日前閱讀索羅斯的金融煉金術看到一個段落不太理解
想請各位交易經驗豐富的前輩幫忙我理解一下下面這段論述
--------------------------------------------------------
"作為一般原則，我從不更動那些在至今仍然有效的觀點指導下所建立的部位，而更傾向
於在反方向建立新觀點所支持的部位。其結果就是一個脆弱的平衡，隨時都要進行修正
。如果平衡操作未能有力保護資產組合，我就只好砍掉多餘的部位以求生存。而如果平
衡操作取得成功，那我就可以在不犧牲中意部位的情況下贏得流動性。比如說，一開始
就建立了充足的投資部位，以後又建立了一個同樣規模的空頭部位，一次 20％的跌幅，
即令對多頭和空頭產生的影響完全一樣，但至少可以把我在多頭一方的投資額減少到 80
％，如果我及時地軋平了空頭部位，就可以保持主動順利出場，不過即使在軋平空頭時
遭受了損失，也總要比在不恰當的時機出售多頭部位好得多"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
我的理解是今天同時做多跟做空同一支股票，都假設100元的部位，
哪假如這支股票跌了20%，多頭的部位變成80元，空頭部位變成120元
如果把空頭整個停利，我就有120元落袋為安，
這時我就可以觀望何時該把多頭部位也出場
不曉得我的理解正不正確，而且還有兩個疑問
問題一，那我把空頭部位了結後，多頭部位繼續跌我不就虧大了?
問題二，為何退出空頭部位時遭受損失，也比不恰當時機出售多頭部位好?
我感覺索羅斯好像很不想動到他的多頭部位，不過不懂為什麼
以下附上英文原文
"As a general principle, I do not dismantle positions that are built on a
thesis that remains valid; rather, I take additional positions in the
opposite direction on the basis of the new thesis. The result is a delicate
balance that needs to be adjusted from moment
to moment. If the balancing act fails to protect the portfolio, I have to cut
back all around in order to assure survival. If the balancing act is
successful, I gain liquidity without having to sacrifice desirable positions.
To illustrate: if I start with a fully invested position
and then sell short an equal amount, a 20% decline, even if it affects the
longs and the shorts equally, leaves me only 80% invested on the long side.
If I cover my shorts at the right time, I come out way ahead, but even if I
cover my shorts with a loss I am better off than if I had sold my longs at
the wrong time. In practice, the operation is much more complex because the
balancing act is not confined to the stock market. "
--
All Comments