OMG I can't believe this fallacy still exists in trading!

Are you saying that price stops are an ineffective method of managing risk as it comes at too high a price???

Are you suggesting a trader should average down??

Do you differentiate between day trading and investing??

"ONLY" a 50% drawdown??? Do you not make a distinction between a 10 stock portfolio vs a single asset??

Do you trade?






The article used 50% as an arbitrary number to use as an example. Obviously if a stock drops 50% it's a capitulation and you will have to wait for a recovery. The part about the article that makes no sense is showing that after only a 50% drop, the stock/portfolio now has to recover 100% just to reach break even...implying that it will be harder for a stock or portfolio to recover, and that traders need to mitigate losses because of this. This is a fallacy
 
Of course it does.How many stocks double in a reasonable time frame?


And I ask again,whats more likely, a stock dropping 50% and rebounding 100% or a stock dropping 50% only to fall another 50%?? You dont know,do you :)

I fully understand the "limitations" of a lognormal distribution.but your whole argument is banking on a tail event to recover..dont you trade options??

It sounds to me like you are implying that a stock that is down 50% has a greater chance to double than a stock that is perhaps flat or up???

You keep on saying less likely,but you dont say less likely than option B..

Regardless,massive drawdowns are crushers especially when compounding..



If a $10 stock has dropped by 50% to $5 it will have to recover by 100% to return to $10. Do you think this makes your chances of recovering your losses less likely?
 
I crashed at Laguna Seca into the Armco barriers. You need to stop talking about your classic Lambo.
If you read and heed his fervent suppositions here and apply them to your option stategies, you could buy 5 classic Lamborghini's. What are you, a f'n noob?
 
Back
Top