You and others keep repeating this, but it makes no difference what FT does in regard to lending out shares.
If I can buy GME stock right now, and we know for a fact that more than double the number of real shares are floating around than actually exist, it doesn’t matter if FT lends out my “share” or not. The likelihood of me having bought a real share in the first place is almost zero. The institutional investors with multiple percent stakes in the company are in a good position to get guarantees that they have the actual shares, retail investors not so much.
And that’s great in theory. But if FT or the broker goes bust and the share was fabricated several layers away, honestly I don’t rate my chances of getting it back.
And I don’t really want to fixate on GME here, because honestly it’s not a stock I even care about. My point was that it seems unrealistic to just believe in the happy day scenario when there is at least one example of a common stock where the proof of ownership could be next to impossible.
And like I say, who is going to track down all these problem cases in the event FT or the broker went bust? Because my recourse in that situation is to go to FSCS whose stance is maximum £85k compensation.
This isn’t an issue about whether I trust FT or not. Obviously, I trust all the companies I invest with, or I’d be a fool to invest with them. The issue is what happens when something goes wrong.