The example you post is correct. But this is not a realistic, mainly because when you follow it you run the risk that you have just illustrated.
1. There is no way a pro will just watch his loses mount as the stock climbs from $15 without cutting your loses quick, admit you were wrong, and try to learn what you did wrong (the price of your education). Before you buy or short a stock you should already know how to react in different situations. Proper money management will not let you loose more that 10% of your account in any trade. Of course, if you keep guessing wrong in most trades, then that is proof enough that the stock market is not for you; you are doomed anyway.
2. Due to the possibly of unlimited loses, there are many techniques available (in combination with options) to bound your unlimited loses.
3. Options are more risky: not only you have to guess what direction the stock decides to take, but you must all guess the timeframe: prices for options drop quickly after a certain inflation point (say, 3 weeks before expiration, for short-term options).
4. The hard part in trading is to control your emotions. This might sound simple, but in reality it takes years (and lots of expensive lessons) to learn. If you bet wrong, and watch your stock climb to $50 that means you have "believes". Lose you believes, and only believe what you see. With options this problem can easily kill you within a day or two, with stocks it all happens in slow motion within weeks. Perhaps you might have come to senses and lost your believes during the week.
5. With options you are competing against traders who are far more knowledgeable than the your competitors trading in the stock itself. It is much harder. And it is much harder to project future prices; in other words, it is much harder to have a sensible plan ahead of time.
In short, it is a lot safer to short a stock assuming you don't watch the damp thing climb to $50 . Therefore, you example it would be true in theory but not in practice. In practice, there is always and upper limit, the one *you* decided through proper money management.
Someone has to pay the legal bills, and since SCO does not much money until April, 2005, they have to get it from someone who is willing to finance their anti-Linux, anti-GPL crusade. WHo do you think is willing to finance it? Only 3-year old are gullible enough not to figure this out. Do you have to read it in the newspaper "Microsoft Adds $50 million to the Crusade" in order to think about it?
(This post is not a reply to your post, it is directed as a general comment.)
I don't know if this one is a conspiracy, although in general, it makes much more sense to think that Microsoft has good reasons to attack Linux and the GPL.
Life is full of conspiracies, even when it does not involve Billions of dollars. Look at your life, how many consipiracies have you attempted against others? I would say, we conspire against one another all the time. An infinite number of times.
Yes, it will be illegal if Microsoft gets involved in anti-competivive practices against Linux companies. It will be too easy to prove that Microsft's goal is to raise the cost of Linux products through SCO's lisencing fees. It is illegal in the US to force your competitors to increase the cost of their product, or to otherwise disrupt their business through anti-competive means.
That is why Microfoft financed SCO by pretending to purchace $8 million worth of licenses (that expire in one year) then claim it was a legitimate transaction. Microsoft cannot just donate money to SCO's legal department to fight Linux and the GPL ; that will be an illegal.
I disagree. Options are suited only for those who understand the intrinsic and extrisic value of an option, understand stock movements, and also have a trained eye to spot a "safer gamble". Most people will go bankrupt through options in no time ( I think 80% of options expire worthless.)
You should also understand money monagement.
I am afraid, most people (including proffesional maney managers) don't belong in the stock market, much less in the options market.
Why do you want to short a stock that is going up? Not wise.
What happened is that they placed a $50 million bet that the stock will go up. Next day, an analysts hyped the stock with a "buy" recomendation, so they are already making money. All they now have to do is place a stop-loss order at their purchace price. It is a win or brake-even situation.
These people don't care is SCO will profit from Unix, all they care is that BayStar will profit should the stock move upwards. You should know by now that company fundamentals have little or nothing to do with the stock market. If you didn't, look at SCO ! I can also show you a million other examples; although, you should be able to find them yourself.
Yes. If I can prove that Elvis is still alive, I would also have a valid point.
We cannot conduct a discussion with "what if". What if we start a nuclear war before November 1, 2003 ? I am sure, someone is probably already on record that he predicted it ahead of time.
Angry capital investors, who don't even have voting rights? Nowdays, nobody cares about them, and it will (almost always) be of no bother at all. At least, that is what recent history tells us.
Physics and Chemistry is also full of line noise (and not even on the same line). Does that mean it will be better to use instead English-like symbols? No. Most chemists and mathematicians would prefer to use what they already have. They only ones who actually complain are those who are just started learning Physics, Mathematics, or Chemistry.
How do you remember all these symbols, is the same how you remember all these words in the English language. You learn them!
The slap on the wrist was when the Bush Justice department negotiated for (not agains) Microsoft. Even thought the courts found Microsoft guilty, Bush's government managed to negotiate that not only is not slap a slap on the wrist, but an agreement that essantially *awards* Microsft immunity from procecution for the next 5 years.
