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.

philh comments on Stupid Questions, December 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

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: D_Malik 02 December 2015 12:16:11PM 1 point [-]

You usually avoid unlimited liability by placing a stop order to cover your position as soon as the price goes sufficiently high. Or for instance you can bound your losses by including a term in the contract which says that instead of giving back the stock you borrowed and sold, you can pay a certain price.

Comment author: philh 02 December 2015 02:56:01PM 0 points [-]

The stop order feels hackish, to me. I was thinking along the lines of short squeezes even before I learned their name. But also, if I'm expecting a bubble to burst, I won't necessarily be surprised if the price rises massively before it does. I'd be looking for limited exposure without having to chicken out.

The contract term sounds like the sort of thing I was looking for.

Comment author: Lumifer 02 December 2015 03:33:21PM 0 points [-]

You can always play with options to construct whatever payoff structure you desire.