3 ms·

One side of the trade hopes to get rich selling the stock, the other hopes to get rich buying it. This year, it was in fact the buy side which got rich, but the

One side of the trade hopes to get rich selling the stock, the other hopes to get rich buying it. This year, it was in fact the buy side which got rich, but there's no inherent moral superiority of one side over the other (Have you ever considered that the market participant which by definition sold more Tesla stock than any other, overall, is… Tesla?) I really don't understand the moral outrage directed at people shorting a stock. Personally, I reserve my opprobrium for stuff like getting people to pre-pay thousands of dollars for features that keep getting pushed back year after year, or shipping software in a twilight zone of autonomy that works fine 99.9% of the time and accelerates into a wall at 90mph the rest of the time. And "gaming the market"? As in announcing an inexistent bid to take the company public? But YMMV.

maest 6y ago
Fyi, "buy side" has a specific meaning and it refers to investment funds, pension funds, family offices etc. By contrast, the "sell side" are brokers and investment banks.
- microtherion 6y ago
  You're right, I was misusing the terminology here.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
apta_ 6y ago
> but there's no inherent moral superiority of one side over the other Of course there is. Shorting is immoral, it's legalized gambling, and the shorters are hoping the worst for the economy so they can profit off of other people's misery. Regular stock purchasing (not options mind you) is buying into a company, after researching it and understanding its workings with the hope of gaining value. Another important difference is that regular trading transfers risk from one party to another, the overall risk in the market stays the same. Shorting however, creates risk for the sake of gambling, and exposes at least 3 parties to the stock instead of one. This is dangerous and immoral. It's quite telling that shorting was banned during the 2008 crisis, however, people don't learn and they reallowed it.

maest 6y ago

Fyi, "buy side" has a specific meaning and it refers to investment funds, pension funds, family offices etc. By contrast, the "sell side" are brokers and investment banks.

microtherion 6y ago
You're right, I was misusing the terminology here.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

apta_ 6y ago

> but there's no inherent moral superiority of one side over the other Of course there is. Shorting is immoral, it's legalized gambling, and the shorters are hoping the worst for the economy so they can profit off of other people's misery. Regular stock purchasing (not options mind you) is buying into a company, after researching it and understanding its workings with the hope of gaining value. Another important difference is that regular trading transfers risk from one party to another, the overall risk in the market stays the same. Shorting however, creates risk for the sake of gambling, and exposes at least 3 parties to the stock instead of one. This is dangerous and immoral. It's quite telling that shorting was banned during the 2008 crisis, however, people don't learn and they reallowed it.