How can SCO provide proof? If they had proof for at least one of the 1.4 million lines of codes they claim it is theirs, they would have taken that one line only and displayed it on Times Square, or perhaps the during the 4th of July.
My guess is SCO has nothing but a big mouth, so they will simply stop doing business in Australia. Big deal! They are not profitable any way.
Two or three months since July, and summer vacation times, it is not too long for them to take action. At least, they did respond.
Let's not compare them to 50 State attorney Generals, the FTC, or our Justice Departmen. My guess is that the US authorities will respond in due time (after 40 or 50 years). Sorry, the Germans and Australians have done something already; we did nothing.
You got cought! UUCP mail was through the telephone, from peer to peer, it could take *days* to get an email reply. But of course, if modern citizens think today that email through computer takes just a few minutes to receive a reply, then you are excused. Such was not the case back then, at the very least, you had to wait at the University lab for fast replies; there was not Internet at home.
So what is *your* definition of extremist? Not that there is something wrong with the word specifically, for what counts is substance of the position and not if it is "somewhere in the middle". Compromisers! you are more apes than the apes.
I don't see the point for IBM not indemnifying their customers sinse (1) IBM is *already* spending money in court against SCO's allegations through their countersuit, and (2) end-users cannot be liable to SCO, even if SCO prevails.
The whole issue of indemnifying the users is silly; and since we are exploring such issues, why not ask IBM to ensure their customers that our nation's electricity will be available thoughtout the year of 2004 ? In comparison, this is a more important issue. And if IBM or HP do offer indeminfication for electicity, I am certain SCO will grab the opportunity for another round of fund and defamation.
What are you talking abour? Sun (and Microsoft) are already financing the anti-Linux, anti-GPL campaign. If Sun thought that linux is irrelevant on the server they would have ignored us, and Schwartz would not arrive to repeat the same insanities like McBride.
This it is SCO fud again. This time via Sun, and for the same reasons. The difference is that SCO knows how their enemies are, Sun does not!
Slashdot Mirror
because when you follow it you run the risk that you have just illustrated.
1. There is no way a pro will just watch his loses mount as the stock
climbs from $15 without cutting your loses quick, admit you were wrong, and
try to learn what you did wrong (the price of your education). Before you
buy or short a stock you should already know how to react in different situations.
Proper money management will not let you loose more that 10% of your account in
any trade. Of course, if you keep guessing wrong in most trades, then that is
proof enough that the stock market is not for you; you are doomed anyway.
2. Due to the possibly of unlimited loses, there are many techniques available
(in combination with options) to bound your unlimited loses.
3. Options are more risky: not only you have to guess what direction the stock
decides to take, but you must all guess the timeframe: prices for options drop
quickly after a certain inflation point (say, 3 weeks before expiration, for
short-term options).
4. The hard part in trading is to control your emotions. This might sound simple,
but in reality it takes years (and lots of expensive lessons) to learn. If you
bet wrong, and watch your stock climb to $50 that means you have "believes". Lose
you believes, and only believe what you see. With options this problem can easily kill
you within a day or two, with stocks it all happens in slow motion within weeks.
Perhaps you might have come to senses and lost your believes during the week.
5. With options you are competing against traders who are far more knowledgeable
than the your competitors trading in the stock itself. It is much harder. And it
is much harder to project future prices; in other words, it is much harder to
have a sensible plan ahead of time.
In short, it is a lot safer to short a stock assuming
you don't watch the damp thing climb to $50 . Therefore,
you example it would be true in theory but
not in practice. In practice, there is always
and upper limit, the one *you* decided through proper
money management.
SCO does not much money until April, 2005,
they have to get it from someone who is
willing to finance their anti-Linux, anti-GPL
crusade. WHo do you think is willing to finance it?
Only 3-year old are gullible enough not to
figure this out. Do you have to read it in
the newspaper "Microsoft Adds $50 million to
the Crusade" in order to think about it?
(This post is not a reply to your post, it is directed
as a general comment.)
although in general, it makes much more sense
to think that Microsoft has good reasons to
attack Linux and the GPL.
Life is full of conspiracies, even when it does
not involve Billions of dollars. Look at your
life, how many consipiracies have you attempted
against others? I would say, we conspire
against one another all the time. An infinite
number of times.
involved in anti-competivive practices against
Linux companies. It will be too easy to prove
that Microsft's goal is to raise the cost of
Linux products through SCO's lisencing fees.
It is illegal in the US to force your competitors
to increase the cost of their product, or to
otherwise disrupt their business through
anti-competive means.
