Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

He wasn't bragging about it. He was just mentioning it because it had a side-effect of bringing the SEC onto him.

"If your strategy in trading microelectronics stock (largely hype-based and that you have an intuitive understanding of) is so good even though you didn't actually claim it as being all that, why don't you run the same strategy in trading pork (no one has ever gotten hyped about pork)?"



I interpreted the story as humble bragging. Too many HN stories-of-convenience are nothing more than humble bragging. It would have been a much more impactful comment if he spent the second half talking about serious losses and learning a lesson.

Every time I post about how I'm bad as something or made a mistake, then learned a lesson, it is followed by a bunch of humble braggers telling stories-of-convenience about how they avoided such an "obvious" mistake.

Finally, let me share yet another of my lifetime fails: During 2008/2009, I was convinced everyone was wrong about risk management at huge investment banks -- subprime mortgages and synthetic CDO^2! I was thought they were infallible, filled with financial maths geniuses would could navigate any financial storm. I was dead wrong. I was shocked when Goldman's legendary Global Alpha fund CLOSED after massive losses. Could. not. believe. it. It's still a bit shocking to write, because their record of outperforming the S&P 500 using partner money was the stuff of legend. And, yes, I lost so much money against Bear, Stearns & Co. and Lehman Brothers. Ouch!


It wouldn't have been a better comment. It would have been an off-topic comment, because the topic was the SEC going after people for insider trading.


Agreed they weren't bragging about it, but it is worth pointing out it's a horrible strategy and will probably produce a net loss over time unless you happen to be incredibly lucky.


>it's a horrible strategy and will probably produce a net loss over time

I dunno. Too many variables to dismiss as horrible out of hand. For one, it depends on the actual companies involved.

Also depends on exactly how he executed it. If the stocks followed the typical average of 10% YoY gains as the rest of the market, then there's a way to execute this strategy wherein he wouldn't lose by definition. For instance, he might set a mark on the sell side to ensure he's not selling at a loss vs. his last buy.

Now, he might get stuck holding the stock for some time (especially after a big downturn) and that might incur him some opportunity cost. But, that wouldn't mean a net loss if he was willing to wait. And, that'd be no different a risk than, say, a typical buy and hold strategy.


> will probably produce a net loss over time unless you happen to be incredibly lucky

"Buying tech stocks" is probably the lucky bit. If the stocks are cyclic but there is a upward trend it probably works pretty well.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: