But ..... no one, except the professional short, gets hurt if a stock runs higher.
It's interesting that folks can't see that people who buy long at unsustainable levels do get hurt. What of the newbie trader home from work the day after Thanksgiving who bought ADSP in the 30s, 40s, or 50s? There is little chance that ADSP is ever going to trade at those levels again.
"Many shorts revel in pummeling a stock, and those that own it, into submission, laughing all the while the person is simply asking why? what happened? "
You act as if shorts have a monopoly on this behavior. Perhaps you're not seeing it when the long side engages in it, but it happens regularly. Perhaps you might wander over to the Anthony@PAcific, Dear Anthony, thread and peruse the utter glee many took in the losses that some of the shorts took from ADSP.
Is it so tough to really try to help create, rather than destroy?"
An interesting fallacy that short sellers 'destroy', when actually a short sale preserves wealth. BEOS opened yesterday with a market cap of 1.34 billion, and closed with a market cap 30% lower. That money would have simply evaporated were it not for the short sellers, and the price would likely have fallen lower. Would BEOS have gone higher if there were no shorts? Perhaps. I'm just not sure how anyone can claim that the buyers at an extreme peak don't get hurt when paying an unsustainably high price in the midst of such a run. BEOS may make it back to the 40s, it's not as cut and dried in my mind as ADSP. I'd also like to know how longs 'create'. Unless buying into an IPO or secondary offering, none of the money goes to the company. In a healthy market, the creation of wealth, i.e. shareholder value, comes from the company itself, and is reflected in the stock price. The stock price does not 'create' anything in a healthy market, but rather reflects that which is being created. Similarly, trading a security in the secondary market does not 'destroy'. The destruction of shareholder value comes from inside the company.
Yes, perhaps I am indeed a nattering nabob of negativity. I find it much easier to identify extreme tops and sell them short than to buy long. I doubt that makes me a negative person. Yes, I enjoy seeing a stock that I've shorted do a waterfall decline, but that's because my analysis of the security is being validated by the market. I doubt my pleasure in seeing BEOS plummet from the open was any different that that experienced by ESHR longs when that name ran from 8 to 19.
I really think it's silly to differentiate between folks for the simple reason that they buy to close instead of buying to open. There can be no valid argument that short sellers should be quiet little mice and not voice their opinion. Is it just annoying to the longs that shorts make their opinion known because they want to sell at higher prices? What of the folks to whom they sell? Will a stock continue to increase in price forever if no one mentions its short comings? Would BOST be trading over 200 now if the shorts hadn't pointed out the monkey business going on there? Perhaps BXMNF, SOLV, IRID, SEXI and IDID would never have hurt the fools who went long if only those 'destroying' shorts had kept their mouths shut.
Regards,
Barb |
