You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

wedrifid comments on US default as a risk to mitigate - Less Wrong Discussion

2 Post author: bokov 15 October 2013 04:41PM

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

Comments (120)

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

Comment author: wedrifid 16 October 2013 08:08:44AM *  4 points [-]

Does it work differently for bonds?

There isn't a difference in how shorting works. There is a difference in what bonds and stocks are. Stocks are based on the value of a company, which can obviously go through the roof. A bond is a promise to pay a fixed amount of money over a specified time. The monetary value of an IOU for $10 + $1 interest paid over a week is never going to be greater than $11 now, that'd be really weird. Bonds can lose all their value catastrophically if the issuer loses credibility but they can never gain value above "Bond with the specified terms assuming unquestioned reliability of issuer".

Comment author: bokov 16 October 2013 11:03:34PM 1 point [-]

...so there is a limited downside risk unlike shorting stocks?

And the upside is still (theoretically) the full price at the time you short it because it could in principle drop to zero if the debtor defaults? Is that correct?

Comment author: wedrifid 17 October 2013 02:16:36AM 1 point [-]

Correct on both counts.