I was using an example of your flawed math. You are wrong about the probabilities of price recovering from $5 to $10. I don't know why you are even talking about fundamentals as that has nothing to do with the discussion. You need to read the first post and understand what the discussion is about. It's not about portfolios, its not about fundamentals, its about a phenomenon called the traders fallacy.
Time is irrelevant here. The point is that the price can return to $10 just as easily as it dropped to $5 with similar external factors as mentioned.
Time is irrelevant!!!! ??? wtf does that even mean. Of course time is relevant. Well then give us a list of 5 stocks from the S&P 500 that have dropped 50% and recovered in a few days.
What are "similar external factors"? Enough of the bs... give us some real-life examples to prove your point.
You're getting close to understanding it. Would you say that a stock that was once a $100 and was now a $50 stock needs a lot more external force to return to $100 than it needed to drop to $50? (Think of this as in a trading range not so much as a capitulation for simplicity)
If a stock is trading at $10 and was now trading at $5. Mathematically the stock price only dropped by 50% but now needs to increase by 100% to return to $10. Does this mathematical disadvantage come into play as far as the chances of you regaining your loss?