I don't know if I'd qualify. I actually think about what I'd do if another attack takes place. I've come to the conclusion that I'd cover any longs and try to hedge any positions I know my family has out there, but I wouldn't go short. Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I just couldn't live with myself knowing that that big house on the hill I finally could afford was made possible by mass suffering. I know that's not the point of this thread and I know a lot of people would approach this differently, so I don't mean to sound holier than thou or annoy anyone. The SAD thing is that this philosophy has a chance of actually being tested--of course I hope it never is.
Bobby, I myself have thought about this very subject many times before. Glad to know there are traders out there that thinks about such. Yet...here's the situation...what would you do if you were already in a Short position and breaking news hits the market about a terrorist attack... do you exit your Short so that you don't make another penny off someones lost life? What if your Long on a great IPO in a company that's great for the economy and good to its employees... to only find out a year later the company has been lying and doing all kinds of illegal activities and employees are being lay-off without any notice... do you give back those Long profits? What if you initiate a Short position on breaking news of lost lives or a Long position on breaking news of something being signed that will save lives? Are the two traders truly different from each other? The markets is survival of the strongest or smartest...opportunistic...capitalism at its best... maybe its not the place to decide if its proper to make a buck off someones misery or off someones happiness. Maybe that's why there are individuals managing the markets and they take upon themselves to decide when the markets should close as it did on 9/11...their the ones that decide when we should have a 2min silence and no trading during such silence... thus, if the event is so horrible...we as traders should do our job until those in charge...close down the markets. Another one of my sports analogies...I remember once in a championship match I heard about my opponents financee being killed a week earlier and how he had to be hospitalized for one day for shock... I felt so sorry for him...he preceded to kick my butt during that championship match...the worst butt kicking I ever got. The next time I competed against him...I didn't feel sorry for him and returned the butt kicking favor. My point is this...once we start letting our feelings decide our trades...we risk not knowing where to draw the line...doing so could compromise our own physical or mental well-being. How many people need to die for the event to become non-tradable or causes us to exit profitable positions prior to reaching profit-targets...positions initiated prior to a tragedy. What about the tragic fire last night in Rhode Island...what if that was a terroritst attack via arson. (it wasn't a terrorist attack and I'm just using it as an example) Do we not take Short positions today when the markets react bearishly to the terrorist attack via arson or do we only go Long on an obvious downtrend or do we sit on the sidelines and wait for happier times? Where do we draw the line or should we let the market managers do that for us? Thanks for the thoughts on this subject...funny because I was talking about it myself in one of the chat rooms today. NihabaAshi
This question can be answered (though not explained) by putting up a Time & Sales screen and watching the "ticks" go by. nitro
Not necessarily. There IS a buyer for each seller for <i>completed</i> transactions. That doesn't mean that others weren't left unfilled. The impact of those others is bigger than you think. I've got 100,000 shares to sell. 10 other want them and keep outbidding each other (they wouldn't have necessarily been so aggressive if they weren't competing with each other), eventually one will get the shares. Is there a seller for each buyer and vice versa? Not necessaliry.
I think people do what they feel comfortable with. Maybe I'm living on a slippery slope, but we all do that in some way or another with most of our opinions, decisions, beliefs. And bumping the decision up to a higer authority like the exchange decide is perfectly logical, but it doesn't so much solve the moral dilema as it passes it on to someone else to make. I think trading is a very interesting and potentially profitable profession. But if have to depend on making it or not as a trader on how I trade a terrorist attack, then I'm probably not a very good trader anyway. But again, people have to deal with these things as they see fit and what's comfortable for them. I may sound like I'm taking the high ground, but actually I'm just saying what I'd feel comfortable with. Is it bullet proof, w/o compromise or contradiction? No. But it's where I decide to draw the line. And of course it's a lot easier to sound like the "good guy" & it's quite another to truly put your money where your mouth is. And I have NOT done that yet. BTW, I once did a trade on Value Jet when the oxygen tanks blew one of their planes out of the sky. I actually went long a few days later thinking the market over penalized them, but it was still a tragedy play. Well I felt horrible about it. And in addition it was a very bad trade that would have gone against me. But something very strange happened, the trade disappeared. Yes it really did. It was a market buy that I placed over the phone with Chase. But when I checked my account it wasn't there. I even called up Chase and asked them what happened with the trade (eventhough it was a loser). They said they couldn't find it and not to worry about it. That was enough of that strategy for me and I kind of took it as a sign not to do this type of trade again.
Any moral/ethical conflict (guilt) can be resolved by donating any and all (or some) of your presumed "ill-gotten" profits to good charities and causes... and by doing good things for the World. To paraphrase Bud Fox: You gotta make it to the big time first... then you can become a pillar and do good deeds. And taking care of yourself first in a paradoxical way... allows you to do just that... for others in your life, and randomly. Witness George Soros and the like. Iceman
Some of Soros' intersting written articles... (off topic, but why not) http://www.soros.org/gsbio/writings.html
While I agree with you that there are philanthropic endeavors that only someone like Soros can undertake, there is also a lot I can and do do right now that have nothing to do with tax bracket. BTW, an old roommate of mine's father was good friends with George Soros. He's a much more complicated, grey and conflicted man than some articles make him out to be. The same can be said about most of our heros/public figures.