fgjsfd;g's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/135876/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/83014-options-trader-friday-outlook?source=feed#comment-194705 194705 Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:00:26 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/73172-short-amazon-ahead-of-wednesday-earnings-amtech?source=feed#comment-155508 155508 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:42:03 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/71752-inverse-oil-etf-plunges-26-what-gives?source=feed#comment-147951 147951 Wed, 09 Apr 2008 19:12:27 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/64853-poor-people-use-yahoo-better-off-use-google?source=feed#comment-117061 117061 Tue, 19 Feb 2008 02:04:53 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/62020-5-reasons-to-buy-mcdonald-s-asap?source=feed#comment-113439 113439 Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:15:36 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/61431-shorting-etfs-goodbye-to-the-old-risks?source=feed#comment-112930 112930
Let's assume, on any given day (or week, or even month),
a short position has approx the same risk/reward profile as a long position.
Expected volatility can be 5% in either direction, lets say..


However, shorting's risk/reward profile seems to be fundamentally different over any extended duration of time, particularly, if the amount of capital is not compounded/rebalanced (as it implicitly happens on longs)

Let's take a large stock movement within the dollar range b/w $3 and $24.

Case 1: Shorting a stock from $24 -> 12 -> 6 -> 3


1) If not compounded, you make 90%+ or so. By the end, you have a miniscule short position left. You're still short the same number of shares, but at a fraction of the original price. Since the market value of the position has decreased w/ the price, further 50% drops do not yield the same incremental profit. (Inverse compounding, if you will?) ie: You have not maximinzed/capitalized on a good trading idea, despite predicting a 21 point move.

2) Even if you maintain the original dollar amount as a constant (with additional shorting) all the way down. With $24 -> 12 -> 6 -> 3 , you still only made 230%, assuming you reinvest proceeds at the intervals stated.

3) Further, you can periodically reinvest ALL profits into the short, so, not only are you maintaining the original position dollar amount, you are letting additional profits ride as well, and increasing the dollar position size, as the stock drops. Even still, you do not get the same profit as being long if the stock moves up for the identical dollar range. (Theoretically, I think the continuous compounding concept/limit of "e" applies here? ie: Reinvesting at x% drops, even if done every 10%, or 5%, or 1%, or every penny. Even though this is not possible, in practice, I still am trying to see if shorting "can" be the same as going long, if you get the same dollar range movement. ie: You short everything, ever penny of the way down.

Case 2: On the other hand, being long from 3 -> 6 -> 12 -> 24 = 700%

Conc: As an individual (ie: not for hedging) long-term position,
seems shorting does not offer the same inherent "math".... for upside potential.

Apples/oranges ?
]]> Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:25:07 -0500
Let's assume, on any given day (or week, or even month),
a short position has approx the same risk/reward profile as a long position.
Expected volatility can be 5% in either direction, lets say..


However, shorting's risk/reward profile seems to be fundamentally different over any extended duration of time, particularly, if the amount of capital is not compounded/rebalanced (as it implicitly happens on longs)

Let's take a large stock movement within the dollar range b/w $3 and $24.

Case 1: Shorting a stock from $24 -> 12 -> 6 -> 3


1) If not compounded, you make 90%+ or so. By the end, you have a miniscule short position left. You're still short the same number of shares, but at a fraction of the original price. Since the market value of the position has decreased w/ the price, further 50% drops do not yield the same incremental profit. (Inverse compounding, if you will?) ie: You have not maximinzed/capitalized on a good trading idea, despite predicting a 21 point move.

2) Even if you maintain the original dollar amount as a constant (with additional shorting) all the way down. With $24 -> 12 -> 6 -> 3 , you still only made 230%, assuming you reinvest proceeds at the intervals stated.

3) Further, you can periodically reinvest ALL profits into the short, so, not only are you maintaining the original position dollar amount, you are letting additional profits ride as well, and increasing the dollar position size, as the stock drops. Even still, you do not get the same profit as being long if the stock moves up for the identical dollar range. (Theoretically, I think the continuous compounding concept/limit of "e" applies here? ie: Reinvesting at x% drops, even if done every 10%, or 5%, or 1%, or every penny. Even though this is not possible, in practice, I still am trying to see if shorting "can" be the same as going long, if you get the same dollar range movement. ie: You short everything, ever penny of the way down.

Case 2: On the other hand, being long from 3 -> 6 -> 12 -> 24 = 700%

Conc: As an individual (ie: not for hedging) long-term position,
seems shorting does not offer the same inherent "math".... for upside potential.

Apples/oranges ?
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/61431-shorting-etfs-goodbye-to-the-old-risks?source=feed#comment-112929 112929 www.nuclearphynance.co...
]]> Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:24:43 -0500 www.nuclearphynance.co...
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/60761-immediate-short-selling-opportunity-in-bonds?source=feed#comment-111735 111735 Sun, 20 Jan 2008 14:50:30 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/60717-the-oversold-u-s-market-gets-even-more-oversold?source=feed#comment-111389 111389 Fri, 18 Jan 2008 12:30:13 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/60725-the-fear-is-palpable-time-to-buy?source=feed#comment-111387 111387 Fri, 18 Jan 2008 12:26:35 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/58854-an-attractive-entry-for-an-amazon-short?source=feed#comment-108077 108077 Worst trade of the year.]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2008 14:57:36 -0500 Worst trade of the year.]]>