Skip to main content

ELI5 - Short Selling

Image
By

Person Pointing Paper Line Graph

Investing for most people is buying stocks that they think will rise in value. If you're a fan of Apple, you buy shares in hopes of getting a piece of their expected future growth. In fancy terms, when you're optimistic about a company, you're "long" or "bullish".

When you're pessimistic about a company, you're "short" or "bearish". When investors are bearish, they can profit through a strategy known as short selling.

How Short Selling Works

There are 3 steps to short selling:

1) Borrow the shares you want to short from someone who owns the stock. This is usually an institutional investor such as a big bank. No free lunch here, you'll be charged fees for this loan.

2) Sell the borrowed shares. Pocketing the money from the sale.

3) Buy back the shares and return to lender.  The goal is to buy back at a lower price than you sold for, profiting from the spread. When the shares are returned, you're "covering" or "closing" your short position.

Example - Sally's Big Short 

Sally is not a fan of Apple. A long time Android user, she thinks Apple is overrated and overvalued. Sally is looking to profit from what she feels is their inevitable demise.

She decides to short 100 shares of Apple while it's trading at $300 a share.

1) Sally works with her broker to borrow 100 shares of Apple from an institutional investor.

2) Sally sells the borrowed shares. Pocketing $30,000 ($300 x 100 shares) in the process.

3) Sally buys back the shares to return to lender and close her short position. This is where things can go pretty well for Sally or really bad.

Sally was right

If Apple drops to $150 a share, Sally could buy back the shares for only $15,000 ($150 x 100 shares). Therefore profiting $15,000 ($30,000 - $15,000), minus fees.

The best case scenario for Sally would be Apple dropping to $0. This would allow her keep the full $30,000 she initially pocketed (minus fees) as there would be nothing for her to pay back.

Sally was oh so wrong

If Apple instead rises to say $600 a share, Sally could buy back the shares for $60,000 ($600 x 100 shares). Therefore suffering a loss of $30,000 ($60,000 - $15,000).

Losing $30,000 is a lot, but Sally's max loss from shorting is actually limitless! Apple's stock could hypothetically go up forever. This unlimited downside is the biggest risk for short sellers. 

When stocks continue to rise, short sellers face the tough decision of whether to close their position and cut their losses, or continue to hold on hoping for a decline while raking up fees and risking even greater losses. 

Conclusion 

Short selling is the polar opposite of buying stocks. When you buy stocks, your downside is capped at your initial investment but your upside is limitless. With short selling, your upside is capped but your downside is limitless. Short selling involves more fees, more stress and more risk, all for less upside. In short, don't.







Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Today's Special: Humble Pie

By
You champion a project, fight for an idea, and then...reality sets in. That churning in your stomach isn't butterflies, it's the realization you've missed the mark.  Pride will puff up your chest, and kick in the "defend at all costs" instinct. But arguing with the umpire never changed a call. Admitting you're wrong isn't a sign of weakness. It can strengthen your professional standing. In a world obsessed with the illusion of infallibility, the courage to adjust course is a breath of fresh air. It shows you're confident enough to be wrong, and adaptable enough to learn from it. Do your research, think critically, and stand behind your decisions. But when the data whispers (or screams) otherwise, don't be afraid to swallow that slice of humble pie. Be the first to acknowledge. Don't wait for someone to point out your mistake. Be open, take responsibility, and most importantly, focus on what you're going to do to address it. Don't dwell ...
Post a Comment
Read more

When Perfect Becomes a Problem: The iCar Story

By
Let's talk about Apple's iCar, or rather, the ghost of it. A decade. Ten billion dollars. Poof. Gone. Like a puff of smoke from a dream that never quite woke up. They wanted to launch a revolution, a fully-formed, flawless chariot. But revolutions aren't born in secret labs; they're forged in the messy, chaotic crucible of the real world. You don't build a movement by hiding in the shadows. You don't create a product people love by ignoring them. You don't change the world by waiting for perfection. It's about the minimum viable. It's about shipping early, shipping often, and listening—really listening—to the people you're trying to serve. Apple built a cathedral of secrecy. A monument to what might have been. And then, they tore it down.  They spent billions on a dream, while ignoring the simple truth: the market doesn't care about your dreams. It cares about solutions. It cares about things that work. So, here's the lesson: stop chasing...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why We Shouldn't Be Afraid of Ambiguity

By
Ambiguity. That fuzzy monster that chases us down darkened hallways, whispering doubts about our roadmap and feature sets. You know the feeling. You constantly wrestle with unknowns: Will users like this? Is this the right direction? Frankly, if you had a nickel for every time the answer wasn't crystal clear, well, you might actually want to chase that ambiguity down the hall. But here's the thing: ambiguity isn't your enemy. It's your dance partner. Innovation rarely happens in a land of perfect clarity. Sure, there's a time for well-defined processes. But when you're creating something new, there are bound to be more questions than answers. The key is to learn to waltz with the unknown .  Embrace the experiment. Don't be afraid to throw some spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks.  Focus on outcomes, not outputs. Don't get hung up on features. What problem are you trying to solve? How will you measure success? Get comfortable with "go...
Post a Comment
Read more