Is it wise to hold on to stock that has plummeted and then stabilized? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) Frequently Answered Questions (by topic) Can we remove “Strategies for earning more money” from the on-topic list?I carelessly invested in a stock on a spike near the peak price. How can I salvage my investment?How do I simulate a trailing limit orderHow are investment funding valued when invested in a company before it goes public?May I Invest as a non accredited investor?What is it about company performance that causes the perceived value of its stock to rise?Company revenue increased however stock price did notCould ignoring sunk costs be used to make an investment look more attractive when it's really not?Historically, has stock value gone up in relation to corporate tax cuts? To what extent?Why can't we all agree to create a self-fulfilling prophecy with regards to the stock market?To what extent can dividends be seen as an informed and careful conclusion about the company's long term ability to at least maintain it?ESPP--any reason not to go all in?

How do I keep my slimes from escaping their pens?

Does polymorph use a PC’s CR or its level?

Why are there no cargo aircraft with "flying wing" design?

Why is "Consequences inflicted." not a sentence?

How discoverable are IPv6 addresses and AAAA names by potential attackers?

Can a non-EU citizen traveling with me come with me through the EU passport line?

Bonus calculation: Am I making a mountain out of a molehill?

Antler Helmet: Can it work?

How do I mention the quality of my school without bragging

Is it true that "carbohydrates are of no use for the basal metabolic need"?

Should I call the interviewer directly, if HR aren't responding?

What are the motives behind Cersei's orders given to Bronn?

Is there a way in Ruby to make just any one out of many keyword arguments required?

How to motivate offshore teams and trust them to deliver?

Why is high voltage dangerous?

Does surprise arrest existing movement?

Why is black pepper both grey and black?

Are my PIs rude or am I just being too sensitive?

What does “buco del culo” mean here?

If a contract sometimes uses the wrong name, is it still valid?

Does accepting a pardon have any bearing on trying that person for the same crime in a sovereign jurisdiction?

Doubts about chords

Can inflation occur in a positive-sum game currency system such as the Stack Exchange reputation system?

Is 1 ppb equal to 1 μg/kg?



Is it wise to hold on to stock that has plummeted and then stabilized?



Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)
Frequently Answered Questions (by topic)
Can we remove “Strategies for earning more money” from the on-topic list?I carelessly invested in a stock on a spike near the peak price. How can I salvage my investment?How do I simulate a trailing limit orderHow are investment funding valued when invested in a company before it goes public?May I Invest as a non accredited investor?What is it about company performance that causes the perceived value of its stock to rise?Company revenue increased however stock price did notCould ignoring sunk costs be used to make an investment look more attractive when it's really not?Historically, has stock value gone up in relation to corporate tax cuts? To what extent?Why can't we all agree to create a self-fulfilling prophecy with regards to the stock market?To what extent can dividends be seen as an informed and careful conclusion about the company's long term ability to at least maintain it?ESPP--any reason not to go all in?



.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








2















I own some stock that lost more than half its value. It has now been more or less stable for months, and I'm tempted to get rid of it because I see poor prospects in the future for this line of business.



However, I'm told by others that this is unwise, that this is the worst time to sell -- I should recover the losses!



Isn't this the gambler's fallacy? What stops the stock from going down by another half in the future, again? And again?



The people giving me this advice have no insight at all into this particular stock nor have a particular keen insight into economics in general. However, they present this as if it is obvious fact that everyone should know, that if you have experienced this, then you should wait until it has regained at least some of its value.



What basis would anyone have for this statement? Is it true that statistically, more often than not, a company will recover?



The way I view this, is if I would rather buy or sell stock in the company now. What happened in the past is simply unfortunate (for me), it by itself doesn't have any bearing on the future for this company.










share|improve this question



















  • 13





    If you didn't own any of this stock, would you buy some now?

    – jcm
    Apr 8 at 23:18






  • 1





    @jcm No, and that was my point.

    – AlphaCentauri
    Apr 8 at 23:33






  • 16





    There's your answer.

