Market manipulation on ASX, page-52

Yes, I do.

Nobody is suggesting that the same shares cannot be lent out over and over and over again. That's not the point.

I was pushing back on the assertion that there is an effective unlimited supply of shares that can be shorted, which is demonstrably incorrect.

Worked Example:
In order for a given parcel of short-sold shares to be lent over and over and over they MUST follow a conceptual order flow along these lines, or similar:

1. Long Holder #1 loans a 1M share parcel to Shorter #1.
2. Shorter #1 short-sells the same 1M share parcel to Long Holder #2 (a buyer), who then loans the same 1M parcel to Shorter #2.
3. Shorter #2 now short-sells the same 1M share parcel to Long Holder #3 (a buyer), who then loans the same 1M parcel to Shorter #3.
4. Shorter #3 now short-sells the same 1M share parcel to Long Holder #4 (a buyer) sits pat with no lending to anyone.

The example ends with the following summary:
Turnover:

• 3M of shares traded in total. This volume represents the same 1M share parcel (of a finite pool of SOI) that has been turned-over 3x.

Current Registered Holders:
1M shares, being LH#4.

• Long Holder #1 is not currently a registered holder because he signed over his legal ownership to Shorter #1 at Step 1. Long Holder #1 does, however, have the right to be repaid the same number of shares by Shorter #1 in due course, which will require Shorter #1 to wade into the market to repurchase the same number of shares sometime in the future.
• Long Holder #2 is not currently a registered holder because he signed over his legal ownership to Shorter #2 shortly after Step 2. Long Holder #2 does, however, have the right to be repaid the same number of shares by Shorter #2 in due course, which will require Shorter #2 to wade into the market to repurchase the same number of shares sometime in the future.
• Long Holder #3 is not currently a registered holder because he signed over his legal ownership to Shorter #3 shortly after Step 3. Long Holder #3 does, however, have the right to be repaid the same number of shares by Shorter #3 in due course, which will require Shorter #3 to wade into the market to repurchase the same number of shares sometime in the future.
• Long Holder #4 is currently the ONLY registered holder of the 1M share parcel pursuant to his purchase from Shorter #3. (LH#4 is odd school and doesn't lend out his shares to barbarians.)

Current Open Short Positions:
3M shares, being 3 x 1M short-sales from Shorters #1, #2, and #3.
This represents 3M unavoidable future trade volume relating the Shorter(s) eventually closing-out their position(s).

Current Open Share Loan Repayment Obligations:
3M shares, being 3 x 1M loan repayments due to LH#1, LH#2, and LH#3.

Real-World Constraints:
An assertion has been made that related parties, using different names, can perform the above order flow on-market* over and over and over, without interruption, thus creating effectively unlimited shares available for shorting. The problem, however, is that in a liquid market such as PLS there are a many buyers and sellers. In order for this particular manipulation to occur, each successive short trade (per above) would need to be made with the precisely targeted friendly (related) buyer who is in on the game. This exact matching of targeted friendly sellers to buyers over and over would need to operate like clockwork in a broader market (actually two markets - ASX and C`boe) in which there are many other buyers and sellers, and the associated order flow rules. Does anyone really believe that this is possible on any kind of scale in a liquid stock like PLS?
(*Not directly stated, but it would need to occur be on-market in order to influence (manipulate) the prevailing SP.)

I humbly suggest that while a concept might appear sound in theory, it can break-down badly in real world practice.

I'm overdue now. Gotta fly.

Cheers,
Z.