Skip to main content
6 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Sep 14, 2016 at 23:38 vote accept adamaero
Sep 13, 2016 at 22:23 comment added user12515 @JoelSnyder I assume Adam was referring to something like puts, which definitely do have a substantial cost to them. (for example, a few days ago I checked and the cost to insure against a decline in AAPL from the current price using puts was 7% of the nominal amount for only a 15 month period.)
Sep 13, 2016 at 21:37 comment added adamaero "By contrast, stocks offer no such assurance." There is though. It costs more, but there is such a thing that exists.
Sep 13, 2016 at 16:55 comment added supercat @quid: If many people lose their jobs simultaneously, they will shift from putting money into investments to taking money out of them. Most people aren't going to liquidate all their stocks immediately upon losing a job, but the changing balance between investment and liquidation will tend to reduce the prices received by those who have to liquidate.
Sep 13, 2016 at 16:50 comment added quid I don't understand your point in paragraph one. People sell investments every day. It's not like some day everyone will retire on the same day. If people are panic selling in a down market, that's a panic sell not a necessity sell. I guess your point is that markets are cyclical and you may want to sell at an inopportune time, but point one doesn't represent that.
Sep 13, 2016 at 15:38 history answered supercat CC BY-SA 3.0