What a beautiful chart. Just seeing the massive plunges in 1997, 2000, 2001 and 2002 excites the hell out of me.
You're missing the point. Many of those that went short whatever shit companies in 2000 were long other stuff. Possibly with a long bias simply because that's how most equity hedge funds are setup. It's next to impossible to make money or even beat the SP500 over a complete market cycle going in with a short bias, even more so because you pay dividends instead of receiving them. I am sorry but that's the way it is.
So you posted a chart of indices claiming victory trying to explain how "most equity hedge funds are setup?" Wow, that's some complex articulation method you have. I'd say you're digging deeper.
Seriously do you have some mental problems? I am sorry to say this again, I thought we were able to get along, but reading your above post just makes me think somethings wrong with you. Maybe I'm just wasting my time explaining myself, you sound like you know it all and you're not interested to hear different sides of a story but rather explaining how everybody is an idiot and you're the smart kid. Anyways, the case being talked about was "short sellers are the smart money" - maybe you missed it. The point I made was the anybody Net short > 50% of the capital for an extended period of time will have a hard time beating the market and therefore is not very "smart".
You can attempt to insult me but the indices have nothing to do with shorting particular stocks. You could be short a handful of shit stocks and the indices could rock and you could still clean up. What's your POINT? You're making NO POINT...you're posting charts of indices which mean nothing to someone who is short individual stocks. Of course the indices will go up over time, so what? You're using indices to try and claim victory and then rolling out some bullshit line about hedge fund makeup...that's a load of shit. I'm not at all averse to someone telling me anything and I'm always trying to learn...it's hard to learn from someone who makes up shit as they go and uses indices to make a point about hedge fund strategies, but they only tell you after you call them on that bullshit.
By your rationale, there would never be time to risk going short, makloda. That's some missed, rich opportunity, IMHO. Show me a stock that is trading at a 150+ x multiple, with dramatically slowing earnings, and maybe even a crisis brewing, and tell me you'd rather be long than short.
Ok and who in the world was able to accomplish the neat little trick you outlined above on a) a constant Net short basis b) over a complete market cycle My point is and was that the "smart money" being net short right now is not necessarily being very smart based on historical evidence. Your constant mention of how you shorted a couple of individual stocks that ended up in the green doesn't help the argument at all. The point is that 99% of professional dedicated short sellers fail to make money in the long run - and I outlined the reasons why I believe that is the case. They are merely used by FoF's as a means to even out volatility. Period.
I didn't say that. I said following the so-called "smart money" (hedge funds, dedicated short sellers, 130/30 index funds) is not always the smartest choice, especially for an extended period of time. You'd follow a crowd that historically loses money on the short side over the long term. If you wish to play the short side aggressively I can only suggest to be very very nimble and take profits quickly. That's what I learned after paying my dues.