Example: Short Form Participation Agreement: Fill & Download for Free

The 'pure' principle behind short-selling is effectively selling an instrument (stock, bond, currency) in advance of having actually bought it. You therefore receive cash upfront for something you will then try and actually deliver later, thereby profiting from any potential decline in the instrument's price.However, as always, the devil is in the detail! Let me thus begin first by describing the generalised mechanics of a short, and subsequently give a more detailed description of the potential mechanism by which it actually takes place, using broker-enabled share shorts as the example.------------Generalised Example:Groupon shares (GRPN) today trade just above $10. A "pure" short (ignoring transaction costs and actual mechanics) would have you sell the share on the open market, in exchange for receiving $10. If in a month's time the share price has declined to $8, you could close your short (buying the share you never owed in order to balance things out) and you will thus effectively have pocketed $10-$8 = $2 in profit. Had the share price instead moved up to $13 on the date you closed the short, you would have lost $3 ($10-$13). If instead you waited another couple of months and the share price hit $6, closing then would net you $4 in profit ($10-$6).------------Detailed Example (Broker-Enabled Share Short):In practice however, it's very clear that whilst the short-seller (henceforth referred to as Bob) might benefit from the arrangement described above, it's really not so clear why anyone (lets call that buyer Alice) would agree to buy anything from Bob that he didn't actually own!In fact, in the case of Groupon, which is a listed equity, the exchange platform has very strict rules: you need to deliver the shares by T+3 (3 trading days) - or else be fined/banned etc.So how does Bob go about shorting Groupon for longer than 3 days? Well in practice, Bob will contact his broker/banker (Charlie) who will try to find an actual owner of the Groupon share (Dave) who intends to keep it for the long-run.Bob will therefore come to an arrangement with Dave to temporarily borrow his Groupon shares, in exchange for a (daily) rental fee, and an agreement that Bob will further pay Dave any other money he would have received had he not lent Bob the shares (e.g. dividends). Charlie will further vouch for Bob, in case for some reason Bob is unable to give the shares back if Dave changes his mind.So let's look at the mechanic here: Bob borrows 1 share from Dave on day 0. No money changes hands, but every day from then on, Bob needs to pay Dave a rental fee (e.g. 2% APR of the day 0 share price- this fee is negotiable and really depends on supply/demand).That same day, Bob immediately sells the share he just borrowed, receiving $10 in his account. However, Charlie reminds Bob that Charlie vouched for him, and in order to avoid any future risks, Charlie forces Bob to keep the $10 in a margin account to cover the future cost of buying the share back to give back to Dave. What's more, Charlie is well aware that the stock could go up, so forces Bob to put up an additional margin (again, negotiable, but 20% is not unusual) into the margin account - so an additional $2.Let's summarise the positions again, keeping in mind this is still day 0. Alice now owns the share. Bob has effectively spent $2 of his own cash but holds rights to $12 of cash sitting in a margin account held by Charlie. Dave doesn't own anything anymore except the rights to a share to be delivered by Bob, secured on the $12 margin account held by Charlie.Now let's fast-forward 1 year, and assume that no dividends were paid by Groupon. At this stage, if the share price hasn't moved, the only change is that Bob had to pay Dave the rental fee of 2% or $0.2. If either Dave or Bob want to close the position, then Charlie uses the $12 in the margin account to buy a share for $10, giving Dave the share and Bob the remaining $2. In the end, Bob will have made a loss of $0.2 on a cash investment of $2 (so -10%), whilst Dave will have gained $0.2 on his $10 share (so +2%). Alice (the rest of the market) will neither have lost nor gained.What if the share price had instead dropped to $8? In that case, Dave would have received his share back, whilst Bob would have received the $4 left over in the margin account. Bob's gain would thus have been $4-$2-$0.2=$1.8 on $2 invested or +90%. Meanwhile, Dave has theoretically lost money, since his share is only worth $8, but in practice he'd intended to hold onto it anyways, and in the meantime he made $0.2 in rental fee from Bob, so is better off than he would have been.Finally, what if the share price had risen to $12 instead? If Dave didn't want his share back, then there is clearly no incentive for Bob to give it back now (especially if he still thinks the price will fall) as he will then crystallise a loss of $2 + the $0.2 rental fee! However, Charlie has vouched for Bob, so he also gets a say! Depending on their agreement, Charlie may feel this is too much risk now, and force Bob to close the position (this happens, and hurts Bob a lot!). More likely however, Charlie will continue the arrangement, but will require Bob to post more collateral in the margin account in order for there to still be that 20% coverage level- so 120% of $12 or $14.4, meaning Bob is forced to choose between loosing all the money he originally put up, or add another $2.4 to stay in the game.These are only examples of a wide range of outcomes for the short, but should help highlight the mechanics by which it is implemented and how each participant is incentivised to participate.As per the example, short-selling can be a very rewarding strategy as it does not necessarily require as much upfront capital; however the potential for loss is significantly greater (and theoretically unlimited).It is also worth noting that all three participants- Bob, Charlie and Dave have some form of a say as to when the position should be closed, and this is an additional investment risk that can be quite detrimental if badly understood/managed.Finally, there are many other ways of shorting financial instruments, ranging from the contractual or structured. (derivatives, options, contracts-for-difference, structured products, short ETFs) to the more devious (manipulating settlement times, rolling your naked shorts etc), but all of these are broadly technical variations on the above.

