Very different from buying longs. Stock indexes have a longterm upward bias, not a downward bias. You can always sit on longs in the red and wait 20 years and they will likely be in the green. Not so with short positions. Either you are right very very short-term or you lose money. It's as simple as that. I do recall 2000 and I recall 1997, 1998, 1999 and remember billions of USD changing hands while "smart money" bet against the market bubble. It ain't a bubble until it bursts.
Oh please. We have companies going out of business and disappearing and we have companies being taken private at a premium all the time. In a well-diversified portfolio over a big enough number of market cycles, these effects could well negate each other. And anyways, is that not why we look at indexes? As far as I know the SP500 only has ~90 of the original components from 1957, the rest were exchanged over time, went out of business, merged, market cap sank or were taken private. My opinion stands: Over a long enough time line, there is no money to be made shorting stocks and indexes on a Net basis. Of course, short selling serves its purpose minimizing portfolio risk and taming volatility. Periodically and very short-term you can make tremendous amounts of money going 200% net short, but it's a tough and costly game to play.
That's silly...just the way there are stocks worth buying, there are stocks worth selling. Your opinion is fairly ridiculous...over a long enough time a gambler doubling down on every loss could be better off than the house. Wow, great insight.
If you look at those who were positioned short before significant corrections in the past, no one made more money faster, period. Stocks correct far more sharply on the downside, when a significant correction hits, than they rise in even the most bullish of markets. If you want to be conservative, that's fine. Go long the indexes and wonder, in historically normative years, whether you'll beat bond returns by 1.5% or 3%. There is no money to be made over the long term shorting stocks? I thought you were a trader, makloda? That's an inane statement to make.
Why are statistics silly. Your common sense approach doesn't work here. Show me a dedicated short fund that made consistent money through both a bull and bear market. You will have a hard time finding one.
And you think more money is made shorting than losing money covering short positions in the red don't you? "If you were".... famous last words. Oh boy
Your statistics are indices that have barely outpaced the falling dollar the last few years. What's your point? Are you saying those who went short on Lucent in early 2000 were silly? Those who went long in AAPL a few years ago were geniuses? What's the difference...the last few weeks the indices have been up but with horrible breadth, short sellers could be making money there. So what?
Sisi and ByLow.. .Case closed Oh there's so much money to be made shorting!!!! You just gotta go 200% net short and be right to call the top to the exact tick!!! Then you made it!!
THOSE ARE INDICES STUPID. YOU CAN ONLY THINK ABOUT INDICES? YOU'RE AN IDIOT, YOU DID JUST CLOSE THE CASE. Thanks! Good job closing the case on a book only you're talking about...the rest of us are capable of looking at individual stocks. And I've explained to you before, I'm 90% long in stocks.