Stop Orders Don’t Protect You From Gaps
- Posted by kid dynamite
- on October 26th, 2012
This is really basic stuff that I hope won’t come as a surprise to most of my readers, but I figured I’d bang out a quick post because I saw some strange comments on the $VRNG stream.
A “stop” or “stop loss” order is an order that one enters in an effort to protect profits, or to limit losses. If you are long a stock that is trading at $30, you might enter a sell stop order with a trigger price of $29: this means that if the stock trades down to $29, your order is activated – it can become a market order or a limit order, depending on how you entered it. This is very different from a $29 limit sell order – which would be immediately marketable with the stock trading at $30.
Anyway, it should be patently obvious that this stop order does NOT mean that you are guaranteed to sell your stock for no less than $29: if your stock gaps down – maybe the CEO is arrested for looting the company’s coffers – and it opens at $12, that’s where your order will be triggered.
$VRNG is a particularly good stock to talk about the perils of stop loss orders because the company is involved in litigation that has a binary outcome. The stock is likely to trade significantly higher or significantly lower depending on the outcome of their trial with Google ($GOOG: no positions). So, if you have a sell stop @ $2.50 in VRNG, thinking that this means you can’t lose more than $1.30 per share (the difference between the current $3.80 price and your stop price), you are sorely mistaken. If VRNG gets an unfavorable trial result, and the stock gaps down to $1.50, you will not be selling stock at $2.50.
Similarly, if you are short VRNG, and you think that you can limit your losses by placing a buy stop at $5.00, you will be in for a shock if VRNG gets a favorable result and the stock gaps up to $8.
Again, this is very basic stuff, which probably won’t be a shock to many readers. I personally don’t ever use stop orders, although I may often have “stop” levels in my head where I will liquidate a position.
Note: I am not saying that VRNG will trade to $1.50 on a negative verdict. I am not saying that VRNG will get a negative verdict. I am not saying that VRNG will gap to $8 on a positive verdict. I am not saying that VRNG will get a positive verdict. I am merely giving illustrative examples. It should be clear to anyone who has read my previous posts on Vringo that I believe that there is a great deal of uncertainty in the outcome of the trial.
I hold bullish options positions in VRNG – November calls of various strikes.
-KD
Kid Dynamite is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. If you click on my Amazon.com links and buy anything, even something other than the product advertised, I earn a small commission, yet you don't pay any extra. Thank you for your support.
The information in this blog post represents my own opinions and does not contain a recommendation for any particular security or investment. I or my affiliates may hold positions or other interests in securities mentioned in the Blog, please see my Disclaimer page for my full disclaimer.
-
This blog has morphed from a discussion of poker hands and theory into an evaluation of financial markets from the point of view of a former trader. More » -
If you'd like to make a donation, I always appreciate it:
I'm also a member of the Amazon.com Affiliate program. -
Recent Posts
- Senate Subcommittee Hearings on Apple’s Taxes – Grandstanding Dbags
- HomeBrew Batch #29 – Mustard Brown Ale
- The Most Exciting 8 Seconds of My Night
- The Kid’s Still Got It
- Is Anyone Surprised That Fish McBites Suck?
- Poker and Trading – Birds of a Feather
- Matt Kemp: Respect
- The Difference Between Women and Men: Dog Poop Edition
- You Can Not Make This Stuff Up
- Cut Punters – Jon Stewarts Skewers Congress on the Sequester
-
-
Categories
-
Archives
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- February 2001
-