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 : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: QwikSand who wrote (15257)	4/7/1999 3:02:00 PM
From: Alok Sinha	Respond to of 64865

This discussion on the definition of a short position is certainly getting interesting. I agree with your analysis and opinion. Just to add my 2 cents on this. When SUNW had shot through 100 the first time, I had suggested to Dale to write naked puts against what he referred to then as his short position (since it would be a covered put). His response certainly did not imply in any way that his was anything but a regular short. Now I have defended Dale aganist ridicule by SUNW longs in the past, so I don't have any interest in Dale bashing . It is fairly obvious that by casting his trade (real of fictitious) in a different light now Dale is trying to negate the perception of losses (real or fictitious). Regards Alok

To: QwikSand who wrote (15257)	4/7/1999 6:03:00 PM
From: Dale J.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

This is not a personal attack, and I apologize to the thread for extending this fairly ridiculous semantic quibble. But Dale, your credibility as an investor, already somewhat strained as you know, is further strained when you make statements like the following: No QS, I don't know that, but I do know that this thread has no credibility with me. No. There is a very simple definition of a short position that is not open to debate. Going short is not simply making a bet that the value of something will decline. It is selling something you don't own (usually but not always via borrowing it) at a price that you believe is higher than the price at which you can buy it back later. QS, try to follow along. If a guest is on CNBC talking down SUNW and the host asked him: "just so are viewers are aware...are you short SUNW?", if the CNBC guest replies NO. The host does not then, have to follow up with "what about PUTS, do you own PUTS against SUNW?" That is redundant. If the guest says he is not short SUNW, then he is not short and does not own PUTS against SUNW either. It is that simple. If it is later revealed the guest had bought a boatload of PUTS against SUNW, while talking SUNW down and denying to the host he was short, he is in deep do do.

To: QwikSand who wrote (15257)	4/7/1999 6:05:00 PM
From: Dale J.	Respond to of 64865

Your PUT position is not "more aggressive" than a genuine short for the same amount of money, even though the put position in your example could easily result in a much larger swing either way. This is because by definition, the downside risk on a genuine short position is not limited; as the price of the stock rises, you lose without limit until you cover. The downside risk on puts is limited to your bet. Regardless of whether you claim you can stop yourself out of a genuine short position if things go wrong, the possibility of uncontrollable risk, however unlikely, still exists, ... QS you are a dandy. You are a real dandy. What comic book did you read that in? First of all, before any of you whiz kids that want to comment on my short position can determine whether my PUTS are more or less aggressive, you first have to know what PUTS I bought and at what cost. You also have to know how much money I would have used to short SUNW had I not used of PUTS. You would also have to know my risk tolerance and how I react. You don't know any of those facts. You say shorting a stock outright has unlimited risks. Duh! Yes, in theory it does have unlimited risk. Especially if you are asleep at your keyboard, incompetent or otherwise brain dead. But in reality you can cover anytime you want. In theory your TV has unlimited risk of staying on all the time, in reality you can shut it off anytime you want. With PUTS, you can't move. If the trade goes against you in the first few days, you are in deep do do. If the trade continues to go against you, the threat of expiration starts to ring at your door. It's not a pretty sight. Now, I will be ok, not because I used PUTS, but because I kept all speculative trades reasonably small and I diversify. For instance I used PUTS against ORCL, SUNW and CPQ. I got two out of three. I hit home runs with ORCL and CPQ, but I struck out with SUNW. I would have been better off shorting SUNW outright. I would have had much more flexibility to get out of the trade, I would not be dealing with expiration and I would have lost less. But hindsight is 20/20

To: QwikSand who wrote (15257)	4/7/1999 6:06:00 PM
From: Dale J.	Respond to of 64865

Now if you had bet against Sun by selling naked calls, you could rightfully claim that you had a short position of some kind, since there again the downside risk is theoretically unlimited during a period of time. (Dale J.: "I really took these suckers who actually paid me a premium for the right to buy SUNW at 80 in April 1999, when we all know it's never going above 68! Damn I'm good!") QS where do you dream this stuff up? Only you could come up with that contorted definition of a short position. Listen. There are two primary ways to take out a short position. Short the stock outright or buy PUTS. Your selling calls theory, while risky, does not fit within the definition of a short. Keep dreaming QS! Dale

To: QwikSand who wrote (15257)	4/7/1999 6:14:00 PM
From: Dale J.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 64865

To any following this ridiculous saga: I took out a short position on SUNW a few months back and now some of these guys are hot and bothered because they think I have not lost enough money. I told them I was using PUTS and that my short position is small. Now they are very upset. Below is what happened. I told you guys repeatedly that my short positions are small and that I am well diversified: techstocks.com Message 6923145 Message 7272322 In message below the person asked me sincerely about risk and how I handle it, I again stated that I was well diversified, my short positions were small and that I was using PUTS. Message 6554698 Back in February in a private message to ttf I talked about my PUTS and again I reiterated my position is small: ttf I'm still here. My hat is off to you on your ORCL and SUNW predictions, I should've went Long instead of Short <g> I used APRL PUTS to short ORCL and SUNW and it looks like they will expire worthless. But that happens sometimes, they were just speculative trades. I can't believe the strength of the NASDAQ market... I have told you guys repeatedly that my short positions were small and that I am well diversified. In spite of this some of you guys continued to assume I had a mammoth short position because I was often posting on the SUNW thread. I explained that most of my trades are successful and hence I don't post to the other threads. I usually post only to the threads where my trade is not going well. In other words I work on my losers and leave my winners alone. I also explained I don't post that often to the SUNW thread, but rather am just replying to messages. Some of you guys were very hostile to me (see below), so why would I go on and on detailing my short positions to those that are hostile towards me even now. But as you saw above anyone who I thought was genuinely friendly, I was more than willing to expound on any trade they asked me about. Message 6532566 Message 6551650 Message 6557799 Message 6558862 Some of you guys are simply upset because you were hoping I would crash and burn. How pathetic!