quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

The stock exchanges are not used for start-ups. Google, Yahoo. Intel, Microsoft, name them...did NOT go to wall street for start-up capital.

Where did they go for their startup capital? What was the incentive for their investors?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether


I just ask them to explain the correct defination of 'Selling Short'. You know, the process where you buy high, sell low, and make a profit?

Well, we did actually agree for once.... up to here, unless you are being sarcastic. Profiting at Short selling is no different than profiting at any other investing, buy low, sell high.

Its just the timing that is different...you sell before you buy.

Come on, you know more than you articulate here. Short selling doesn't begin with buying or selling, it starts with borrowing stock. Then you sell it immediately based on your speculation that the price will fall. If and when it does, you buy it back and pay it back, you keep the difference.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

The stock exchanges are not used for start-ups. Google, Yahoo. Intel, Microsoft, name them...did NOT go to wall street for start-up capital.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
I just ask them to explain the correct defination of 'Selling Short'. You know, the process where you buy high, sell low, and make a profit?

Well, we did actually agree for once.... up to here, unless you are being sarcastic. Profiting at Short selling is no different than profiting at any other investing, buy low, sell high.
Its just the timing that is different...you sell before you buy.

Come on, you know more than you articulate here. Short selling doesn't begin with buying or selling, it starts with borrowing stock. Then you sell it immediately based on your speculation that the price will fall. If and when it does, you buy it back and pay it back, you keep the difference.

Which is exactly what I said in far fewer words.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
The stock exchanges are not used for start-ups. Google, Yahoo. Intel, Microsoft, name them...did NOT go to wall street for start-up capital.

If you think they got any more than a few thousand dollars for legal fees, a web site (in some cases) and paper and ink from personal sources youre way out of it. They got their real start through venture capitalists. Now what is the primary goal of a venture capitalist in funding a startup?

TAKING THE VENTURE PUBLIC....."WALL STREET".

Without that incentive, capital formation for risky ventures would be nearly impossible, and outrageously expensive when possible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
I just ask them to explain the correct defination of 'Selling Short'. You know, the process where you buy high, sell low, and make a profit?

Well, we did actually agree for once.... up to here, unless you are being sarcastic. Profiting at Short selling is no different than profiting at any other investing, buy low, sell high.
Its just the timing that is different...you sell before you buy.

Come on, you know more than you articulate here. Short selling doesn't begin with buying or selling, it starts with borrowing stock. Then you sell it immediately based on your speculation that the price will fall. If and when it does, you buy it back and pay it back, you keep the difference.

Which is exactly what I said in far fewer words.

Well ok willbeur, but in short-selling, I do no buying at all for 'investment' purposes, it is repaying a debt.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
The essence is unchanged. SELL HIGH, BUY LOW. If you ever find a way to profit from buying high and selling low as was the original claim, you'll be a very rich man....or in an asylum because you believed the impossible happened.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
ROFL. Are you just being an ass for the sake of being an ass? When you borrow something and pay for it later, that is still buying it.

And your "if and when it does" is actually irrelevant but I didint bother to nitpick it. You have to buy it whether or not the price falls, because you promised to deliver the shares when you sold them. If you unwind the deal because its in a loss position and settle for cash without deliver, the nature of the transaction is unchanged, you just dont go through the hassle of the physical transfers.

The essence is unchanged. SELL HIGH, BUY LOW. If you ever find a way to profit from buying high and selling low as was the original claim, you'll be a very rich man....or in an asylum because you believed the impossible happened.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
The essence is unchanged. SELL HIGH, BUY LOW. If you ever find a way to profit from buying high and selling low as was the original claim, you'll be a very rich man....or in an asylum because you believed the impossible happened.

That REALLY is 'selling short': Buy high and sell low. Person A borrows shares of stock from Person B. Person A then sells the shares at the current price. IF:

a) The price for the share goes down, Person A buys the same number of shares that that price and gives it back to Person B. The different between the first and second set of purchases, is the profit.

b) The price for the shares goes up; Person B decides to sell. Person A has to re-purchase the shares to give back, and take the difference as a lost.

Its not insane thought, its just hard for people to wrap their heads around the concept. They've been programmed since the 1940's to believe one makes money on 'Buy Low, Sell High' mantra. Now, 'selling short' is not generally considered a good investment choice. The philosophy of investing is almost always tied to 'taking a long position'. Some people buy up investments for short or long term, but the general idea is 'buy low, sell high'. As a general rule, any CFP will advise you against setting up investments under 'selling short', unless you REALLY understand the concept.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
ROFL. Are you just being an ass for the sake of being an ass? When you borrow something and pay for it later, that is still buying it.

And your "if and when it does" is actually irrelevant but I didint bother to nitpick it. You have to buy it whether or not the price falls, because you promised to deliver the shares when you sold them. If you unwind the deal because its in a loss position and settle for cash without deliver, the nature of the transaction is unchanged, you just dont go through the hassle of the physical transfers.

