It's possible to short a stock without paying interest?
"As others have said: unless you can find someone willing to make a zero-interest loan, the answer is no.  If you can figure out how to turn a ""0% for first N months"" credit card offer onto a leveraged investment or something of that sort -- seems unlikely -- maybe." "It is possible and it depends on your strategy. As short selling interest rates are annual and levied monthly at a prorated rate. Interest rates are also low in general, with the exception of hard to borrow stocks. Therefore you can maintain a short position for weeks on end and notice nothing. Months even, if the position itself has already gained in your favor. There is no additional fee for opening the short position. Although some brokers have a ""locate"" fee, if it is hard to borrow the stock and they need to go find some shares to short. So you can do it as much as you like."
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. I don't actually have any of this stock. Apparently, it's quite common strategy This is called naked short selling. It's not illegal per se, but there can be some major penalties so you should call your broker and ask them these questions. Intentionally naked short selling is not looked upon favorably. They'll probably try to recommend you a safer shorting system by which: why can't I just use the same trick with my own shares to make money on the way    down? Because if you sell shares out of your own portfolio, by definition, you are not selling short at all. If you sell something you own (and deliver it) - then there is no short involved. A short is defined as a net negative position - i.e. you sell shares you do not have. Selling shares you own is selling shares you own - no short involved. You must borrow the shares for a short because in the stock market, you must DELIVER. You can not deliver shares you do not own. The stock market does not work on promises - the person who bought the shares expects ownership of them with all rights that gives them. So you borrow them to deliver them, then return them when you buy them back. Michael gave a good answer describing the transaction but I wanted to follow up on your questions about the lender. First, the lender does charge interest on the borrowed securities. The amount of interest can vary based on a number of factors, such as who is borrowing, how much are they borrowing, and what stock are they trying to borrow.  Occasionally when you are trying to short a stock you will get an error that it is hard to borrow. This could be for a few reasons, such as there are already a large amount of people who have shorted your broker's shares, or your broker never acquired the shares to begin with (which usually only happens on very small stocks). In both cases the broker/lender doesnt have enough shares and may be unwilling to get more. In that way they are discriminating on what they lend. If a company is about to go bankrupt and a lender doesnt have any more shares to lend out, it is unlikely they will purchase more as they stand to lose a lot and gain very little.  It might seem like lending is a risky business but think of it as occurring over decades and not months. General Motors had been around for 100 years before it went bankrupt, so any lender who had owned and been lending out GM shares for a fraction of that time likely still profited.  Also this is all very simplified. JoeTaxpayer alluded to this in the comments but in actuality who is lending stock or even who owns stock is much more complicated and probably doesnt need to be explained here. I just wanted to show in this over-simplified explanation that lending is not as risky as it may first seem. You would generally have to pay interest for everyday you hold the position overnight.  If you never close the position and the stock price goes to zero, you will be closed out and credited with your profit. If you never close the position and the stock price keeps going up and up, your potential loss is an unlimited amount of money.  Of course your broker may close you out early for a number of reasons, particularly if your loss goes above the amount of capital you have in your trading account. I agree with Mark.  I was quite confuse about the short position at first but then I did a lot of learning and found out that as long as you have enough cash to cover your margin requirement you do not pay any interest since you do not have a debit on your margin balance.  This is not true for a long position though, supposed you have 5k cash and 5k margin balance, if you buy 10K worth of stocks then you will need to pay interest on the 5k of the margin balance since it is a debit.  Since shorting is done at a credit basis, you actually get interest from the transaction but you still may need to pay the borrowing fees for the stocks so they could simply balance each other out.  I have shorted stocks twice through two different companies and neither time I noticed any interest charges.  But make sure you have enough cash to cover your margin requirement, because once your margin balance is used to covered your position then interest would accrual. Learn. The original owner of the shares can pledge their shares to be short, and they earn interest from lending their shares. The conditions of this arrangement are detailed in standard agreements all market participants sign with their broker, or clearinghouse, or with the exchange, or with the self regulatory agency. Stocks within the same class are identical, despite someone's sentiment to an old share certificate that their grandparents gave them, and as such can be sold and returned to the beneficial owner multiple times with no difference. That is how it is supposed to work anyway, as naked shorting involves selling fictional shares that have no beneficial owner. So there are market inefficiencies in this practice, but the agreements between market participants are sound and answers your question about how. "Pay someone a fee to borrow their private Uber shares, then sell those private shares to someone else, then find someone else you can buy their private shares from for less than the net of the proceeds you made selling the borrowed shares you sold plus the fees you've paid to the first person and return your newly purchased shares back to the person you initially borrowed the shares from. On a serious note, Uber is private; there is no liquid public market for the shares so there is no mechanism to short the company.  