When good news finally comes out one morning, we will be off to the races.
You see it happen with many small cap stocks that have been shorted down if for the only reason is to destroy. Shorting should be illegal, and only buy and sell should be allowed. Not this complete market disruptive practice, imo.
I think at lot of people dont understand shorting from a numbers perspective. If you shorted MVIS at $25/share and it is now at $1 they ONLY made 96 ish % on their short position. All while they were paying fees to maintain the position. The interesting thing is shorting a company at .86 and 25 (assuming they both end up going to zero $/share) will result in the same profit (minus borrowing fees over the course of time it took for the stock to reach zero). In saying this, it is not \~as profitable. buying shares you have unlimited potential upside
as a short, you cap your possible earnings to 100% of your entry $ amount minus fees
Whats crazy is that they want all or nothing. Thats why I believe this to be a battle ground stock. They want to this go bankrupt. If us share holders can hold the line long enough, they will have to buy back. They wont want to pay the fees. (and of course assuming that MVIS can perform)
You may want to check your math. If you short at $25 (by borrowing and selling shares) and then close out your short position at $1 (by buying and returning the shares you borrowed earlier), you make a $24/share profit on the trade -- less borrowing/interest costs, of course. So your profit ratio is $24/$1, or 2400 percent.
If you buy at $1 and sell at $24, you make 2300% on your investment. You risked $1 to make $23.
If you sell at $24 (short) and re-buy at $1, you make 96% on your investment. You risked $24 to make $23.
You make the same amount of money in both examples, but you had to risk $23 more dollars in the 2nd (short) example.
But you didn’t risk $24. You didn’t pay anything to enter the short position. You GOT PAID to enter it by selling shares you didn’t have. Yeah you’ll eventually need to close it, but if you close out by buying at a buck, that’s the same math as your first example… just with the buy/sell order reversed. Same profit. Risk is virtually unlimited when you short because there’s no limit to where the price may be when you close out
Everything comes with a price. Whether you’re the one receiving cash or assets in any trade deal. You must either buy back that share you sold or pay interest on it for the rest of your life. You might not feel like you’ve risked cash. But you’ve taken on a debt.
But what I’m saying here is if i bought $500 worth of MVIS when it was at $1 and it ran to $25 and sold. I’d have over $12,000.
If i shorted at $25/ share $500 worth of MVIS
I’d have shorted 20 shares.
And if i bought those shares back at $1 I’d have a net profit of $480. Sure i ‘bought’ $1 shares that i sold at $25
But my maximum potential was limited based on the short entry price.
So my statement still stands. The max % gain you can make is 100% from your entry price.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/05/maxreturnshortsale.asp
“If the borrowed shares dropped to $0 in value, the investor would not have to repay anything to the lender of the security, and the return would be 100%”
Thats just because it’s ignoring margin requirements and uses a formula solely based on proceeds received and costs to close. So of course the max you can gain with that method is 100%; but you can make a somewhat infinite gain leverage wise depending on the margin requirement.
I suppose you are correct in that the percentage gained is not exactly equally comparable in both scenarios. And you are correct, you don't risk the $24 dollars in the second scenario, in fact you pocket the $24 after you borrow the share and sell it. The risk is really unknown in the second scenario. In the first scenario (long) the risk is clearly known at $1. With more thought, I am not sure how to calculate the percentage of return for the second scenario. The risk could be infinite. Until you get a margin call that is.
Alex, when you short you are putting downward pressure on a stock you don’t own outright. That should not be allowed. You can buy a share and own it and then sell the share you own. When you borrow you aren’t really owning it. Options are sort of shorting in a different form.
Think about it this way, if you were a seasoned trader you would have made so so so much money on shorting MVIS over the past 4 years.
I’m pretty sure you mean Naked Shorting.
Regular shorting is fine and was apparently a great way for people to make an obscene amount of money betting against MVIS when it was trading above $25 with very little revenue.
One of the main benefits of short selling is more efficient price discovery—the process by which the market determines the price of an asset based on supply and demand dynamics. When short sellers identify securities they view as overvalued, they sell those assets and put downward pressure on prices.
Without deals we are valued and shorted with the rest of the lidar market.
I’m with you on being frustrated with “Naked Shorting” but you can’t change the rules of the game when it’s not playing out in your favor. Naked shorting will be investigated and rule changes will occur. Shorting of certain securities may be limited by certain entities that feel the asset is being abused, but to remove “Shorting” from the financial industry would break the system.
Mandatory reporting to share owners that your shares have been shorted is a simple change and arguably fair to everyone except whiny brokers. The impact of that could cause innovation in the broker market. I'll vote for transparency every time when it comes to business/consumer agreements.
u/tshirt914, China curbed shorting. The results neither broke nor fixed much of anything.
