Why Not Short Even When Bearish? Munger Did the Math on a 'Losing Trade'

marsbitPublicado em 2026-06-03Última atualização em 2026-06-03

Resumo

Why Not Short Even When Bearish? Charlie Munger's Calculated "Loss-Making Account" Many traders, drawn to speculative tools like futures contracts, often face repeated failures. As the article notes, unless one is a genius, such instruments should be avoided for long-term profit-seeking. Similarly, the practice of short selling is viewed with caution. The author firmly states a policy of not shorting, even when bearish, preferring to simply wait. The core reason? Successful short selling requires exceptionally difficult conditions to profit. Legendary investors Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger have themselves reflected on painful short-selling experiences. Munger highlights two critical flaws in the mathematical logic of shorting: 1. Asymmetrical Risk/Reward: A long position has a maximum loss of 100% but unlimited upside. A short position caps profit at 100% (if a stock falls to zero) but carries theoretically unlimited loss potential. 2. The "Promoter" Problem: Fraudulent or struggling companies can prolong their decline. As Munger said, "You can run out of money before the promoter runs out of ideas," meaning short sellers may be forced to cover positions at a loss before the company's true fate unfolds. The article cites Stanley Druckenmiller, a famed hedge fund manager. He once shorted 12 companies that all eventually went bankrupt. However, intense market rallies forced him to cover his positions within three weeks, resulting in massive losses—$200 million of hi...

At the end of a previous article, there was a comment that said:

"Recently, I've become obsessed with futures contracts, always thinking I can make money, but trying again and again, failing again and again..."

Regarding such financial instruments, I've mentioned many times in articles before that ordinary people, except for geniuses, should avoid touching them, especially not using them as tools for long-term profit-making and gains.

Trying repeatedly but failing in the end basically proves that this reader is not a genius, so it's better to avoid them from now on.

I had this experience myself in my early years, and fortunately, I haven't touched these instruments since then.

Another instrument as popular among many enthusiasts as futures contracts is short selling.

My attitude towards this instrument is equally firm—I definitely do not use it. Even if bearish, I won't short; I will only wait.

Why not short even when bearish?

Because to successfully execute a short trade and profit from it requires some additional conditions that are even harder to grasp.

In fact, not only is it difficult for ordinary people to grasp, but even recognized investment masters like Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger have reflected on their past experiences with short selling multiple times in their shareholder meeting transcripts.

In my impression, Munger's reflections on his short selling experiences are particularly profound and poignant. Two of his comments that I particularly like are:

The first is that he repeatedly emphasized that short selling is mathematically unprofitable, with asymmetric risk and reward.

When a short seller buys a stock (going long), his maximum loss is 100%, but his profit potential is unlimited; whereas when he shorts a stock, his maximum gain is capped at 100% (if the stock price falls to zero), but his potential loss is unlimited.

Just from common sense, an operation with such asymmetric risk and reward should be rejected immediately.

Another point he made is: "You can run out of money before the promoter runs out of ideas."

What this means is: Many companies targeted for short selling do indeed have problems, or are even run by fraudsters. But these operators are very skilled at sustaining the bubble; they can use new ideas and tactics to keep the stock price rising. This causes the short seller's margin to be exhausted while these operators can still continue to support the rising stock price.

Recently, a veritable Wall Street titan also disclosed his past experiences with short selling.

Many readers have probably heard of Stanley Druckenmiller, who was once a top trader under George Soros.

For someone like him, many people's (including my own) first impression is likely: He must handle all kinds of financial instruments with great proficiency and ease.

"Short selling" must be a piece of cake.

But what was the result?

In his interview (see reference link), he mentioned that he once picked 12 companies to short. In the end, all 12 companies did indeed go bankrupt.

But he didn't last until the day they went bankrupt.

Within three weeks, the companies' stock prices were driven to extreme highs by frenzied market sentiment, causing him not only to lose his entire $200 million principal but also to be forced to cover his positions, incurring an additional $600 million loss.

Finally, he admitted that he might have never made money on short selling in his life.

Druckenmiller's experience perfectly encompasses the two issues Munger discussed:

- He not only lost his principal but also lost additional money.

- He didn't wait for the fraudsters' tricks to be exposed; his principal was already depleted.

Even such two master-level figures have at least proven that they are not geniuses when it comes to the operation of short selling. I think ordinary investors should be even more cautious.

