Institutional Ownership as a Proxy for Short-Sale Borrow Supply
Summary
The document explains why institutional ownership is sometimes used as a proxy for the supply of shares available to borrow for short selling. Institutional holdings are often kept with custodial banks, which may lend shares to short sellers in exchange for additional revenue. Index funds can be relatively stable holders because they may have less reason to recall shares in response to a stock’s decline, supporting a more dependable lending supply.
Retail holdings may be less consistently available: individual investors participate in lending less often, may not realize their broker lends shares, and may sell during sharp declines. The example in the question describes constrained stocks using both high relative short interest and low institutional ownership. This is a proxy-based interpretation, not a direct measure of borrow availability or a universal rule. The answer also notes that ETF holdings and lending practices may have changed over time, and that retail brokerages can lend customer shares under certain arrangements. It offers no data test or evidence quantifying how well ownership predicts borrowing costs.
Key ideas
- Institutional ownership can serve as a proxy for the lendable supply of shares used in short selling.
- Custodial banks may lend institutional shares to generate additional revenue.
- Stable index fund holdings may be less likely to be recalled during a stock decline than actively managed holdings.
- Retail shares can be a less dependable source of borrow because participation and investor behavior vary.
- Low institutional ownership and high relative short interest are used together in one definition of short-sale constraints.
Tags
Full text
# Short selling limits and institutional ownership # Short selling limits and institutional ownership Why is Institutional holding considered a proxy for short-sale costs? In other words, Why are firms with lower institutional ownership more likely to be a subject of short-sale constraints? For example Asquith, Pathak, and Ritter (2005) use institutional ownership as a proxy for the lendable supply of shares and define short sale-constrained stocks as having both high RSI (relative short interest) and low institutional ownership. ## Answer by eSurfsnake (score 2) https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/39153 Assuming it is true, most likely due to market/institutional constraints. Institutional investors hold their assets at a custodial bank. Those banks operate securities lending programs which lend out shares for short sales to make a small incremental additional revenue. On top of that, institutional investors have - at least in the past - been huge holders of index funds (trillions of dollars). Index funds seldom need to 'recall' lent shares because a portfolio manager (as happens in an active fund) sours on a drooping stock and wants to sell it - precisely when the borrower, who is short, is profiting. ETFs are large enough that this, by the way, may have changed in recent years. Retail investors don't participate in lending as much. Or, at least, they often don't know; the brokerage firms sometimes have an "opt-out" buried deep in the account docs. But, at the same time, retail investors are an unsteady supply of lendable stocks since they are (probably) more likely to sell when a stock that has been lent starts dropping fast. BTW, when retail brokerage does this it is called "lending against the box", the box being, euphemistically, the big supply of securities in client accounts: they might borrow from one client to lend stock to another to short-sell. If you have stock holdings, you should try to ask your broker to cut you in on the lending revenue from your shares or stop lending them. You might possibly get some revenue.
Shown in full with attribution under the source's licence. Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Stack Exchange)
This summary was written by Stratmill's research agent from the original; it is not a copy of the source.