    – jcm
    Apr 8 at 23:44











  • As you stated, (1) nothing stops the stock from going down by another half in the future and (2) what happened in the past has no bearing on the future for this company. Your choice is to continue Buy & Hope or accept defeat. Regardless of which you choose, the future is unknown. Another choice is that if you believe (hope?) that the stock has stabilized and if it offers options, sell some OTM covered calls and receive some income while waiting. It will likely be a locked in loss but a smaller one. Again, no guarantees.

    – Bob Baerker
    Apr 9 at 0:23






  • 1





    If your stock picking is anything like mine... If you sell it now, it will go up later; and if you hold it, it will go down. :)

    – Glen Yates
    Apr 10 at 20:59

















2















I own some stock that lost more than half its value. It has now been more or less stable for months, and I'm tempted to get rid of it because I see poor prospects in the future for this line of business.



However, I'm told by others that this is unwise, that this is the worst time to sell -- I should recover the losses!



Isn't this the gambler's fallacy? What stops the stock from going down by another half in the future, again? And again?



The people giving me this advice have no insight at all into this particular stock nor have a particular keen insight into economics in general. However, they present this as if it is obvious fact that everyone should know, that if you have experienced this, then you should wait until it has regained at least some of its value.



What basis would anyone have for this statement? Is it true that statistically, more often than not, a company will recover?



The way I view this, is if I would rather buy or sell stock in the company now. What happened in the past is simply unfortunate (for me), it by itself doesn't have any bearing on the future for this company.










share|improve this question



















  • 13





    If you didn't own any of this stock, would you buy some now?

    – jcm
    Apr 8 at 23:18






  • 1





    @jcm No, and that was my point.

    – AlphaCentauri
    Apr 8 at 23:33






  • 16





    There's your answer.

    – jcm
    Apr 8 at 23:44











  • As you stated, (1) nothing stops the stock from going down by another half in the future and (2) what happened in the past has no bearing on the future for this company. Your choice is to continue Buy & Hope or accept defeat. Regardless of which you choose, the future is unknown. Another choice is that if you believe (hope?) that the stock has stabilized and if it offers options, sell some OTM covered calls and receive some income while waiting. It will likely be a locked in loss but a smaller one. Again, no guarantees.

    – Bob Baerker
    Apr 9 at 0:23






  • 1





    If your stock picking is anything like mine... If you sell it now, it will go up later; and if you hold it, it will go down. :)

    – Glen Yates
    Apr 10 at 20:59













2












2








2








I own some stock that lost more than half its value. It has now been more or less stable for months, and I'm tempted to get rid of it because I see poor prospects in the future for this line of business.



However, I'm told by others that this is unwise, that this is the worst time to sell -- I should recover the losses!



Isn't this the gambler's fallacy? What stops the stock from going down by another half in the future, again? And again?



The people giving me this advice have no insight at all into this particular stock nor have a particular keen insight into economics in general. However, they present this as if it is obvious fact that everyone should know, that if you have experienced this, then you should wait until it has regained at least some of its value.



What basis would anyone have for this statement? Is it true that statistically, more often than not, a company will recover?



The way I view this, is if I would rather buy or sell stock in the company now. What happened in the past is simply unfortunate (for me), it by itself doesn't have any bearing on the future for this company.










share|improve this question
















I own some stock that lost more than half its value. It has now been more or less stable for months, and I'm tempted to get rid of it because I see poor prospects in the future for this line of business.



However, I'm told by others that this is unwise, that this is the worst time to sell -- I should recover the losses!



Isn't this the gambler's fallacy? What stops the stock from going down by another half in the future, again? And again?



The people giving me this advice have no insight at all into this particular stock nor have a particular keen insight into economics in general. However, they present this as if it is obvious fact that everyone should know, that if you have experienced this, then you should wait until it has regained at least some of its value.



What basis would anyone have for this statement? Is it true that statistically, more often than not, a company will recover?



