Originally Posted by Amnorix:
I don't see the logic here. Let's say your stock in the company is worth -- whatever - $1,000 today. It is utterly irrelevant how much you spent to GET that stock. That is where you are today.
Your choices are:
1. sell, lock in the loss (which can be used to offset taxable gains elsewhere), invest in something else, or
2. hold, waiting for...something. The stock to recover so you take no loss I guess. Or less of one.
Would you be better off a year from now, or ten, if you sold today, took the loss, had the tax write off, and invested in teh S&P 500 or whatever, or continued to hold this dog of a stock? The answer is likely clear. If your stock is down, whatever, 50%, then you don't need it to go up 50%, you need it to go up 100% to get back to even. What are the chances of that? Yeah, likely not good. If the odds were good it was going to go up 100%, then it's a strong buy for EVERYONE, not just a hold for you. But are people buying? Apparently not.
This is nothing more than the Disposition Effect in action.
I thought this too with KBLB. Lost out on $170K. I should have held. What is it Warren Buffett says. The stock market is a means to take money from the impatient and give to the patient. Err somethin like that. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Buehler445:
Right on. Might be a hell of a good deal. But it all has to reconcile back to cash at some point. It would spook me.
But hey!
My farm is making more money than that. Wanna buy some stock :-)
Stocks smocks, I'll hook them up with half a farm and they can roll in the dirt, shoot deer, and pee on their very own trees any time they want! I really just want to control who my neighbor is and can't afford to buy the whole place. Raiders fans need not apply! [Reply]
