Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GVTucker who wrote (180773)	4/13/2005 5:16:33 PM
From: Amy J	Respond to of 186894

RE: "Your gains on a previous trade are irrelevant." Who saids gains on a previous trade were relevant? edit: I see you are referring to the statistic. Of course it's true that each instance carries the same risk. I won't delete the rest of this post even though it's irrelevant to your point. Buying a leap without an underlying position in the stock is pure gambling. A leap that enables a protective hedge is a conservative move to capture gains and not risk losing those entire gains. So you don't think buying GOOG is a gamble at these extreme heights? I think Goog shareholders would be much better situated if they hedged and captured their gains now. Of course, you might feel it's better to gamble by holding rather than hedging. : ) On a different note, I don't think they should allow long or short options without underlying positions in IRAs. Because we will pick up the tab if they mess up. Capitalistic gains and socialistic risk. Regards, Amy J