Shorting versus selling to hedge risk
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. If you already own shares in a company and sell some, you won't be short selling these shares if sold from the same brokerage account, because your existing shares with that broker need to be sold first before you are able to short sell any. If you own a portfolio of shares however, you may be able to short sell an index to hedge your current portfolio. Also, if you have your existing shares in a company but don't want to sell your existing shares, for example you don't want to crystallise a capital gain, you can always hedge you current shares by short selling them through a different broker.  Some other hedging options possibly available to you include: buying put options over the shares, writing cover call options, or short selling some other derivatives like CFDs (if your country allows them). The word 'hedge' emerges from early agriculture when farmers would ask the market for a minimum buy price for each crop they planted. They used this method to stop loss against any major losses.  Investors today use this strategy when they are unsure of what the market will do. A perfect hedge reduces your risk to nothing (except for the cost of the hedge). It's not quite identical, due to fees, stock rights, and reporting & tax obligations.  But the primary difference is that a person could have voting rights in a company while maintaining zero economic exposure to the company, sometimes known as empty voting. As an abstract matter, it's identical in that you reduce your financial exposure whether you sell your stock or short it.  So the essence of your question is fundamentally true.  But the details make it different.  Of course there are fee differences in how your broker will handle it, and also margin requirements for shorting.  Somebody playing games with overlapping features of ownership, sales, and purchases, may have tax and reporting obligations for straddles, wash sales, and related issues.  A straight sale is generally less complicated for tax reporting purposes, and a loss is more likely to be respected than someone playing games with sales and purchases. But the empty voting issue is an important difference.  You could buy stock with rights such as voting, engage in other behavior such as forwards, shorts, or options to negate your economic exposure to the stock, while maintaining the right to vote.  Of course in some cases this may have to be disclosed or may be covered by contract, and most people engaging in stock trades are unlikely to have meaningful voting power in a public company.  But the principle is still there. As explained in the article by Henry Hu and Bernie Black: Hedge funds have been especially creative in decoupling voting rights from economic ownership. Sometimes they hold more votes than economic ownership - a pattern we call empty voting. In an extreme situation, a vote holder can have a negative economic interest and, thus, an incentive to vote in ways that reduce the company's share price. Sometimes investors hold more economic ownership than votes, though often with morphable voting rights - the de facto ability to acquire the votes if needed. We call this situation hidden (morphable) ownership because the economic ownership and (de facto) voting ownership are often not disclosed.
"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 a gross simplification as there are a few different ways to do this. The principle overall is the same though. To short a stock, you borrow X shares from a third party and sell them at the current price. You now owe the lender X shares but have the proceeds from the sale. If the share price falls you can buy back those shares at the new lower price, return them to the lender and pocket the difference. The risk comes when the share price goes the other way, you now owe the lender the new value of the shares, so have to find some way to cover the difference. This happened a while back when Porsche made a fortune buying shares in Volkswagen from short sellers, and the price unexpectedly rose. Okay- I follow that.    When we look a shorting a name -  what makes that an equity transaction rather than a debt one? I guess how does that differ from investing in a bond?    I recognize the simplicity of this question.    Thanks. 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. "Your strategy fails to control risk. Your ""inversed crash"" is called a rally. And These kind of things often turn into bigger rallies because of short squeezes, when all the people that are shorting a stock are forced to close their stock because of margin calls - its not that shorts ""scramble"" to close their position, the broker AUTOMATICALLY closes your short positions with market orders and you are stuck with the loss. So no, your ""trick"" is not enough. There are better ways to profit from a bearish outlook." Your strategy of longing company(a) and shorting company(b) is flawed as the prices of company(a) and company(b) can both increase and though you are right , you will lose money due to the shorting strategy. You should not engage in pair trading , which is normally used for arbitrage purposes You should just buy company(a) since you believed its a better company compared to company(b) , its as simple as that Well, there is always TVIX for all your 2x leverage needs. The prospectus even admits that the ETN is going to zero in the long run, because of its construction.  