Is it wise to hold on to stock that has plummeted and then stabilized?How do I simulate a trailing limit orderHow are investment funding valued when invested in a company before it goes public?May I Invest as a non accredited investor?What is it about company performance that causes the perceived value of its stock to rise?Company revenue increased however stock price did notCould ignoring sunk costs be used to make an investment look more attractive when it's really not?Historically, has stock value gone up in relation to corporate tax cuts? To what extent?Why can't we all agree to create a self-fulfilling prophecy with regards to the stock market?To what extent can dividends be seen as an informed and careful conclusion about the company's long term ability to at least maintain it?ESPP--any reason not to go all in?

What is it called when one voice type sings a 'solo'?

How to make payment on the internet without leaving a money trail?

What is the command to reset a PC without deleting any files

Are white and non-white police officers equally likely to kill black suspects?

How to deal with fear of taking dependencies

Landlord wants to switch my lease to a "Land contract" to "get back at the city"

What do the Banks children have against barley water?

Crop image to path created in TikZ?

Could a US political party gain complete control over the government by removing checks & balances?

When blogging recipes, how can I support both readers who want the narrative/journey and ones who want the printer-friendly recipe?

Denied boarding due to overcrowding, Sparpreis ticket. What are my rights?

Why airport relocation isn't done gradually?

I’m planning on buying a laser printer but concerned about the life cycle of toner in the machine

Is ipsum/ipsa/ipse a third person pronoun, or can it serve other functions?

What are the advantages and disadvantages of running one shots compared to campaigns?

Is Social Media Science Fiction?

Is this food a bread or a loaf?

Does bootstrapped regression allow for inference?

"listening to me about as much as you're listening to this pole here"

aging parents with no investments

How could a lack of term limits lead to a "dictatorship?"

Ideas for 3rd eye abilities

Pristine Bit Checking

Is every set a filtered colimit of finite sets?



Is it wise to hold on to stock that has plummeted and then stabilized?


How do I simulate a trailing limit orderHow are investment funding valued when invested in a company before it goes public?May I Invest as a non accredited investor?What is it about company performance that causes the perceived value of its stock to rise?Company revenue increased however stock price did notCould ignoring sunk costs be used to make an investment look more attractive when it's really not?Historically, has stock value gone up in relation to corporate tax cuts? To what extent?Why can't we all agree to create a self-fulfilling prophecy with regards to the stock market?To what extent can dividends be seen as an informed and careful conclusion about the company's long term ability to at least maintain it?ESPP--any reason not to go all in?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








1















I own some stock that lost more than half its value. It has now been more or less stable for months, and I'm tempted to get rid of it because I see poor prospects in the future for this line of business.



However, I'm told by others that this is unwise, that this is the worst time to sell -- I should recover the losses!



Isn't this the gambler's fallacy? What stops the stock from going down by another half in the future, again? And again?



The people giving me this advice have no insight at all into this particular stock nor have a particular keen insight into economics in general. However, they present this as if it is obvious fact that everyone should know, that if you have experienced this, then you should wait until it has regained at least some of its value.



What basis would anyone have for this statement? Is it true that statistically, more often than not, a company will recover?



The way I view this, is if I would rather buy or sell stock in the company now. What happened in the past is simply unfortunate (for me), it by itself doesn't have any bearing on the future for this company.










share|improve this question









New contributor




AlphaCentauri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 1





    If you didn't own any of this stock, would you buy some now?

    – jcm
    5 hours ago











  • @jcm No, and that was my point.

    – AlphaCentauri
    5 hours ago






  • 2





    There's your answer.

    – jcm
    4 hours ago











  • As you stated, (1) nothing stops the stock from going down by another half in the future and (2) what happened in the past has no bearing on the future for this company. Your choice is to continue Buy & Hope or accept defeat. Regardless of which you choose, the future is unknown. Another choice is that if you believe (hope?) that the stock has stabilized and if it offers options, sell some OTM covered calls and receive some income while waiting. It will likely be a locked in loss but a smaller one. Again, no guarantees.

    – Bob Baerker
    4 hours ago

















1















I own some stock that lost more than half its value. It has now been more or less stable for months, and I'm tempted to get rid of it because I see poor prospects in the future for this line of business.



However, I'm told by others that this is unwise, that this is the worst time to sell -- I should recover the losses!



Isn't this the gambler's fallacy? What stops the stock from going down by another half in the future, again? And again?



The people giving me this advice have no insight at all into this particular stock nor have a particular keen insight into economics in general. However, they present this as if it is obvious fact that everyone should know, that if you have experienced this, then you should wait until it has regained at least some of its value.



What basis would anyone have for this statement? Is it true that statistically, more often than not, a company will recover?



The way I view this, is if I would rather buy or sell stock in the company now. What happened in the past is simply unfortunate (for me), it by itself doesn't have any bearing on the future for this company.










share|improve this question









New contributor




AlphaCentauri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 1





    If you didn't own any of this stock, would you buy some now?

