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

marsbitОпубліковано о 2026-06-03Востаннє оновлено о 2026-06-03

Анотація

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

Пов'язані питання

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.

Пов'язані матеріали

Trade.xyz's Rebase Refusal Sparks Controversy, On-Chain Pre-IPO Market Faces Major Pricing Test

The debate surrounding Trade.xyz's refusal to adjust its SPCX (SpaceX pre-IPO) perpetual contract pricing amid updated share count revelations highlights a key challenge for on-chain pre-IPO markets. While several centralized exchanges (CEXs) paused and repriced their contracts after SpaceX's filing showed a ~10% increase in total shares, Trade.xyz maintained its market-driven pricing logic, which tracks expected per-share price sentiment rather than fundamental valuation metrics like market cap. This discrepancy triggered cross-platform arbitrage and caused leveraged long positions on Trade.xyz to suffer significant losses, as the platform's HIP-3 architecture lacks a native "Rebase" mechanism to neutrally adjust all user positions following such corporate actions. The incident underscores the difficulty for decentralized perpetual exchanges (Perp DEXs) to implement Rebase—a process CEXs handle by centrally pausing markets and adjusting ledger data. On-chain, this requires complex smart contract modifications, increasing gas costs, complexity, and potential attack surfaces. While some DEXs have managed similar adjustments, Trade.xyz's current design does not natively support it, though the team is reportedly exploring solutions for future events like stock splits. Ultimately, the controversy serves as a critical case study for the nascent on-chain pre-IPO sector, raising questions about price discovery reliability, transparent rule disclosure, and the readiness of DeFi infrastructures to handle traditional corporate actions as real-world assets (RWAs) gain traction.

marsbit6 хв тому

Trade.xyz's Rebase Refusal Sparks Controversy, On-Chain Pre-IPO Market Faces Major Pricing Test

marsbit6 хв тому

The 'Middle Eastern Prince' Swindles a Wealthy Woman: Renting Planes and Rolls-Royces, Scamming 120 Million Over Three Years

Two brothers who posed as "Middle Eastern princes" have been sentenced in the United States to 24 and 23 years in prison, respectively, and ordered to pay over $21.2 million in restitution and back taxes. Over three years, they fraudulently obtained approximately $21 million, primarily by promoting fictitious investment projects, including a non-existent cryptocurrency mining operation in a former General Electric industrial park in East Cleveland. The brothers, aged 42 and 33, created elaborate personas: one claimed to be a wealthy royal family heir and the city's "International Economic Advisor," while the other posed as a hedge fund manager with expertise from watching the TV show *Billions*. They bolstered their image by renting luxury cars and private jets and cultivating a relationship with a local mayor's chief of staff, who provided official-looking documents and government event access. A significant portion of the victims' funds, about $18 million, came from a single Chinese investor, a woman from Sichuan with experience in Bitcoin mining. The brothers also defrauded several women, including one former girlfriend. Their scheme unraveled when the primary investor discovered her $6 million worth of mining equipment had been sold off. The case highlights a trend of impostors using fabricated "Middle Eastern royal" identities to target wealthy individuals. Similar incidents include a "Dubai prince" who recently promoted a $500 million family office in Hong Kong and a Colombian man who impersonated a Saudi prince for decades in the US before being caught and sentenced in 2019.

marsbit20 хв тому

The 'Middle Eastern Prince' Swindles a Wealthy Woman: Renting Planes and Rolls-Royces, Scamming 120 Million Over Three Years

marsbit20 хв тому

a16z Partner: Being in the Flow of Capital Is the True Moat

A16z Partner: Standing in the Cash Flow is the True Moat Historically, many of the strongest companies built their moats by positioning themselves within "cash flows"—facilitating value creation and transfer in a network and taking a cut. The more value flows, the larger they grow. Crypto is the first modern technology natively built for this. With open ledgers, programmable settlement, and stablecoins enabling internet-speed global value transfer, it allows startups to inherit network effects from day one. Well-designed tokens align users, developers, and the protocol towards network growth, distributing value to contributors. This model isn't new (e.g., railroads, Visa, Google, AWS) but Crypto democratizes it. It lets entrepreneurs target areas with high inefficiency and profit extraction—like traditional finance's payments, custody, FX, and settlement—to compress costs, increase speed, and redistribute value by standing in the new flow. The opportunity extends beyond finance to emerging markets like GPU/compute, AI training data, energy, and space, where new, programmable infrastructure can be built without legacy constraints. Key questions for founders: Are you already in the cash flow? Does your revenue scale 10x with network activity? Where is profit extraction highest relative to value created in your market? The strategy is clear: compress the old cost structure, position yourself in the new value stream, and let the network compound.

marsbit47 хв тому

a16z Partner: Being in the Flow of Capital Is the True Moat

marsbit47 хв тому

Capturing 15 Top-Tier Zero-Day Vulnerabilities: A Consensus Protocol Debug Agent Framework Built by 0G Lab in Collaboration with Teams from NUS, PKU, and BUPT

"Agents Capture 15 Critical Zero-Day Bugs: 0G Lab's Multi-Agent Framework Automates Debugging in Consensus Protocols" Distributed consensus protocols are notoriously difficult to debug due to complex, intertwined states. A novel framework, Agora, developed by 0G Labs with researchers from NUS, Peking University, and Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, tackles this by fusing deep domain expertise with a collaborative multi-agent LLM architecture. Agora moves beyond the limitations of single LLMs and traditional testing like fuzzing. It employs three specialized agents: an Orchestrator for global state, a Strategy agent for generating attack scenarios using distributed systems knowledge, and a TestGen agent that creates executable tests. A core innovation is its efficient "Succinct Memory & Communication" mechanism and a dynamic test harness. This allows the system to translate abstract hypotheses into concrete tests across languages like Go and Rust, run them, capture failures, and refine the approach in a closed loop—all with minimal token overhead. In rigorous evaluations on production-level protocols including Raft, EPaxos, and components from etcd and Sui, Agora discovered 15 previously unknown deep logic bugs (e.g., execution divergence, liveness violations). In stark contrast, powerful standalone LLMs like GPT-5.2 and Claude 4.5 found zero such bugs. Agora achieved this with a high precision of 73.9% and at an average cost of only about $40 per bug found. The framework demonstrates high generalizability. Its decoupled design allows the "Multi-Agent + Hypothesis-Driven Testing" paradigm to be applied to other complex domains like database concurrency control, OS kernels, and Web3 smart contract auditing. By enabling efficient, automated detection of deep logic flaws, Agora points the way for AI-powered security in critical infrastructure, aligning with the growing trends of agentic systems and automated quality control.

marsbit51 хв тому

Capturing 15 Top-Tier Zero-Day Vulnerabilities: A Consensus Protocol Debug Agent Framework Built by 0G Lab in Collaboration with Teams from NUS, PKU, and BUPT

marsbit51 хв тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片