The big problem I have is that the banks borrow that stock via deceptive means. The longs have no idea that by simply holding your stock in a Canadian bank cash account such as CIBC, you have given consent for your shares to be used as a counterparty transaction. This is a breach of trust, and a conflit of intrest.

The trading agreements of the banks cash account hide this approval within their agrement.... When your first trade is done, you agree to the terms of the contract. Very few investors read that agreement...

If the traders had to call an individual investor to borrow the stock I contend they would never get a single investor to agree to loan their stock to a short seller. The only way they can get these "borrows" is to do it in a deceptive way... That is the fundemental problem with the short argument.... The shorters indicate they have borrowed the stock.... problem is the lender is unaware that his property is being borrowed... That means it is actually being temporarily taken without explicit permission... Permission via deception.

This could be remidied via filling a class action lawsuit against all instiutions having these deceptive clauses in their agreements.... And request the courts for a temporary restraining order preventing any shorting without explicit permission from an actual holder of the stock.... The way the law was intended. This would eliminate the "Naked short"... and "in house" short phenominum.

JMHO