I'm not saying you're wrong. I sold, too, remember?
I was debating your belief that shorts are better researchers and greater risk-takers than longs. I think it's not true, and I gave you examples of shorts here.
Now, granted there are plenty of people who are long mutual funds, or little old ladies (and don't call me sexist) long Johnson & Johnson who haven't researched a stock in their lives, but among active traders (and that's what a short better be) longs and shorts probably come out quite equal in the heads-up category. Active traders, whether long or short, are basically making the same decisions all the time, and many trade both ways anyway.
I have nothing against shorting. I've done it myself. The fastest money I've ever made has been on the short side, because, as you know, stocks inevitably go down faster than up. That's the attraction. Shorting is like big-game hunting, with all the fun that implies. The kill is very gratifying, and can be spectacularly rewarding in a very short time.
But I believe the real money is made long. No matter what is happening with sector rotation, or business cycles, or interest rate trends, or global money flows, there are real, lasting businesses being built that get strong enough to lead their industries. Find those companies and risking a stake is just as much fun for me as stalking a short candidate, and the payoff is much more consistent.
Sometimes it means trading. Yahoo may qualify. The most money I've ever made long any one stock is (believe it or not) Netscape...by trading the confidence cycle. I think Yahoo will eventually prove more profitable for me because they basically have no natural enemy at the moment who's compelled to obliterate them by zeroing out their market.
I agree with you, Bill, Don and others that Yahoo is priced for the next century. I hope it corrects, too. ...but the next century is pretty darn close. |