That is why Microfoft financed SCO by pretending
to purchace $8 million worth of licenses (that
expire in one year) then claim it was a legitimate
transaction. Microsoft cannot just donate money
to SCO's legal department to fight Linux and
the GPL ; that will be an illegal.
who understand the intrinsic and extrisic value
of an option, understand stock movements, and
also have a trained eye to spot a "safer gamble".
Most people will go bankrupt through options
in no time ( I think 80% of options expire worthless.)
You should also understand money monagement.
I am afraid, most people (including proffesional
maney managers) don't belong in the stock market,
much less in the options market.
Why do you want to short a stock that is going up? Not wise.
bet that the stock will go up. Next day, an
analysts hyped the stock with a "buy" recomendation,
so they are already making money. All they now
have to do is place a stop-loss order at their
purchace price. It is a win or brake-even situation.
These people don't care is SCO will profit from
Unix, all they care is that BayStar will profit
should the stock move upwards. You should know
by now that company fundamentals have little or
nothing to do with the stock market. If you didn't,
look at SCO ! I can also show you a million other
examples; although, you should be able to find
them yourself.
It is nice to know that you can predict
the future. I usually call people like you
crooks.
alive, I would also have a valid point.
We cannot conduct a discussion with "what if".
What if we start a nuclear war before November 1,
2003 ? I am sure, someone is probably already
on record that he predicted it ahead of time.
Angry capital investors, who don't even
have voting rights? Nowdays, nobody cares
about them, and it will (almost always) be
of no bother at all. At least, that is what
recent history tells us.
you are shorting it at the same time? There is
no point.
Unless they are hedging their put options. (does
sco have options?)
noise (and not even on the same line). Does that mean it will be better to
use instead English-like symbols? No. Most
chemists and mathematicians would prefer
to use what they already have. They only ones
who actually complain are those who are just
started learning Physics, Mathematics, or Chemistry.
How do you remember all these symbols, is the
same how you remember all these words in the
English language. You learn them!
His name is Randal Schwartz (not David Swartz),
but you have already said that the name was
probably incorrect.
Nobody is forcing companies to use GPL software.
If they dislike the terms of the GPL, they
should not write their own software and
stop complaining.
department negotiated for (not agains) Microsoft.
Even thought the courts found Microsoft guilty,
Bush's government managed to negotiate that not
only is not slap a slap on the wrist, but an
agreement that essantially *awards* Microsft
immunity from procecution for the next 5 years.
What a country!
for at least one of the 1.4 million lines
of codes they claim it is theirs, they would
have taken that one line only and displayed it
on Times Square, or perhaps the during the
4th of July.
My guess is SCO has nothing but a big mouth,
so they will simply stop doing business in
Australia. Big deal! They are not profitable
any way.
vacation times, it is not too long for them
to take action. At least, they did respond.
Let's not compare them to 50 State attorney
Generals, the FTC, or our Justice Departmen.
My guess is that the US authorities will respond
in due time (after 40 or 50 years). Sorry,
the Germans and Australians have done something
already; we did nothing.
It makes no difference if India is a democracy
or a Kingdom. Who told you that it does?
Is this a logical argument? Apparently, some
people think it is.
You got cought! UUCP mail was through the
telephone, from peer to peer, it could take
*days* to get an email reply. But of course,
if modern citizens think today that email
through computer takes just a few minutes to
receive a reply, then you are excused. Such
was not the case back then, at the very least,
you had to wait at the University lab
for fast replies; there was not Internet at home.
If RMS is a "nutso prophet," ESR is the televangelist version. :-)
-- Henry Spencer
So what is *your* definition of extremist? Not
that there is something wrong with the word
specifically, for what counts is substance
of the position and not if it is "somewhere
in the middle". Compromisers! you are
more apes than the apes.
My life would not have been the same. Many
thanks Richard!
already counterclaimed
this back in August 6, 2003. Scroll down
to the "SIXTH COUNTERCLAIM".
I have yet to understand why today's counterclaim
from IBM about SCO's violation of the GPL is
different than what we already know from
August.
their customers sinse (1) IBM is *already* spending
money in court against SCO's allegations through
their countersuit, and (2) end-users cannot
be liable to SCO, even if SCO prevails.
The whole issue of indemnifying the users is silly;
and since we are exploring such issues, why
not ask IBM to ensure their customers that
our nation's electricity will be available
thoughtout the year of 2004 ? In comparison,
this is a more important issue. And if IBM or HP
do offer indeminfication for electicity, I am
certain SCO will grab the opportunity for another
round of fund and defamation.
are already financing the anti-Linux, anti-GPL campaign.
If Sun thought that linux is irrelevant on
the server they would have ignored us, and
Schwartz would not arrive to repeat the same
insanities like McBride.
This it is SCO fud again. This time via Sun,
and for the same reasons. The difference is
that SCO knows how their enemies are, Sun does not!