    – jcm
    5 hours ago











  • @jcm No, and that was my point.

    – AlphaCentauri
    5 hours ago






  • 2





    There's your answer.

    – jcm
    4 hours ago











  • As you stated, (1) nothing stops the stock from going down by another half in the future and (2) what happened in the past has no bearing on the future for this company. Your choice is to continue Buy & Hope or accept defeat. Regardless of which you choose, the future is unknown. Another choice is that if you believe (hope?) that the stock has stabilized and if it offers options, sell some OTM covered calls and receive some income while waiting. It will likely be a locked in loss but a smaller one. Again, no guarantees.

    – Bob Baerker
    4 hours ago













1












1








1








I own some stock that lost more than half its value. It has now been more or less stable for months, and I'm tempted to get rid of it because I see poor prospects in the future for this line of business.



However, I'm told by others that this is unwise, that this is the worst time to sell -- I should recover the losses!



Isn't this the gambler's fallacy? What stops the stock from going down by another half in the future, again? And again?



The people giving me this advice have no insight at all into this particular stock nor have a particular keen insight into economics in general. However, they present this as if it is obvious fact that everyone should know, that if you have experienced this, then you should wait until it has regained at least some of its value.



What basis would anyone have for this statement? Is it true that statistically, more often than not, a company will recover?



The way I view this, is if I would rather buy or sell stock in the company now. What happened in the past is simply unfortunate (for me), it by itself doesn't have any bearing on the future for this company.










share|improve this question









New contributor




AlphaCentauri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












I own some stock that lost more than half its value. It has now been more or less stable for months, and I'm tempted to get rid of it because I see poor prospects in the future for this line of business.



However, I'm told by others that this is unwise, that this is the worst time to sell -- I should recover the losses!



Isn't this the gambler's fallacy? What stops the stock from going down by another half in the future, again? And again?



The people giving me this advice have no insight at all into this particular stock nor have a particular keen insight into economics in general. However, they present this as if it is obvious fact that everyone should know, that if you have experienced this, then you should wait until it has regained at least some of its value.



What basis would anyone have for this statement? Is it true that statistically, more often than not, a company will recover?



The way I view this, is if I would rather buy or sell stock in the company now. What happened in the past is simply unfortunate (for me), it by itself doesn't have any bearing on the future for this company.







investing






share|improve this question









New contributor




AlphaCentauri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




AlphaCentauri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 5 hours ago







AlphaCentauri













New contributor




AlphaCentauri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 5 hours ago









AlphaCentauriAlphaCentauri

1062




1062




New contributor




AlphaCentauri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





AlphaCentauri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






AlphaCentauri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







  • 1





    If you didn't own any of this stock, would you buy some now?

    – jcm
    5 hours ago











  • @jcm No, and that was my point.

    – AlphaCentauri
    5 hours ago






  • 2





    There's your answer.

    – jcm
    4 hours ago











  • As you stated, (1) nothing stops the stock from going down by another half in the future and (2) what happened in the past has no bearing on the future for this company. Your choice is to continue Buy & Hope or accept defeat. Regardless of which you choose, the future is unknown. Another choice is that if you believe (hope?) that the stock has stabilized and if it offers options, sell some OTM covered calls and receive some income while waiting. It will likely be a locked in loss but a smaller one. Again, no guarantees.

    – Bob Baerker
    4 hours ago












  • 1





    If you didn't own any of this stock, would you buy some now?

    – jcm
    5 hours ago











  • @jcm No, and that was my point.

    – AlphaCentauri
    5 hours ago






  • 2





    There's your answer.

    – jcm
    4 hours ago











  • As you stated, (1) nothing stops the stock from going down by another half in the future and (2) what happened in the past has no bearing on the future for this company. Your choice is to continue Buy & Hope or accept defeat. Regardless of which you choose, the future is unknown. Another choice is that if you believe (hope?) that the stock has stabilized and if it offers options, sell some OTM covered calls and receive some income while waiting. It will likely be a locked in loss but a smaller one. Again, no guarantees.

    – Bob Baerker
    4 hours ago







1




1





If you didn't own any of this stock, would you buy some now?

– jcm
5 hours ago





If you didn't own any of this stock, would you buy some now?

– jcm
5 hours ago













@jcm No, and that was my point.

– AlphaCentauri
5 hours ago





@jcm No, and that was my point.

– AlphaCentauri
5 hours ago




2




2





There's your answer.

– jcm
4 hours ago





There's your answer.

– jcm
4 hours ago













As you stated, (1) nothing stops the stock from going down by another half in the future and (2) what happened in the past has no bearing on the future for this company. Your choice is to continue Buy & Hope or accept defeat. Regardless of which you choose, the future is unknown. Another choice is that if you believe (hope?) that the stock has stabilized and if it offers options, sell some OTM covered calls and receive some income while waiting. It will likely be a locked in loss but a smaller one. Again, no guarantees.