The essence is unchanged. SELL HIGH, BUY LOW. If you ever find a way to profit from buying high and selling low as was the original claim, you'll be a very rich man....or in an asylum because you believed the impossible happened.

I know now, I do not want you as my broker or investment adviser. When I borrow stock, I am not buying it, I don't in fact want to own it. I am not investing in it.  I immediately sell it. I think it is going down and it had better go down or they are into me for a 'mergin' call.

Technically I do need to buy it back but I repay the stock, so I was a very short seller and a shorter buyer...as it were.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
The essence is unchanged. SELL HIGH, BUY LOW. If you ever find a way to profit from buying high and selling low as was the original claim, you'll be a very rich man....or in an asylum because you believed the impossible happened.

That REALLY is 'selling short': Buy high and sell low. Person A borrows shares of stock from Person B. Person A then sells the shares at the current price. IF:

a) The price for the share goes down, Person A buys the same number of shares that that price and gives it back to Person B. The different between the first and second set of purchases, is the profit.

b) The price for the shares goes up; Person B decides to sell. Person A has to re-purchase the shares to give back, and take the difference as a lost.

Its not insane thought, its just hard for people to wrap their heads around the concept. They've been programmed since the 1940's to believe one makes money on 'Buy Low, Sell High' mantra. Now, 'selling short' is not generally considered a good investment choice. The philosophy of investing is almost always tied to 'taking a long position'. Some people buy up investments for short or long term, but the general idea is 'buy low, sell high'. As a general rule, any CFP will advise you against setting up investments under 'selling short', unless you REALLY understand the concept.

Its hard to wrap their heads around because you are wrong, to profit its still selling for more than you buy it for.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
The essence is unchanged. SELL HIGH, BUY LOW. If you ever find a way to profit from buying high and selling low as was the original claim, you'll be a very rich man....or in an asylum because you believed the impossible happened.

That REALLY is 'selling short': Buy high and sell low. Person A borrows shares of stock from Person B. Person A then sells the shares at the current price. IF:

a) The price for the share goes down, Person A buys the same number of shares that that price and gives it back to Person B. The different between the first and second set of purchases, is the profit.

b) The price for the shares goes up; Person B decides to sell. Person A has to re-purchase the shares to give back, and take the difference as a lost.

Its not insane thought, its just hard for people to wrap their heads around the concept. They've been programmed since the 1940's to believe one makes money on 'Buy Low, Sell High' mantra. Now, 'selling short' is not generally considered a good investment choice. The philosophy of investing is almost always tied to 'taking a long position'. Some people buy up investments for short or long term, but the general idea is 'buy low, sell high'. As a general rule, any CFP will advise you against setting up investments under 'selling short', unless you REALLY understand the concept.

Its hard to wrap their heads around because you are wrong, to profit its still selling for more than you buy it for.

You say buy...then borrow. I do not buy a stock I borrow a stock as in A. I sell it immediately.

I think a given stock is going down. I can go to my site, borrow...borrow that stock. That is a loan...a loan of stock. I now owe lenders stock.

B cannot sell shares he has lent to me, they are gone, 'B' doesn't really exist and he cannot demand the stock back beyond the terms of the brokerage stated policy of short-selling. I've sold them. 'B' figuratively speaking can only wait and if the price goes up and my terms are about to expire, in order to pay back...the stock, described as a 'margin call' to make up the increase in price. If it goes down, at my discretion, I buy and repay.

Oh and BTW, there are no people involved as identified in any transaction. I buy, it settles, I sell, it settles, I borrow, it settles. After settlement, I am on the hook for the same stock at whatever price it may be whenever I choose to repay the stock. If terms now force me to repay while the stock has gone up I am faced with what is described as a margin call..

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Until you demonstrate how to make a profit buying high and selling low (ie never) Im done responding to your semantic bullshit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

It also permits people to own the means of production via shares of stock.  This is HUGE for democracy. 

quote:



That said, in a perfect world, the people getting equity and doing something with it would be rewarded far more handsomely than the Wall Street brokers.

quote:

I know exactly what they do. They speculate on paper and further speculate with money borrowed from depositors and retirement funds. Read the above and research yourself and find out that almost all mutual funds...lose money.

quote:

If in a free-market,

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

The stock market does two wonderful things.

As mentioned above, it permits companies to get access to capital for growth.  The idea of VCs supplanting it is senseless, because VCs work with the stock market to infuse cash, and hopefully hit paydirt with an IPO.

It also permits people to own the means of production via shares of stock.  This is HUGE for democracy.  If the government owns the means of production, they can starve the people into submission whenever desired.  But in this country, the people are responsible for economic activity, and are capable of driving the economy, and reaping rewards for doing so.

That said, in a perfect world, the people getting equity and doing something with it would be rewarded far more handsomely than the Wall Street brokers.