Timeline for Log return on short selling when the loss exceeds 100%
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 2, 2024 at 13:59 | comment | added | mark leeds | Yeah, I always think of the term that is being subtracted as also being the term in the denominator so it's not intuitive to me but I see what you're doing. No problem. Different strokes for different folks. | |
| Aug 2, 2024 at 12:10 | vote | accept | user2991243 | ||
| Aug 2, 2024 at 12:10 | vote | accept | user2991243 | ||
| Aug 2, 2024 at 12:10 | |||||
| Aug 2, 2024 at 6:31 | comment | added | KaiSqDist | @markleeds not sure what you mean by anchor of $P_2$. The way I understand it is because $1$ comes before $2$ in terms of time, the denominator should always be $P_1$, so it makes perfect sense to me. The numerator itself is intuitive though. | |
| Aug 2, 2024 at 3:58 | comment | added | mark leeds | KaiSqDist: That's interesting but also possibly confusing because, in the first equation, you're using an anchor of $P_{2}$ but then dividing by $P_{1}$. My brain can't handle that !!!!!!! phdstudent's method is more like back in the day when they told you that subtraction was like adding a negative. That works better for me. | |
| Aug 2, 2024 at 1:11 | comment | added | KaiSqDist | I fully agree on the note about the log return on a long positions being just the negative of the short. Another way people tend to represent returns on short positions is $(P_1-P_2)/P_1$ vs that of a long position that is the normal returns formula of $(P_2-P_1)/P_1$, which is why applying a negative sign on the log returns makes sense. | |
| Aug 1, 2024 at 19:04 | history | answered | phdstudent | CC BY-SA 4.0 |