Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by totally | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

totally·

Would they also circuit break on 7% increase, in order to give people time to come back from positive feelings?

View on HN

Looks like it's also on increases, yes:

https://www.sec.gov/oiea/investor-alerts-bulletins/investor-...

Single-stock volatility halts happen in either direction, but market-wide circuit breakers only happen on down moves.

Limit-up/Limit-down applies to individual equities that are moving strongly in either direction.

The market-wide circuit breakers, which triggered this morning, only apply to declines.

The limits for individual stocks are up/down limits, but the market-wide halts are only for declines.

No, because if the market is up 50% because we humanity has discovered an immortality serum, nobody is panicking.

There's no downside in great news (other than the possibility of a quick reversal thereafer...)

Piling in on the buy side because of a fear of missing out counts as panicking.

That's hardly symmetrical to the fear of losing the money that you have already invested – investors feel they have no choice but to sell before it gets worse, whereas in the rally you can always choose not to buy.

> That's hardly symmetrical to the fear of losing the money that you have already invested...

It's pretty symmetrical. Choosing not to buy is not as easy as it looks, when you are under pressure to do so. Madoff took advantage of this. The crash of 1929 was preceded by unhinged buying.

Actually, i think it is symmetrical. The fear of missing out on making a ton of money is just as scary for a trader.

Short squeezes are akin to declines in terms of the psychology involved.

The average investor isn't subject to short squeezes...

Even better: the percentage split between long and short holders isn't 50%/50%

Now thats a really good question.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com