that, since volatility had fallen massively after the throes of the financial crisis there was less money to be made from betting on (investing in?) volatility and so the assets invested in the funds had fallen making them smaller in comparison to their 2011-2012 basis.  Here we see that the funds are again closely following VIX until the beginning of 2016 where they again diverged lower as volatility fell, probably again as a result of withdrawals of capital as VIX returns fell. A tighter graph may show this again as the gap seems to be narrowing as people look to bet on volatility due to recent events. So... if the funds are basically following VIX, why has VIX been falling consistently over this time? Increased certainty in the markets and a return to growth (or at least lower negative growth) in most economies, particularly western economies where the majority of market investment occurs, and a reduction in the risk of European countries defaulting, particularly Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain; the ""PIGS"" countries has resulted in lower volatility and a return to normal(ish) market conditions. In summary the funds are basically following VIX but their values are based on their underlying capital. This underlying capital has been falling as returns on volatility have been falling resulting in their diverging from VIX whilst broadly following it on the new basis."