Hey guys-
I had a scenario I wanted to throw up on the wall and see what your thoughts were on it.
This has to do with any pair of inversely-related ETFs.. one long, one short of a given sector, index, etc.
Lets take for example the FAS and the FAZ
FAS is 3x long financials, FAZ is 3x short financials.
The "idea" with these ETFs is to "try" to maintain that 3x long or short pricing. Obviously, its not always accurate.
For example, the FAZ gained 15.13% today, while FAS lost 12.74%
Here is the scenario- say you were making a trade in FAS, and it got away from you.
You are now in the red, and realize things arent looking good short term for FAS.
Normally, you would sell at a loss and look to get in at a better position.
But lets say a good entry point is still a ways off due to recent price action
..you can sell and take the loss..
OR
can you simply take an equal amount of $$ and buy the FAZ?
This should more or less halt your losses (and gains)
until FAS gets to a better entry price.. then you sell FAZ and continue on with your FAS trade, only you managed to "remove" the losses you would have incurred on the way down.
This seems too easy.. is there something wrong with my logic?
Here is an hypothetical example:
You buy FAS
FAS trades lower, and you're down $1000
You don't want to realize that $1000 loss- but you don't see a good entry point now for a ways down.
So you take an equal amount of $$ and buy FAZ.
FAS trades lower and lower- you lose an additional $3000 on your FAS position.
However, FAZ gains $3000 at the same time (more or less)
so your net at this point is still -$1000
Now FAS is setting up for a reversal-
so you stay in FAS and exit your FAZ position for +$3000
Now you are only in FAS, and down $4k - but you made $3k on FAZ, so you're down $1000 overall, but now further along in the pullback and ready for a reversal.
FAS moves up a bit and you gain $1000
and exit at breakeven.
If you had simply held on for dear life and tried to get back to breakeven..
you'd need a $4000 gain from the 2nd entry point, rather than just $1000
hmmm
I had a scenario I wanted to throw up on the wall and see what your thoughts were on it.
This has to do with any pair of inversely-related ETFs.. one long, one short of a given sector, index, etc.
Lets take for example the FAS and the FAZ
FAS is 3x long financials, FAZ is 3x short financials.
The "idea" with these ETFs is to "try" to maintain that 3x long or short pricing. Obviously, its not always accurate.
For example, the FAZ gained 15.13% today, while FAS lost 12.74%
Here is the scenario- say you were making a trade in FAS, and it got away from you.
You are now in the red, and realize things arent looking good short term for FAS.
Normally, you would sell at a loss and look to get in at a better position.
But lets say a good entry point is still a ways off due to recent price action
..you can sell and take the loss..
OR
can you simply take an equal amount of $$ and buy the FAZ?
This should more or less halt your losses (and gains)
until FAS gets to a better entry price.. then you sell FAZ and continue on with your FAS trade, only you managed to "remove" the losses you would have incurred on the way down.
This seems too easy.. is there something wrong with my logic?
Here is an hypothetical example:
You buy FAS
FAS trades lower, and you're down $1000
You don't want to realize that $1000 loss- but you don't see a good entry point now for a ways down.
So you take an equal amount of $$ and buy FAZ.
FAS trades lower and lower- you lose an additional $3000 on your FAS position.
However, FAZ gains $3000 at the same time (more or less)
so your net at this point is still -$1000
Now FAS is setting up for a reversal-
so you stay in FAS and exit your FAZ position for +$3000
Now you are only in FAS, and down $4k - but you made $3k on FAZ, so you're down $1000 overall, but now further along in the pullback and ready for a reversal.
FAS moves up a bit and you gain $1000
and exit at breakeven.
If you had simply held on for dear life and tried to get back to breakeven..
you'd need a $4000 gain from the 2nd entry point, rather than just $1000
hmmm
