Trillions of dollars wiped from stock markets..

[fillyboy]

Conspiracy theory

The artcicle does indeed show there was highly suspicious trading activity, so much so a full investigation was required. The investigation concluded it wasn't suspicious as it had been carried out by a small number of hedge funds with the purpose of bringing down the share price.

Would it have been in the public interest to know that the financial arm of Isis were that capable?

 

[Deleted member 317777]

The artcicle does indeed show there was highly suspicious trading activity, so much so a full investigation was required. The investigation concluded it wasn't suspicious as it had been carried out by a small number of hedge funds with the purpose of bringing down the share price.

Would it have been in the public interest to know that the financial arm of Isis were that capable?

Is that Notchy proving my point ? Lol.

The share price dropped almost 40%.

And the Trump scandal, plenty of people will have made millions from the recent drop.

 

[denso13]

Because it goes to show how a short works….

You can lose an awful lot more than you can gain, that's the point being made.

 

[Deleted member 317777]

You can lose an awful lot more than you can gain, that's the point being made.

Not when they move the market.

And my point is, a lot of the lost money the OP mentioned, won’t be lost.

Comparing to a house price is ludicrous

 

[denso13]

Not when they move the market.

Still possible to lose more than you can gain.

Comparing to a house price is ludicrous

It's a good illustration.

 

[Notch7]

The investigation concluded it wasn't suspicious

Which proves my point.

 

[fillyboy]

Still possible to lose more than you can gain.

You suggested that if you short a share price down from £100 to zero (not possible anyway, the bet wouldn't be accepted) you stand to make a £100. The reality is that a large hedge fund, or anyone because it's a bet rather than a purchase, you don't purchase until you close out the bet, the bet would be made at for example, '£10 a pip', the profit would be £10 for each penny of movement in the direction of movement you selected. So if you shorted it from £100 down to £50 at £10 per pip, the profit if the share dropped to £50 would be £50,000 because it's so highly leveraged. (I think that's right, maybe Blup could confirm).
It used to be tax free because in theory you never actually owned the shares, probably changed now.

Edit: not Blup, Justin Passing.

 

[denso13]

You suggested that if you short a share price down from £100 to zero (not possible anyway, the bet wouldn't be accepted) you stand to make a £100

Don't think that was me.

 

[fillyboy]

Don't think that was me.

Fair do's.

 

[Deleted member 317777]

It's a good illustration.

It’s not all.

If you won’t admit people take short positions for a living, we have nothing to discuss.

 

[denso13]

you won’t admit people take short positions for a living, we have nothing to discuss.

Of course they do, but it has nothing to do with the question that the house analogy was attempting to answer.

 

[Deleted member 317777]

Of course they do, but it has nothing to do with the question that the house analogy was attempting to answer.

The house analogy is ridiculous.

Plenty of people will have made a fortune off the back of Trumps recent announcement.

The money doesn’t just vanish like a dip in the housing market.

 

[fillyboy]

It’s not all.

If you won’t admit people take short positions for a living, we have nothing to discuss.

It's not something I've ever done (wouldn't know how to), it just seems morally wrong. The hedge funds who operate in that world say it's necessary to improve 'liquidity of stocks', but in the murky world of finance, it can be far more profitable than straight buying and selling.

 

[fillyboy]

Th money doesn’t just vanish like a dip in the housing market.

Or like 'tears in the rain'.

 

[Deleted member 317777]

It's not something I've ever done (wouldn't know how to), it just seems morally wrong. The hedge funds who operate in that world say it's necessary to improve 'liquidity of stocks', but in the murky world of finance, it can be far more profitable than straight buying and selling.

It’s done on a large scale. The people doing it are billionaires.

I don’t know if it’s wrong or not