The valuations you see might not even be legitimate because the company's financials are not public.  You could try to short a proxy for Uber but to my knowledge there is no public ""rideshare""/taxi service business similar enough to Uber to be a reasonably legitimate proxy." In terms of pricing the asset, this functions in exactly the same way as a regular sell, so bids will have to be hit to fill the trade. When shorting an equity, currency is not borrowed; the equity is, so the value of per share liability is equal to it's last traded price or the ask if the equity is illiquid. Thus when opening a short position, the asks offer nothing to the process except competition for your order getting filled. Part of managing the trade is the interest rate risk.  If the asks are as illiquid as detailed in the question, it may be difficult even to locate the shares for borrowing. As a general rule, only illiquid  equities or those in free fall may be temporarily unable for shorting. Interactive Brokers posts their securities financing availabilities and could be used as a proxy guide for your broker. It's actually quite simple. You're actually confusing two concept. Which are taking a short position and short selling itself. Basically when taking a short position is by believing that the stock is going to drop and you sell it. You can or not buy it back later depending on the believe it grows again or not. So basically you didn't make any profit with the drop in the price's value but you didn't lose money either.  Ok but what if you believe the market or specific company is going to drop and you want to profit on it while it's dropping. You can't do this by buying stock because you would be going long right? So back to the basics. To obtain any type of profit I need to buy low and sell high, right? This is natural for use in long positions. Well, now knowing that you can sell high at the current moment and buy low in the future what do you do? You can't sell what you don't have. So acquire it. Ask someone to lend it to you for some time and sell it. So selling high, check.  Now buying low? You promised the person you would return him his stock, as it's intangible he won't even notice it's a different unit, so you buy low and return the lender his stock. Thus you bought low and sold high, meaning having a profit. So technically short selling is a type of short position. If you have multiple portfolios and lend yourself (i.e. maintaining a long-term long position while making some money with a short term short-term strategy) you're actually short selling with your own stock. This happens often in hedge funds where multiple strategies are used and to optimise the transaction costs and borrowing fees, they have algorithms that clear (match) long and short coming in from different traders, algorithms, etc. Keep in mind that you while have a opportunities risk associated.  So basically, yes, you need to always 'borrow' a product to be able to short sell it. What can happen is that you lend yourself but this only makes sense if: &gt; A short position also loses money if the stock just appreciates more slowly than the broader market, which is one way an overvaluation can correct itself.  Is there a derivative based on the literal second derivative (acceleration) of the stock price? If so, you'd be able to short those, yes? No, the expense ratio would be something you wouldn't be charged. If you bought shares of the ETF long, then the dividends are usually reduced by the expense ratio if you wanted to know where to find that charge in general. You would have to make up for any dividends the underlying stocks as part of general shorting since the idea is that once you buy to put back the shares, it has to appear as if they weren't missing in the first place. No, the authorized participant would handle changes to the underlying structure if needed. It seems also on some international markets this is allowed. http://www.businessinsider.com/li-hejun-shorting-hanergy-2015-5 "If we take only the title of the question ""can the CEO short the stock"": It was probably different before Enron, but nowadays a CEO can only make planned trades, that is trades that are registered a very long time before, and that cannot be avoided once registered. So the CEO can say ""I sell 100,000 shares in exactly six months time"". Then in six months time, the CEO can and must sell the shares. Anything else will get him into trouble with the SEC quite automatically. I don't know if shorting a stock or buying options can be done that way at all. So it's possible only in the sense of ""it's possible, but you'll be in deep trouble"".  Selling shares or exercising share options may indicate that the company's business is in trouble. If the sale makes that impression and everyone else starts selling because the CEO sold his shares, then the CEO may be in trouble with the board of directors. Such a sale would be totally legal (if announced long time ahead), but just a bad move if it makes the company look bad. Shorting sales is much worse in that respect. If the CEO wants to buy a new car, he may have to sell some shares (there are people paid almost only in share options), no matter where the share price is going. But shorting shares means that you most definitely think the share price is going to drop. You're betting your money on it. That would tend to get a CEO fired, even if it was legal." Yes, maybe.  The 529 is pretty cool in that you can open an account for yourself, and change the beneficiary as you wish, or not. In theory, one can start a 529 for children or grandchildren yet unborn.  Back to you - a 529 is not deductible on your federal return. It grows tax deferred, and tax free if used for approved education. Some states offer deductions depending on the state. There is a list of states that offer such a deduction.