DavHamm wrote:
Or at least, back when stock was tied to corporation's value, I don't think this is so much the case. Now mostly people chasing the future, and investing in what they think will be hot tomorrow.
"Corporation's value" has always been a wager on the future.
Sweeney wrote:
Do you think this is a good plan?
In the sense that it would be reasonable to recommend to someone who isn't emotionally-bound to the asset? Nah.
But it appears that you
are emotionally-bound to the asset in a way that makes you refuse to give up any direct long exposure to it. If a financial advisor is faced with that, and you're telling them "forty percent" as your drawdown tolerance, they're faced with a risk problem and they might not have a lot of options that you'd be psychologically willing to accept.
It's not unheard of for stocks to drop by more than 40% even when the underlying company is doing fine.
Consider, for example, Microsoft from 2000 through 2017. This was a period where they established the Xbox brand, continued their march toward world domination of the home computer space (the early part of this period includes the launch of Windows XP!), and saw them establish the Azure platform and grow it into the second-largest cloud computing platform in the world. Despite the enormous capital expenditures required to do all of these things, this period also saw a doubling of Microsoft's annual profits.
What did MSFT stock do during this span of impressive business success?
It crashed by over 50%, barely ever rose to less than a 40% drawdown across the next eight years, then crashed even more to a maximum drawdown of 74% in 2009, and finally got back to its previous highs seventeen years later.
Just look at this dumpster fire.
Now, you could argue that Microsoft had a frothy valuation at the beginning of that period, thanks to the dotcom mania. And it's true that, in 1999, MSFT stock was trading at about 65 times the company's earnings. Which is a lot. For comparison, the S&P500 average is currently about 23.
However.
I'm not sure that I'd use "non-frothiness" as a strong argument in Arista's favor right now. Arista's price/earnings is currently about 47, and although that's certainly lower than something like NVidia (at 79), Arista themselves aren't projecting the kind of extreme earnings growth that NVidia is. If you change the denominator to projected
forward earnings, NVidia drops all the way to 30, whereas Arista is still up at about 40. By this measure, Arista is currently valued over 30% higher than NVidia, and about double the S&P500 average.
Now, does that matter? Who knows. It's just a few data points in a vast sea of information, and there's no inherent reason that traders can't start dumping orders one way or another.
My guess would be that you're
most likely going to be fine even if you do nothing, but if a >40% drawdown really would be a problem, then the risk of having a problem is
also not insignificant.
What's a little quirky about your situation is that you say that you're doing it because you "don't need the money", but that's just as good of a reason to lock in gains and diversify to a safer portfolio. If you can't bring yourself to sell out of a good chunk of your position, a goofy collar strategy isn't the dumbest alternative in the world.
But I'm not a financial advisor, and I don't know enough about your actual risk tolerance to make any kind of solid judgment anyway. For example, is a sustained "40 percent" drawdown an actual tolerance limit, or is it just a number you came up with because the stock has done that before?
The good news is that it sounds like you've got a rich kid, so if you do something stupid and lose all of your money, you can probably just crash on his couch or something.