This is a perennial question in criminal law courses all over the United States. In my criminal law course, the professor posed it as a question of “cheering on the rapist.”The answer, like all good legal answers, is it depends.The question ultimately is one of intent. Generally speaking, crimes require a mens rea, or “guilty mind.” Our modern legal codes articulate four levels of intent, in order of culpability:negligently, or where the defendant should have been aware of a substantial risk of the specified result occurring;recklessly, or where the defendant either grossly violated a duty of ordinary care or was aware of a substantial risk of the specified result occurring and consciously disregarded it;knowingly, or where the defendant was practically certain that the specified result would occur and did it anyway; andpurposefully, or where it was the defendant’s “conscious object” to cause the specified result.The statute specifying what the crime is will usually have the required intent level to be culpable for the crime in it.Encouragement is also not the actual commission of the crime itself, so we also have to look at some form of accessory liability, either accomplice liability or co-conspirator liability. Conspiracy and complicity are not the same thing, even though they are easy to confuse.Encouragement is typically good enough to prove negligence or recklessness under most criminal statutes. So, while a bystander ordinarily has no duty to act, if you cheer on the rapist, you’re probably going to qualify for accessory to rape.Homicide, on the other hand, might be a little trickier. If you cheer on a guy who is trying to die through suicide by cop, that’s probably going to qualify for manslaughter, which generally requires negligent or reckless intent. It probably would not sustain a murder charge.However, it’s also possible that your encouragement was wholly intentional and purposeful and you knew that it was going to kill that guy. Maybe you encouraged the guy to rob the 7–11 as a joke, knowing he was going to wear a grenade vest and cartridge belts and have an assault rifle with him, and you called the cops to get him killed. At best, that arguably does show that you were practically certain of that result. A reasonable argument could be made that it was your “conscious object.”That level of intent could elevate your encouragement all the way on up to murder.But the question here is whether someone could be guilty of a separate crime. So, that rules out complicity, because that’s an associate crime. Technically, they are separate crimes, but I get the feeling that’s not what you’re asking, and you want to know whether the encourager could be convicted of a crime that doesn’t depend on the culpability of the encouraged, right?For example, you encourage someone to commit a crime, but they don’t do it. Is that encouragement a standalone crime?And again, the answer is it depends.Incitement is a crime in certain jurisdictions. It’s typically viewed as an inchoate crime, like attempt. That encouragement might rise to the level of incitement, and that would be a standalone, separate crime from any other crimes committed by other people that could give rise to other liability.There are other crimes that could potentially cover encouragement, as well, depending on the facts.Let’s say your buddy comes to you and says, “I’m thinking about killing my wife. What do you think?” and you tell him “That’s a great idea, Bob. You should totally do that. She’s a bitch. What do you want to do? Poison? Gun? Push ’er off a cliff? All of those sound fitting. Let me know if you need me to do anything.” Here, you threw out some ideas, got yourself involved, and agreed to participate. That could fit the requirements for conspiracy.Conspiracy is a complete crime all by itself when the agreement is formed. If you do nothing at all later and Bob does push his wife off a cliff, you could still be found guilty as a co-conspirator. But even if Bob doesn’t push his wife off a cliff, just by agreeing to be part of the criminal act, you could be found guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.The question here is nuanced and fact-dependent, and depends greatly on exactly what type of encouragement was given.Essentially, as with most legal answers, the short answer is yes, with an if, and the long answer is no, with a but.

