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

marsbit2026-06-03 tarihinde yayınlandı2026-06-03 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

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

İlgili Sorular

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.

İlgili Okumalar

Analysis of the Latest Portfolio Adjustment by the "Top Player" in the U.S. Stock Market: $9 Billion Short on NVIDIA, Shifting Focus to Power and Memory Sectors

AI investor Leopold Aschenbrenner has made a significant portfolio shift, taking a $9 billion nominal short position against top AI infrastructure stocks like NVIDIA, ASML, and Oracle. Simultaneously, he is redirecting capital towards what he sees as the next critical bottlenecks in the AI boom: power, memory, and data center networking, alongside private investments in AI model companies like Anthropic. This move is interpreted not as a call that the AI bubble has burst, but as a rotation within the infrastructure stack. The analysis highlights NVIDIA's recent $25 billion bond issuance as a potential signal, questioning why a cash-rich company would seek external debt despite high profits and increased dividends/buybacks. The core investment thesis is that the initial, crowded "picks and shovels" trade in semiconductors is maturing. The next wave of capital is expected to flow into the physical and logistical constraints of AI expansion: electricity supply, memory chip capacity, data center construction, and enabling technologies like optical networking (fiber) for high-bandwidth communication, where copper remains crucial for short distances. Aschenbrenner's substantial (approx. 20% of fund) private stake in Anthropic is noted as a key part of his strategy—investing directly in the "mine" (AI models) rather than just the "shovels." The discussion concludes that while certain segments may be overvalued, the overarching AI infrastructure demand driven by real product usage remains robust. The most promising long-term investments are seen in essential, non-sexy infrastructure—particularly energy and power companies—whose demand is viewed as a global constant irrespective of AI's cyclicality.

marsbit2 dk önce

Analysis of the Latest Portfolio Adjustment by the "Top Player" in the U.S. Stock Market: $9 Billion Short on NVIDIA, Shifting Focus to Power and Memory Sectors

marsbit2 dk önce

BIT Research: Liquidity is Disappearing, Will Bitcoin Replay the Bottoming Pattern of 2022?

The crypto market is currently in an adjustment phase driven by policy expectations and liquidity shifts. Despite a brief rebound fueled by geopolitical easing and SpaceX's strong IPO performance, unexpectedly hawkish signals from new Fed Chair Kevin Warsh have removed anticipated easing support. Concurrently, stablecoin liquidity is shrinking, with insufficient new capital inflows, pushing the market into a typically quiet summer period. Pricing lacks catalysts for a sustained rally. Daily trading volume has significantly contracted, stablecoin growth has slowed markedly, and the supportive effect of Strategy's (formerly MicroStrategy) STRC preferred stock-financed Bitcoin purchases is fading. Amid policy uncertainty, seasonal weakness, and liquidity contraction, Bitcoin faces near-term downward pressure. Warsh's hawkish pivot and refusal to provide a clear policy outlook have increased risk premiums, historically unfavorable for Bitcoin. Technically, the trend remains bearish below $73,700, with $62,446 as critical support. A break below could accelerate declines, though a prolonged consolidation phase, similar to 2022's bottoming process, is possible. Liquidity is a core constraint. Current daily volume is around $500 billion, roughly 25% of the peak during the July-Oct 2025 rally. The 12-month growth rates for USDT and USDC have fallen to ~20%, with 6-month growth near zero, indicating weak new inflows. Bitcoin ETF and Strategy-driven inflows have also weakened, with a 30-day rolling net outflow. With inflation at 4.2% above the Fed's target, combined hawkish policy, seasonal factors, and liquidity shortages challenge Bitcoin's ability to hold above $60,000. However, this adjustment phase may be forming a cyclical low this summer, potentially setting the stage for the next bull cycle.

marsbit31 dk önce

BIT Research: Liquidity is Disappearing, Will Bitcoin Replay the Bottoming Pattern of 2022?

marsbit31 dk önce

Who Makes the Best Use of Claude Code? The Answer Might Not Be Programmers

Claude Code Usage Report Summary (Based on ~400k sessions) Core Finding: In agentic programming with Claude Code, a clear division of labor has emerged: humans primarily decide *what* to build (planning decisions), while Claude decides *how* to build it (execution decisions). Key Insights: 1. **Effectiveness is not limited to programmers.** In code-generation tasks, success rates for users in non-technical fields (law, finance, management, research) are nearing those of software engineers. What matters most is the user's domain expertise and understanding of the problem to be solved. 2. **Domain expertise drives success and efficiency.** Sessions where users exhibited "expert" proficiency in the task's domain saw verified success rates double compared to "novice" sessions. Experts also delegated more work per instruction, with Claude executing more actions and producing more output. 3. **AI is amplifying, not replacing, domain knowledge.** Claude Code lowers the *implementation* barrier, not the *judgment* barrier. The value of knowing the "what" and "why" is increasing relative to just knowing the "how" to code. 4. **Usage is evolving.** Over a 7-month period (Oct '25 - Apr '26), the share of sessions for debugging halved, while use for software operations, data analysis, and non-code writing roughly doubled. The estimated economic value of typical tasks increased by ~25%. Conclusion: The data suggests coding agents are making programming background less critical for completing technical tasks. However, they reward and amplify deep domain understanding. The ability to successfully direct an AI agent stems more from mastery of a specific field than from coding skill itself. The primary gains come from being competent in a domain; deep specialization adds only marginal additional advantage. This may signal a shift where software creation becomes integrated into various professions.

marsbit1 saat önce

Who Makes the Best Use of Claude Code? The Answer Might Not Be Programmers

marsbit1 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot
Futures
活动图片