We’ve seen it with MicroVision too. It’s just been so long that we have trended down and had no business developments that I’m forgetting what it feels like.
For once I’m glad of no news, as I’m in the final stage of transferring a pension to my SIPP with the potential of doubling my MVIS shares in there if the price can stay lower just a bit longer, hopefully by Friday, possibly early next week.
Plus a relative will be buying xxxxx on Friday…
Price been low long enough, too long in fact. MicroVision will either get customers and become the multi-billion dollar company they should, or they will cease to exist. We will know in 6-12 months which camp they fall into. My money is firmly bet on MicroVision’s success.
I’ve been trying to get this money moved since 13th May, watching as others were able to snap up cheap shares. I just need the universe to let me get this done before the first deal, so much red tape to get the money moved here unlike the US
I’ve been in a similar position. At the time, it felt like there was a rush to buy before imminent deals. Turns out it would have been to my great benefit if it took a year or two to get the money into my account lol. I am really hoping Sumit’s mid-year timeline (that he essentially told us to forget about) plays out because this stock can see much lower levels than recently experienced if no news and/or no revenue comes in to improve the situation.
Good morning everyone from Germany, gonna clean out my old car today and probably gonna sell it this week after 6 years. Have a great start into your day everyone 🤍
Well they keep lowering our targets. We know what we hold. 36$ shall hit soon
Cantor Fitzgerald Maintains Neutral on Microvision, Lowers Price Target to $3
The last part of your comment is false.
They did not lower the price target this go around. It was maintained at $3.
https://www.benzinga.com/analyst-stock-ratings/analyst/61a614b46788ac00012ad980/andres-sheppard
When good news finally comes out one morning, we will be off to the races. You see it happen with many small cap stocks that have been shorted down if for the only reason is to destroy. Shorting should be illegal, and only buy and sell should be allowed. Not this complete market disruptive practice, imo.
I think at lot of people dont understand shorting from a numbers perspective. If you shorted MVIS at $25/share and it is now at $1 they ONLY made 96 ish % on their short position. All while they were paying fees to maintain the position. The interesting thing is shorting a company at .86 and 25 (assuming they both end up going to zero $/share) will result in the same profit (minus borrowing fees over the course of time it took for the stock to reach zero). In saying this, it is not \~as profitable. buying shares you have unlimited potential upside as a short, you cap your possible earnings to 100% of your entry $ amount minus fees Whats crazy is that they want all or nothing. Thats why I believe this to be a battle ground stock. They want to this go bankrupt. If us share holders can hold the line long enough, they will have to buy back. They wont want to pay the fees. (and of course assuming that MVIS can perform)
You may want to check your math. If you short at $25 (by borrowing and selling shares) and then close out your short position at $1 (by buying and returning the shares you borrowed earlier), you make a $24/share profit on the trade -- less borrowing/interest costs, of course. So your profit ratio is $24/$1, or 2400 percent.
If you buy at $1 and sell at $24, you make 2300% on your investment. You risked $1 to make $23. If you sell at $24 (short) and re-buy at $1, you make 96% on your investment. You risked $24 to make $23. You make the same amount of money in both examples, but you had to risk $23 more dollars in the 2nd (short) example.
But you didn’t risk $24. You didn’t pay anything to enter the short position. You GOT PAID to enter it by selling shares you didn’t have. Yeah you’ll eventually need to close it, but if you close out by buying at a buck, that’s the same math as your first example… just with the buy/sell order reversed. Same profit. Risk is virtually unlimited when you short because there’s no limit to where the price may be when you close out
Everything comes with a price. Whether you’re the one receiving cash or assets in any trade deal. You must either buy back that share you sold or pay interest on it for the rest of your life. You might not feel like you’ve risked cash. But you’ve taken on a debt. But what I’m saying here is if i bought $500 worth of MVIS when it was at $1 and it ran to $25 and sold. I’d have over $12,000. If i shorted at $25/ share $500 worth of MVIS I’d have shorted 20 shares. And if i bought those shares back at $1 I’d have a net profit of $480. Sure i ‘bought’ $1 shares that i sold at $25 But my maximum potential was limited based on the short entry price. So my statement still stands. The max % gain you can make is 100% from your entry price.
My bad... I was using the dictionary definition of the word "profit." Calculate it however you'd like
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/05/maxreturnshortsale.asp “If the borrowed shares dropped to $0 in value, the investor would not have to repay anything to the lender of the security, and the return would be 100%”
Hmmm... I was wrong. It's calculated differently than I would have thought. Carry on sir!
I totally understand your thought process though!
Thats just because it’s ignoring margin requirements and uses a formula solely based on proceeds received and costs to close. So of course the max you can gain with that method is 100%; but you can make a somewhat infinite gain leverage wise depending on the margin requirement.