The issue with shorting vola is that it works up until the point where you get caught in a huge and sudden squeeze that wipes out months of gains and possibly more. I use over half my buying power of my portfolio for options, and I'm not a fan of any of the strategies listed above either (I stay away from negative theta trades for the most part), but I just listed them to point out that saying the reason someone wouldn't enter a short position is for fear of infinite losses is asinine. It's easy enough to make any trade risk defined if that is something the trader cares about. Shorts are difficult because you have to find someone to lend the stock to you. In contrast, put options don't require that. They also have some nice properties like you're only out the contract price. The options chain for BSFT will give you an idea of where the market is.  Keep in mind that BSFT only IPO'd last year and announced blowout earnings recently. Make sure the P:E you're looking at is using recent earnings reports! Traditionally, dealers and broker-dealers were in contact with the actual producers of a product or issuers of a security, selling it at the exchange on their behalf.  Consumers would traditionally be on the buy side, of course. These days, anyone can enter the market on either side.  Even if you don't hold the security or product, you could sell it, and take on the risk of having to stock up on it by the delivery date in exchange for cash or other securities.  On the other side, if you can't hold the product or security you could still buy it, taking on the risk of having to dispose of it somehow by delivery in exchange for cash or other securities. In either case you (the sell-side) take on risk and provide products/securities/cash.  This is most commonly known as market making.  Modern literature coins the terms liquidity taker (buy-side) and liquidity provider (sell-side).  Even more accurately, risk management literature would use the terms risk-taker (sell-side) and risk spreader or risk reducer (buy side). This is quite illustrative in modern abstract markets.  Take a market that allows for no offsetting or hedging because the product in question is abstract or theoretical, e.g. weather trading, volatility trading, inflation trading, etc.  There's always one party trying to eliminate dependence on or correlation to the product (the risk reducer, buy-side) and the counterparty taking on their risk (sell-side). In order to compare the two, you need to compare your entire portfolio, which is not just how much money you have, but how much stock. In both scenarios, you start with (at least, but let's assume) £20 and 0 stock. In your scenario, you buy 10 shares, leaving you with £0 and 10 shares. You then sell it at £1.50/share to cut your losses, leaving you with £15 and 0 shares. That concludes the first transaction with a net loss of £5. In a second transaction, you then buy 10 shares again at £1/share, leaving you with £5 and 10 shares. You are still down £15 from the start, but you also still have 10 shares. Any further profit or loss depends on what you can get for those 10 shares in the future. In a short sale, you borrow 10 shares and sell them, leaving you with £40 (your initial £20 plus what you just made on the short sale) and -10 shares of stock. At the end of the contract, you must buy 10 shares to return them; you are able to do so at £1.50/share, leaving you with £25 and 0 shares. At this point, your exposure to the stock is complete, and you have a net gain of £5. Yes there will be enough liquidity to sell your position barring some sort of Flash Crash anomaly. Volume generally rises on the day of expiration to increase this liquidity. Don't forget that there are many investment strategies--buying to cover a short position is closing out a trade similar to your case. It this a real situation or is it a made up example? Because for a stock that has a last traded priced of $5 or $6 and volume traded over $4M (i.e. it seems to be quite liquid), it is hardly likely that the difference from bid to ask would be as large as $1 (maybe for a stock that has volume of 4 to 5 thousand, but not for one having volume of 4 to 5 million). In regards to your question, if you were short selling the order would go in exactly the same as if you were selling a stock you owned. So your order would be on the ask side and would need to be matched up with a price on the bid side for there to be a trade. In this type of strategy profit is made when the shares go down as your main position is the short trade of the common stock. The convertible instruments will tend to move in about the same direction as the underlying (what it can be converted to) but less violently as they are traded less (lower volatility and lower volume in the market on both sides), however, they are not being used to make a profit so much as to hedge against the stock going up. Since both the bonds and the preference shares are higher on the list to be repaid if the company declares bankruptcy and the bonds pay out a fixed amount of interest as well, both also help protect against problems that may occur with a long position in the common stock.  Essentially the plan with this strategy is to earn fixed income on the bonds whilst the stock price drops and then to sell both the bonds and buy the stock back on the market to cover the short position. If the prediction that the stock will fall is wrong then you are still earning fixed income on the debt and are able to convert it into stock at the higher price to cover the short sale eliminating, or reducing, the loss made on the short sale. Effectively the profit here is made on the spread between the price of the bond, accounting for the conversion price, and the price of the stock and that fixed income is less volatile (except usually in the junk market) than stock. Fair enough. I would imagine the ETF could get a better option pricing if that were the case, plus liquidity and counterpart risk concerns but your point is well taken. Serves me right to shoot my mouth off on something I do not do (short).  Speaking of which, do you do a lot of shorting? Cover positions or speculation?