Not only short selling, but for other financial instruments (including the futures contracts mentioned above), before anyone thinks of using them to achieve long-term stable profits, they should seriously examine themselves and not waste time again and again on these fancy financial tools.

Reference link:

https://x.com/mubeitech/status/2044744282767028356?s=20

Perguntas relacionadas

QWhy does the author advise against engaging in practices like short selling and contracts?

AThe author advises against them because they are complex financial tools where the average person is likely to lose money. For short selling specifically, the risks and rewards are asymmetrical (unlimited potential loss vs. capped gain), and investors can run out of capital before a fraudulent or overvalued company's stock finally declines.

QAccording to Charlie Munger, what is the key mathematical disadvantage of short selling?

ACharlie Munger highlighted that short selling is mathematically disadvantageous due to its asymmetric risk-reward profile. A short seller's maximum gain is 100% (if the stock goes to zero), but their potential loss is theoretically unlimited, making it an unfavorable proposition.

QWhat does Charlie Munger mean by the quote: 'You can run out of money before the promoter runs out of ideas' in the context of short selling?

AIt means that companies targeted by short sellers, even if fraudulent or problematic, can often prolong their inflated stock price through new schemes, narratives, or promotional tactics. As a result, the short seller may exhaust their financial resources (e.g., margin) before the company's misdeeds are exposed and the stock price finally collapses.

QWhat was the outcome of Stanley Druckenmiller's attempt to short 12 companies, as mentioned in the article?

AAlthough all 12 companies he shorted eventually went bankrupt, Stanley Druckenmiller did not profit. Within three weeks, their stock prices surged due to market frenzy, forcing him to cover his short positions at a massive loss. He lost his $200 million principal and an additional $600 million, admitting he likely never made money from shorting in his career.

QWhat is the author's suggested alternative action when one is bearish on an asset, instead of short selling?

AThe author suggests that instead of short selling, one should simply wait. The recommended approach is to avoid the tool altogether and not take action, implying a strategy of patience and observation rather than engaging in a high-risk short position.

Leituras Relacionadas

Ethereum Q1 2026 Report: Fees Decline, Users and Transaction Volume Hit New Highs

Ethereum Q1 2026 Report: Fees Down, Users & Transactions Hit New Highs Token Terminal's Q1 2026 report on Ethereum presents a pivotal development: the network achieved record highs in monthly active users (13.2M, +85.9% YoY), total transactions (200.4M, +81.5% YoY), and throughput (25.78 TPS), while transaction fees on the mainnet plummeted by 47.9% quarter-over-quarter. This shift is attributed to the network's strategic move into a "low fees for scale" phase, exemplified by the Fusaka upgrade which increased data capacity and lowered block space costs, releasing pent-up demand (a manifestation of Jevons's Paradox). The report highlights a core narrative shift for Ethereum: from a DeFi-centric blockchain to a global financial settlement layer. It maintains a dominant position in tokenized assets, holding majority market shares among top chains in stablecoins (61.8%), tokenized funds (73.0%), and tokenized commodities (84.0%). Growth in tokenized funds (+73.1% YoY) and commodities (+325.9% YoY) was particularly strong, driven by institutions like BlackRock and JPMorgan entering the space. Contrasting these usage gains, several USD-denominated value metrics declined in Q1: fully diluted market cap fell 30.3% QoQ, total value locked (TVL) dropped 11.0%, and ecosystem transaction volume decreased 24.0%. The report interprets this as Ethereum prioritizing long-term network expansion and cementing its role as the default settlement layer for finance over short-term fee capture. The commentary from Etherealize argues that, much like the early internet, Ethereum's open, permissionless model is poised to win over closed alternatives as institutional tokenization accelerates.

marsbitHá 1h

Ethereum Q1 2026 Report: Fees Decline, Users and Transaction Volume Hit New Highs

