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.

Pastimes : Ask Mohan about the Market -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tommaso who wrote (7436)	11/8/1997 11:17:00 AM
From: Elllk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18056

Tommaso Good explanation, although it is clearly of the a posteriori persuasion. Larry

To: Tommaso who wrote (7436)	11/8/1997 1:37:00 PM
From: Mark Nelson	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 18056

<Plainly put, well-financed and diversified short sellers who simply pick the highest P/E recent issues and hold their short positions are going to make the killing of a lifetime.> Good post. It brings to mind something that I think others on this thread may relate to. I have been wrestling with an ethical conundrum re: profiting from the mis-fortunes of others with a short position when the market tanks. To begin with, this may be a flawed assumption. The profit one may derive from a short position is not "from" the loss of another's long position, it is merely concurrent. More importantly, I find myself wanting something to happen which others would call "bad". Is this wrong? A friend put it this way. Say you have a grocery store in Florida. If a hurricane threatens to strike, the town cleans out your shelves in panic. You make a profit, they get their supplies. No problem. However, what if, in anticipation of the storm, you bring in extra stock. Pure speculation with a risk. You find yourself hoping the storm will threaten to strike so that your stock will get sold. Is this a morally defensible position? Is this a valid metaphor? One other thought. The evaporation of capital gains in a crash is mitigated by the gains of those who are short. This is a preservation of wealth when the market is viewed as a closed system. I would go one step further to conclude that a short position equal to the long positions of the entire market would provide a net preservation of the entire capital gains (provided the short position was established "at the top"). So, in a moral context, this would be ok(?) Just a thought. Mark