I suppose you are correct in that the percentage gained is not exactly equally comparable in both scenarios. And you are correct, you don't risk the $24 dollars in the second scenario, in fact you pocket the $24 after you borrow the share and sell it. The risk is really unknown in the second scenario. In the first scenario (long) the risk is clearly known at $1. With more thought, I am not sure how to calculate the percentage of return for the second scenario. The risk could be infinite. Until you get a margin call that is.
Melvin Capital learned that lesson.
I think shorting is healthy. Naked shorting is illegal and should be enforced.
Alex, when you short you are putting downward pressure on a stock you don’t own outright. That should not be allowed. You can buy a share and own it and then sell the share you own. When you borrow you aren’t really owning it. Options are sort of shorting in a different form.
Think about it this way, if you were a seasoned trader you would have made so so so much money on shorting MVIS over the past 4 years. I’m pretty sure you mean Naked Shorting. Regular shorting is fine and was apparently a great way for people to make an obscene amount of money betting against MVIS when it was trading above $25 with very little revenue.
No shorting should be allowed at all. Buy, sell, options, fine.
One of the main benefits of short selling is more efficient price discovery—the process by which the market determines the price of an asset based on supply and demand dynamics. When short sellers identify securities they view as overvalued, they sell those assets and put downward pressure on prices. Without deals we are valued and shorted with the rest of the lidar market. I’m with you on being frustrated with “Naked Shorting” but you can’t change the rules of the game when it’s not playing out in your favor. Naked shorting will be investigated and rule changes will occur. Shorting of certain securities may be limited by certain entities that feel the asset is being abused, but to remove “Shorting” from the financial industry would break the system.
Mandatory reporting to share owners that your shares have been shorted is a simple change and arguably fair to everyone except whiny brokers. The impact of that could cause innovation in the broker market. I'll vote for transparency every time when it comes to business/consumer agreements. u/tshirt914, China curbed shorting. The results neither broke nor fixed much of anything.
Selling shares is different than shorting shares. Shorting involves selling something you don't actually own, which should not be allowed.
We’ve seen it with MicroVision too. It’s just been so long that we have trended down and had no business developments that I’m forgetting what it feels like.
Gooooood morning fellow mvis longs!
Good morning Steelhead
So nice out man, have a great day!
Happy Tuesday friends, crazy it’s already July. Headed down the shore in a little bit. Watch the tramcar please. Keep on truckin!
“Please watch the car” Wildwood boardwalk, great times!
Sounds like a fun day. You have some nice temperatures on this visit. Have a great day Kiladex and everyone else!
Yes sir, thanks and you and everyone else!
July and still nothing... if this isn't an exercise in extreme patience I don't know what is.
For once I’m glad of no news, as I’m in the final stage of transferring a pension to my SIPP with the potential of doubling my MVIS shares in there if the price can stay lower just a bit longer, hopefully by Friday, possibly early next week. Plus a relative will be buying xxxxx on Friday…
You terrify me. God I hope Sumit delivers, for you.
We are all crazy here. Only a lunatic would continue add, which I am.
Go big or go home! I hope it works out for us all.
That’s the plan if the price can just stay low a little while longer! Got 9 years until I can touch my pension so I reckon it’s worth doing!
Price been low long enough, too long in fact. MicroVision will either get customers and become the multi-billion dollar company they should, or they will cease to exist. We will know in 6-12 months which camp they fall into. My money is firmly bet on MicroVision’s success.
I’ve been trying to get this money moved since 13th May, watching as others were able to snap up cheap shares. I just need the universe to let me get this done before the first deal, so much red tape to get the money moved here unlike the US
I’ve been in a similar position. At the time, it felt like there was a rush to buy before imminent deals. Turns out it would have been to my great benefit if it took a year or two to get the money into my account lol. I am really hoping Sumit’s mid-year timeline (that he essentially told us to forget about) plays out because this stock can see much lower levels than recently experienced if no news and/or no revenue comes in to improve the situation.
I said the same 15 years ago. Nothing ever materialized. Nothing. Promises, promises, one epic scam after another.
You had me until “scam”.
Good morning everyone from Germany, gonna clean out my old car today and probably gonna sell it this week after 6 years. Have a great start into your day everyone 🤍
This too shall pass
Well they keep lowering our targets. We know what we hold. 36$ shall hit soon Cantor Fitzgerald Maintains Neutral on Microvision, Lowers Price Target to $3
The last part of your comment is false. They did not lower the price target this go around. It was maintained at $3. https://www.benzinga.com/analyst-stock-ratings/analyst/61a614b46788ac00012ad980/andres-sheppard