The value of this cartoon will become apparent at the end of my answer.Not too many people are aware of the “behind the scenes” playout that took place before The United States participation in WW I and II. People are just now coming to grips with what Canada did in WWI alone and the infamous last 100 Days Offensive spearheaded by the Canadian Corps.Hitler Visits Canadian WWI war memorial, Vimy Ridge, and orders its protection.Canadian Vimy Ridge War Memorial todayThis is a prime example: Robert Child an Emmy® nominated screenwriter, director and published author with Penguin/Random House LLC.Amazon.com: How Canada Won the Great War eBook: Robert Child: Kindle Store“Preface: Yes, I agree the title of this book is provocative but it is my opinion based on working in Toronto for fifteen months on this project. The record is clear to anyone who bothers to look. But that opinion does in no way lessen my respect and regard for what the French, British, Australian and American armies accomplished in some of the most terrible fighting soldiers ever faced. I spent a great deal of time in Europe at Vimy Ridge, at Arras, at Amiens and many other far off places including Jigsaw Wood, Burlon Wood and Castle Boves. I stood in now peaceful fields that were once battlefields of the Hindenburg Line which Canadians shed blood to cross. And I said a silent prayer over the hallowed ground where many remain.The evocative aspect of the location of WWI Commonwealth War Grave Commission cemeteries is the fact that they are the spots on which the soldiers drew their last breaths and almost all are situated on ground that leads up hill. The fact that Canada was not yet a formalized nation but a Dominion at the close of the war may be the reason that the country has not been given the credit it is due. In a small way I hope this short book opens some eyes. I am not Canadian yet I have a profound respect for guts, heroism and the tenacity expended to keep pushing forward when all before you is horror and darkness. There are few wars, which can match the carnage of WWI with perhaps the exception of the American Civil War. And that is why I believe people are so fascinated by these events. They illustrate the limit of human endurance as well as the depth of its depravity. General Sir Arthur Currie sums up war best at the end of this book and it is fitting that he has the last word.I hope you enjoy the story.Robert Child”On another Quora Question/Answer, I wrote a piece [1], which now a part of it seems to be fitting for this answer. It’s a quiet secret behind the scenes sort of thing. It was an agreement between three countries of what to do if worse came to worse and how that agreement helped to springboard America’s entrance into the Second World War. Here’s the quote from that answer.“Well, to be honest, it was a dark period for democracy between 1939 and 1941. The British Commonwealth was pretty much the only viable resistance left against fascism [3] in defence of democracy[4]. Had we lost North Africa, the Mediterranean theatre, Gibraltar, and the Isles of Britain, how could Canada and America launch an attack on Europe later? With all the might that Germany and later Italy had to throw at the USSR because there wasn’t an Eastern Front, would the Russians still beat the odds? Britain and the Commonwealth had to hold on for time.Even though The United States neutrality acts of the 1930s [6] tried to keep America out of the war, President Roosevelt knew better. It would only be a matter of time. With sneaky tactics, he managed to circumvent the acts and along with Canada’s cooperation delivered much-needed war materiel (material-parts, materiel-finished articles like tanks) to the Commonwealth.Another misconception is Canada’s and other Commonwealth nations’ role in the early stages of WWII. Canada was not under Britain's control. She was her own country. The American military and Roosevelt knew a war was coming and needed to prepare for the worst case scenario. That would be the loss of Europe I mentioned above. Britain had already moved all her gold reserves to Ottawa (Canada) and was preparing to move everything it could to Canada in that worse case senerio…. including the prized British Fleet.But to continue the fight America was needed and in an active role. McKenzie King and Roosevelt could use this argument of national defence to form a treaty to unite with Canada to fight off the Nazis. But, Rosevelt wanted the mighty British Fleet under US command if that ever happened. Churchill wasn’t excited about that. It was the Prime Minister of Canada, McKenzie King, who worked on Churchill. Eventually, we have this. Ogdensburg Agreement - Wikipedia and later this Permanent Joint Board on Defense - Wikipedia. Churchhill was not happy. At this point in history, world power shifted from Britain to The United States with the help of Canada. The stage was set in August of 1940.The Japanese helped out on Dec 7, of 1941. A number of strategic British and American installations were hit along with Pearl Harbor. Hong Kong was one. Canada had two regiments stationed there and lost 2000 after 2 weeks of bloody fighting.The Americans were finally in.By this time Canada had a significant military and manufacturing buildup. The end of the war would see Canada with the third or fourth largest military in the world. One programme that started off early in the war and the Americans used at the start of their war was the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan - Wikipedia. Britains answer to training much-needed flight crews and fighter pilots with much of it centred in Canada. A flight/fighter instructor of the “Red Tails” was one [5].Britain and Commonwealth bought time for the Americans with their blood. Had Britain lost Europe, it would have been very difficult if impossible for the remaining Commonwealth and The United States to win. American propaganda film actually pointed this out in the series, “Why We Fight” in the episode, “War Comes to America [8].You can view the series on YouTube.The rest, as they say, was history.” [1]The question asked…. who contributed more. Do we compare nuts and bolts? Do we compare accounting leggers side by side? Do we tally the dead and maimed side by side? Do we use capita as a handicap? How do you quantify courage, fear, hopelessness and determination? What would have happened if…. and I agree, for such a short word it can carry a lot of weight…. if Canada did not exist during that most darkest period of humanity between 1939 and 1941?[1] Fred Paul[3] fascism - Bing[4] democracy - Bing[5] Mentioned in the Red Tail movie (2012).[6] Neutrality Acts of the 1930s - Wikipedia[8] Why We Fight - Wikipedia