To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (1095 ) 2/18/1998 4:32:00 AM From: Mr Logic Respond to of 1518
Bill, >>However, I disagree with his advice on setting limits.<< I think we will have to disagree on this as a difference in styles. All closing a position does is cost you the additional commission/spread. I don't adhere to the notion that gains/losses are not real until realised. Goes something like this (reverse case for long) BETTER: short @ 100 stock goes to 110, cover, loss 10 stock goes to 120, short again stock hits 80, gain 40. Net gain 30 - extra commission vs 20 for holding your position, *and* you are better protected if stock goes even higher than 120. WORSE case short @ 100 stock goes to 110, cover, loss 10 stock hits 80, never get back in on the short, or back in at (say) 100 for a net gain of 10 vs 20 this is not to say that I have not broken the rules. I have, and wished I hadn't. Re fundamentals , absolutely agree, and also take into account 'anti-fundamentals' (I just made that up). With stocks like ACLY, there is a good, fundamental case why it should not sustain the current stock levels. Nobody on this board has argued why fundamentally it should rise, because I don't believe that it is possible to make that argument with even a shred of credibility. MSFT is also way overpriced, but there is a fundamental argument as to why it should do even better. Re>> If I liked buying AMAT at 30, why not add a little at 25<< So long as you're diversification/balance rules allow it I guess that's fine. If I take 1/2 a position then doubling up is OK. If I bought as much as I wanted at 30, attractive as it is at 25 I shouldn't buy more. Another rule that I've broken (and on balance not suffered by breaking). Good to have rules even if you break them... forces you to reevaluate. Maybe we should leave these good people to focus on the ACLY discussion and hop over to Roger's Short picks as you suggest. P.