Misuse of percentages

[sinner]

I don't know why I keep seeing this !!

If you lose 20% of your capital, you need a 25% increase to get back to where you started.

20% of 10K = 25% of 8K = 2 grand.
The amount you lose is them same as the amount you have to get back.
Regardless of how you misuse percentages!!

Somehow the implication is that - because the percentage is higher,
it is harder to get back to breakeven.

How hard can it be?
View attachment 51931

The chart you provide here is completely fallacious because you are treating it as a liquid timeseries when it is actually an 8c stock on the ASX. If I purchased $50,000 worth of shares in the company at 8c, and over the next couple of months it declined to 4c on heavy supply, and now the chart shows the "price" at 8c, am I actually back to breakeven? Not unless there is enough liquidity at that price to absorb my shares.

Using a 8c stock on the ASX as your evidence on "ease" of movement is obviously going to lead to blatantly incorrect conclusions.

 

[sinner]

This thread would have to be the most confusing on percentages I have ever seen - But compelling on human nature and how people make assumptions in the absence of explicit information to support their predetermined views.

and haven't you made a bunch of your own assumptions about

a) being a strong hand, never required to liquidate assets
b) investing in securities with moderate liquidity
c) investing in securities loaded against the quality and value factor

 

[pixel]

I just noticed that this thread was started inside the discussion group "Beginner's Lounge".
How fitting :1zhelp:

(btw: shouldn't that be "Beginners' Lounge" ? Surely there are more beginners involved than just one....)

 

[burglar]

I just noticed that this thread was started inside the discussion group "Beginner's Lounge".
How fitting :1zhelp:

(btw: shouldn't that be "Beginners' Lounge" ? Surely there are more beginners involved than just one....)

No-one is owning up to being that beginner!
Everyone is an expert! :

 

[craft]

and haven't you made a bunch of your own assumptions

Yep. Are you assuming I wasn't talking about myself too?

Last time I checked I was human.

I have tried to acknowledging both arguments depending on the assumptions made - but people seem to just want to keep arguing – I give up again.

 

[burglar]

The chart you provide here is completely fallacious because you are treating it as a liquid timeseries when it is actually an 8c stock on the ASX. If I purchased $50,000 worth of shares in the company at 8c, and over the next couple of months it declined to 4c on heavy supply, and now the chart shows the "price" at 8c, am I actually back to breakeven? Not unless there is enough liquidity at that price to absorb my shares.

Using a 8c stock on the ASX as your evidence on "ease" of movement is obviously going to lead to blatantly incorrect conclusions.

Only if you are a contrarian, would you have chosen 0.8c to win an argument.
If your eyesight were better, you would not be out by a factor of ten.


PS This company is sufficiently liquid to accomodate you!

 

[craft]

No-one is owning up to being that beginner!
Everyone is an expert! :

Expert (ex. spurt) : ex is a has been and spurt is a drip under preasure.

Lucky I'm still just learning.

 

[Julia]

There was an illustration today of how imprecise language can cause misinterpretation.
On the NDIS, most people I've heard talking about it, including the Prime Minister, have referred to a "0.5% increase in the Medicare levy" to fund the scheme.

A caller to a radio program pointed out quite correctly that it's actually a 33.3% increase in the levy.

 

[waimate01]

There was an illustration today of how imprecise language can cause misinterpretation.
On the NDIS, most people I've heard talking about it, including the Prime Minister, have referred to a "0.5% increase in the Medicare levy" to fund the scheme.

A caller to a radio program pointed out quite correctly that it's actually a 33.3% increase in the levy.

Very good point, Julia. And a wonderful opportunity to highlight the difference between a 'percentage' increase and a 'basis point' increase. There's a 50 basis point increase in the levy, or a 33.3% increase in the levy.

Let's see our antipercentagists chew on that !

 

[ROE]

I was thinking the same thing actually - providing that you can exercise skill and judgment there is no reason that one of your best winners may go from $2 to $1 before it ever sees $10.

I think you once explained this to me as the theory of being a "strong hand" vs a "weak hand."

I bought CCP at $1.20 Average down to 80c a pop it dropped to 40c at the depth of GFC...

and it is now close to $9 by next year all my capital invest in them paid for via Dividend

I haven't sold a single share ..I bought some more in my super account at $3.70...

lose 50% make back a couple hundred % more plus dividend