And what happens in the shareholder meeting?
Would the previous majority shareholder group lose their majority even if they had sold no shares?
Or would the new majority shareholders have no decision making power even though they have more "shares"?
Would the previous majority shareholder group lose their majority even if they had sold no shares?
Or would the new majority shareholders have no decision making power even though they have more "shares"?
This can be used to get more votes by borrowing stocks just to hold and vote.
But I'm asking in the case of naked short, which is what is being defended as "superior system" in this thread.
Whether a long is synthetic/borrowed or primary, their interests are aligned. They both want the company to do as well as possible. It also avoids voting rights shenanigans that exist, even with the current borrow-to-short system. At the very least it seems extending voting rights to synthetic longs won't ipso facto make corporate governance worse. I see no obvious downsides. And the academic evidence shows that removing constraints to short sales makes corporate governance significantly better.