philh comments on Stupid Questions, December 2015 - Less Wrong

5 Post author: polymathwannabe 01 December 2015 10:40PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (138)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: philh 02 December 2015 10:15:15AM 2 points [-]

Repeating my question from late in the previous thread:

It seems to me that if you buy a stock, you could come out arbitrarily well-off, but your losses are limited to the amount you put in. But if you short, your payoffs are limited to the current price, and your losses could be arbitrarily big, until you run out of money.

Is this accurate? If so, it feels like an important asymmetry that I haven't absorbed from the "stock markets 101" type things that I've occasionally read. What effects does it have on markets, if any? (Running my mouth off, I'd speculate that it makes people less inclined to bet on a bubble popping, which in turn would prolong bubbles.) Are there symmetrical ways to bet a stock will rise/fall?

Comment author: Thomas 02 December 2015 10:41:39AM *  -1 points [-]

if you buy a stock, you could come out arbitrarily well-off, but your losses are limited to the amount you put in

You never only buy, but at the same time you have traded your dollars, euros or whatever currency for that stock.

There is nothing like "buying" and "shorting" - it's always trading. Swapping two "currencies".

Comment author: philh 02 December 2015 02:59:31PM 1 point [-]

So I can trade one currency for another, and then trade back, and the amount I now have in the first currency can be arbitrarily high. This doesn't feel like it particularly changes anything.

Comment author: Thomas 02 December 2015 05:33:42PM 0 points [-]

You are welcome!