Misuse of percentages

burglar said:

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

Click to expand...

craft said:

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.

Click to expand...

pixel said:

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....)

Click to expand...

sinner said:

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

Click to expand...

sinner said:

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.

Click to expand...

burglar said:

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

Click to expand...

Julia said:

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.

Click to expand...

Ves said:

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."

Click to expand...