marsbitHá 1h

He Just Raised 2.7 Billion, and Li Fei-Fei Also Invested

Pete Florence, a former senior research scientist at Google DeepMind and a key contributor to the Vision-Language-Action (VLA) model architecture, is deliberately distancing his startup, Generalist AI, from the trendy "world model" label. He argues that the industry should prioritize concrete goals over buzzwords. His goal is to create robots that can perform a vast range of unseen tasks with high speed and success rates, without needing task-specific training data. Recently, his company raised $400 million (¥2.7 billion) at a $2 billion valuation. Notable investors include NVIDIA's NVentures, Bezos Expeditions, NFDG, as well as Xiaomi co-founder Lin Bin, Zoom founder Eric Yuan, and renowned AI scientist Fei-Fei Li. Florence's approach stems from his academic background at MIT under Professor Russ Tedrake, focusing on understanding the physical world. After joining DeepMind, he developed models like Transporter Network and co-created the VLA framework. He left in 2025 to found Generalist AI. The company has launched two models: GEN-0, which demonstrated that scaling laws apply to physical motion, and GEN-1. GEN-1 was trained on over 500,000 hours of physical interaction data collected via a specialized wearable device. It achieves a 99% success rate on precise mechanical tasks like folding boxes and maintains performance three times faster than its predecessor. Florence believes GEN-1 is reaching a commercial utility threshold similar to the GPT-3 inflection point. The substantial funding round, following GEN-1's release, signifies strong investor confidence in Generalist AI's practical, goal-driven path to creating versatile, useful robots, regardless of the "world model" terminology.

marsbitHá 1h

He Just Raised 2.7 Billion, and Li Fei-Fei Also Invested

marsbitHá 1h

Two Legends Lost in Three Days: Is Google's AI Talent Dam Cracking?

In three days, Google lost two AI legends. On June 18, Noam Shazeer, co-author of the seminal "Attention is All You Need" paper and Gemini co-lead, left for OpenAI. Just 48 hours later, John Jumper, 2024 Nobel laureate and AlphaFold lead, departed DeepMind for Anthropic. This follows Andrej Karpathy joining Anthropic in May. These moves highlight a structural trend: top AI talent is concentrating at mission-driven, pre-IPO firms like OpenAI and Anthropic, while Google becomes a primary source. The exodus stems from a core mission mismatch. Google's ad-centric model often subordinates AI research to product and revenue goals, creating friction for pioneers like Shazeer, who returned in 2024 only to leave again. In contrast, OpenAI and Anthropic offer singular focus on pushing AI boundaries, whether towards AGI or safety-aligned models, which deeply appeals to top researchers like Jumper. Financial incentives amplify the pull. With both OpenAI and Anthropic nearing IPO, employees stand to gain immensely from equity, an upside Google's mature stock cannot match. Furthermore, the 2023 merger of Google Brain and DeepMind, intended to consolidate strength, has instead created cultural tension and slowed the path from research to product, as evidenced by Gemini's pace. This talent redistribution is reshaping the AI landscape. While Google retains vast data and compute resources, its true crisis is the quiet, continuous loss of the people who define the field's future. The real moat in AI is not infrastructure, but the concentration of brilliant minds—a battle Google is currently losing.

marsbitHá 3h

Two Legends Lost in Three Days: Is Google's AI Talent Dam Cracking?

marsbitHá 3h

Behind the AI Report Card, Lies a Chinese 'Exam Setter'

Beyond the familiar performance charts like MMLU-Pro and MMMU, which major AI models strive to ace, stands a key "examiner": Chinese-Canadian researcher Wenhu Chen. An assistant professor at the University of Waterloo and founder of TIGERLab, Chen addresses the crucial need for more rigorous AI evaluation. As models like GPT-4 began scoring near-perfect results on older benchmarks like MMLU, it became difficult to distinguish their true capabilities. In response, Chen introduced MMLU-Pro in 2024, featuring harder, more reasoning-focused questions with more answer choices, successfully reintroducing meaningful performance gaps. His work extends to multi-modal evaluation with MMMU and its enhanced version, MMMU-Pro. These benchmarks test a model's ability to understand and reason with complex information from images, charts, and text across diverse academic subjects, exposing the significant challenges even top models face in genuine comprehension. Chen's background in complex QA, table reasoning, and his experience at Google DeepMind on projects like Gemini inform his approach. He understands that effective benchmarks must anticipate how models might "cheat" by memorizing data or avoiding visual analysis. His lab also actively researches video understanding and generation models (e.g., UniVideo, Vamba), ensuring his evaluation work is grounded in practical model-building challenges. Now at Meta's Super Intelligence Lab, Chen continues his focus on multi-modal data and evaluation, representing the deep yet often unseen contributions of Chinese talent in shaping the fundamental tools of the AI industry.

marsbitHá 3h

Behind the AI Report Card, Lies a Chinese 'Exam Setter'

marsbitHá 3h

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片