– Bob Baerker
4 hours ago





As you stated, (1) nothing stops the stock from going down by another half in the future and (2) what happened in the past has no bearing on the future for this company. Your choice is to continue Buy & Hope or accept defeat. Regardless of which you choose, the future is unknown. Another choice is that if you believe (hope?) that the stock has stabilized and if it offers options, sell some OTM covered calls and receive some income while waiting. It will likely be a locked in loss but a smaller one. Again, no guarantees.

– Bob Baerker
4 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















3














This might be closer to the sunk cost fallacy with a bit of loss aversion thrown in. I know it is hard emotionally to "lock in your losses", but that money is gone and it is a new day. You have an asset that is worth what the stock trades at today and that's what you have to work with.



It is very possible that stock might regain its previous losses, but the fact that you paid more for it doesn't make it any more/less likely to than any other stock.



The key is that you have to pretend that you have the cash value of the stock today and never invested it. If you would buy that stock today, keep it. If you wouldn't trade the same amount of cash for the stock, try something else.






share|improve this answer























    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "93"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );






    AlphaCentauri is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmoney.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f107547%2fis-it-wise-to-hold-on-to-stock-that-has-plummeted-and-then-stabilized%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    3














    This might be closer to the sunk cost fallacy with a bit of loss aversion thrown in. I know it is hard emotionally to "lock in your losses", but that money is gone and it is a new day. You have an asset that is worth what the stock trades at today and that's what you have to work with.



    It is very possible that stock might regain its previous losses, but the fact that you paid more for it doesn't make it any more/less likely to than any other stock.



    The key is that you have to pretend that you have the cash value of the stock today and never invested it. If you would buy that stock today, keep it. If you wouldn't trade the same amount of cash for the stock, try something else.






    share|improve this answer



























      3














      This might be closer to the sunk cost fallacy with a bit of loss aversion thrown in. I know it is hard emotionally to "lock in your losses", but that money is gone and it is a new day. You have an asset that is worth what the stock trades at today and that's what you have to work with.



      It is very possible that stock might regain its previous losses, but the fact that you paid more for it doesn't make it any more/less likely to than any other stock.



      The key is that you have to pretend that you have the cash value of the stock today and never invested it. If you would buy that stock today, keep it. If you wouldn't trade the same amount of cash for the stock, try something else.






      share|improve this answer

























        3












        3








        3







        This might be closer to the sunk cost fallacy with a bit of loss aversion thrown in. I know it is hard emotionally to "lock in your losses", but that money is gone and it is a new day. You have an asset that is worth what the stock trades at today and that's what you have to work with.



        It is very possible that stock might regain its previous losses, but the fact that you paid more for it doesn't make it any more/less likely to than any other stock.



        The key is that you have to pretend that you have the cash value of the stock today and never invested it. If you would buy that stock today, keep it. If you wouldn't trade the same amount of cash for the stock, try something else.






        share|improve this answer













        This might be closer to the sunk cost fallacy with a bit of loss aversion thrown in. I know it is hard emotionally to "lock in your losses", but that money is gone and it is a new day. You have an asset that is worth what the stock trades at today and that's what you have to work with.



        It is very possible that stock might regain its previous losses, but the fact that you paid more for it doesn't make it any more/less likely to than any other stock.



        The key is that you have to pretend that you have the cash value of the stock today and never invested it. If you would buy that stock today, keep it. If you wouldn't trade the same amount of cash for the stock, try something else.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 2 hours ago









        JohnFxJohnFx

        35.7k984187




        35.7k984187




















            AlphaCentauri is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            AlphaCentauri is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            AlphaCentauri is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











            AlphaCentauri is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














            Thanks for contributing an answer to Personal Finance & Money Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmoney.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f107547%2fis-it-wise-to-hold-on-to-stock-that-has-plummeted-and-then-stabilized%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            How should I use the fbox command correctly to avoid producing a Bad Box message?How to put a long piece of text in a box?How to specify height and width of fboxIs there an arrayrulecolor-like command to change the rule color of fbox?What is the command to highlight bad boxes in pdf?Why does fbox sometimes place the box *over* the graphic image?how to put the text in the boxHow to create command for a box where text inside the box can automatically adjust?how can I make an fbox like command with certain color, shape and width of border?how to use fbox in align modeFbox increase the spacing between the box and it content (inner margin)how to change the box height of an equationWhat is the use of the hbox in a newcommand command?

            152 Atala Notae | Nexus externi | Tabula navigationis"Discovery Circumstances: Numbered Minor Planets"2000152Small-Body Database

            Doxepinum Nexus interni Notae | Tabula navigationis3158DB01142WHOa682390"Structural Analysis of the Histamine H1 Receptor""Transdermal and Topical Drug Administration in the Treatment of Pain""Antidepressants as antipruritic agents: A review"