Phantom shares

Problem: System allows more ownership claims (entitlements, E) than real shares (S). This inflates phantom supply, suppressing price.

Why:

  1. Cash-in-lieu = ETF creation without delivering stock.

  2. CNS netting = hides the resulting failure-to-deliver in pooled obligations.

  3. Phantom entitlements are treated as "locatable" inventory.

  4. Loop repeats using its own IOUs as feedstock.

Result: E > S. The gap (E - S) is phantom supply. Price discovery breaks. Risk accumulates in hidden failures until forced settlement (buy‑in or squeeze).

COUNTERPARTIES

DTC: Holds real shares (static at 100)

AP: Initiates creation, uses cash-in-lieu

ETF: Issues shares, books receivables

NSCC CNS: Netting engine that hides failures

Broker: Credits phantom entitlements to accounts

Market: Where phantom claims circulate

How It Works

Setup: GME has 100 real shares at DTC. All entitlements start matched 1:1.

The Loop:

  1. AP needs GME — wants to create ETF basket requiring 10 GME

  2. Can't locate — no shares available to borrow/deliver

  3. Pays cash — $1000 substituted for 10 GME (cash-in-lieu)

  4. ETF created — fund issues shares, books "GME receivable" (IOU)

  5. Phantom born — buyer's broker credits 10 GME exposure. Now 110 entitlements, still 100 real shares. Gap = 10 phantom.

  6. CNS nets — NSCC pools all obligations, anonymizes the fail, resets 13-day clock. Loop repeats.


Flow of Funds (Creation)


How Each Factor Contributes

Mechanism
Role in Phantom Creation

Cash-in-lieu

Decouples creation from delivery. ETF shares minted without underlying.

Short selling

Each short creates +1 entitlement (buyer) while original holder keeps theirs. E = S + SI.

CNS netting

Pools gross obligations → net. Hides which trade failed. Reduces forced delivery to ~10% of gross.

Derivatives

Options MM exception: can naked short to hedge. Married puts reset FTD clocks.

OTC/Dark pools

60%+ volume off-exchange. Less transparency. Easier to internalize without delivery.

Securities lending

Same share lent multiple times. Phantom entitlements become "locatable" for next short.

T+1 settlement

Rolling window lets obligations persist. New creates stack before old ones settle.


CNS Netting: The Enabler

Without CNS:

  • Broker A owes 100 shares to Broker B

  • Broker B owes 100 shares to Broker A

  • Both must deliver 100 shares each

With CNS (90% netting):

  • NSCC nets: 100 - 100 = 0

  • Zero shares physically move

  • Both sides credit entitlements to customers anyway

Result: Gross trading volume explodes while physical delivery stays minimal. Entitlements multiply. Phantoms accumulate. The gap between E and S widens until forced buy-in (rare) or squeeze.


The Recursive Force

CNS ensures the loop never breaks by masking delivery failures in a pooled net position.

chevron-rightindex.htmlhashtag

v1

chevron-rightsimplehashtag
chevron-rightsimplehashtag

Last updated