- #1
Bruno Tolentino
- 97
- 0
A stock, in the first year, cost 128 dollars; in the second, cost 64...
D - Price
1 - 128
2 - 64
3 - 32
4 - 16
If I buy 100,000 dollars of this stock @ 128 dollars / share, so, in the second year I will lost 50,000 dollars (50% of 100K). In the third... ok, ok, easy...
When I buy stock, my capital is directly proportional to share's price and the percentual variation is equal to stock' percentual variation. Ok. No doubts about this.
My doubt is about when I short selling a stock, because the capital is not propotional to stock's price and the percentual variation is not equal between the capital and the price.
If I short selling the same share in the first example with a financial volume of 100,000 dollars. My capital will be:
D - Capital
1 - 100,000
2 - 150,000
3 - 175,000
4 - 187,500
So, exist some implicit rule of proportionality in short selling? Some math relationship using log function?
Since now, thanks guys...
D - Price
1 - 128
2 - 64
3 - 32
4 - 16
If I buy 100,000 dollars of this stock @ 128 dollars / share, so, in the second year I will lost 50,000 dollars (50% of 100K). In the third... ok, ok, easy...
When I buy stock, my capital is directly proportional to share's price and the percentual variation is equal to stock' percentual variation. Ok. No doubts about this.
My doubt is about when I short selling a stock, because the capital is not propotional to stock's price and the percentual variation is not equal between the capital and the price.
If I short selling the same share in the first example with a financial volume of 100,000 dollars. My capital will be:
D - Capital
1 - 100,000
2 - 150,000
3 - 175,000
4 - 187,500
So, exist some implicit rule of proportionality in short selling? Some math relationship using log function?
Since now, thanks guys...