The way I view this, is if I would rather buy or sell stock in the company now. What happened in the past is simply unfortunate (for me), it by itself doesn't have any bearing on the future for this company.







investing






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Apr 8 at 23:33







AlphaCentauri

















asked Apr 8 at 23:14









AlphaCentauriAlphaCentauri

1163




1163







  • 13





    If you didn't own any of this stock, would you buy some now?

    – jcm
    Apr 8 at 23:18






  • 1





    @jcm No, and that was my point.

    – AlphaCentauri
    Apr 8 at 23:33






  • 16





    There's your answer.

    – jcm
    Apr 8 at 23:44











  • As you stated, (1) nothing stops the stock from going down by another half in the future and (2) what happened in the past has no bearing on the future for this company. Your choice is to continue Buy & Hope or accept defeat. Regardless of which you choose, the future is unknown. Another choice is that if you believe (hope?) that the stock has stabilized and if it offers options, sell some OTM covered calls and receive some income while waiting. It will likely be a locked in loss but a smaller one. Again, no guarantees.

    – Bob Baerker
    Apr 9 at 0:23






  • 1





    If your stock picking is anything like mine... If you sell it now, it will go up later; and if you hold it, it will go down. :)

    – Glen Yates
    Apr 10 at 20:59












  • 13





    If you didn't own any of this stock, would you buy some now?

    – jcm
    Apr 8 at 23:18






  • 1





    @jcm No, and that was my point.

    – AlphaCentauri
    Apr 8 at 23:33






  • 16





    There's your answer.

    – jcm
    Apr 8 at 23:44











  • As you stated, (1) nothing stops the stock from going down by another half in the future and (2) what happened in the past has no bearing on the future for this company. Your choice is to continue Buy & Hope or accept defeat. Regardless of which you choose, the future is unknown. Another choice is that if you believe (hope?) that the stock has stabilized and if it offers options, sell some OTM covered calls and receive some income while waiting. It will likely be a locked in loss but a smaller one. Again, no guarantees.

    – Bob Baerker
    Apr 9 at 0:23






  • 1





    If your stock picking is anything like mine... If you sell it now, it will go up later; and if you hold it, it will go down. :)

    – Glen Yates
    Apr 10 at 20:59







13




13





If you didn't own any of this stock, would you buy some now?

– jcm
Apr 8 at 23:18





If you didn't own any of this stock, would you buy some now?

– jcm
Apr 8 at 23:18




1




1





@jcm No, and that was my point.

– AlphaCentauri
Apr 8 at 23:33





@jcm No, and that was my point.

– AlphaCentauri
Apr 8 at 23:33




16




16





There's your answer.

– jcm
Apr 8 at 23:44





There's your answer.

– jcm
Apr 8 at 23:44













As you stated, (1) nothing stops the stock from going down by another half in the future and (2) what happened in the past has no bearing on the future for this company. Your choice is to continue Buy & Hope or accept defeat. Regardless of which you choose, the future is unknown. Another choice is that if you believe (hope?) that the stock has stabilized and if it offers options, sell some OTM covered calls and receive some income while waiting. It will likely be a locked in loss but a smaller one. Again, no guarantees.

– Bob Baerker
Apr 9 at 0:23





As you stated, (1) nothing stops the stock from going down by another half in the future and (2) what happened in the past has no bearing on the future for this company. Your choice is to continue Buy & Hope or accept defeat. Regardless of which you choose, the future is unknown. Another choice is that if you believe (hope?) that the stock has stabilized and if it offers options, sell some OTM covered calls and receive some income while waiting. It will likely be a locked in loss but a smaller one. Again, no guarantees.

– Bob Baerker
Apr 9 at 0:23




1




1





If your stock picking is anything like mine... If you sell it now, it will go up later; and if you hold it, it will go down. :)

– Glen Yates
Apr 10 at 20:59





If your stock picking is anything like mine... If you sell it now, it will go up later; and if you hold it, it will go down. :)

– Glen Yates
Apr 10 at 20:59










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















12














This might be closer to the sunk cost fallacy with a bit of loss aversion thrown in. I know it is hard emotionally to "lock in your losses", but that money is gone and it is a new day. You have an asset that is worth what the stock trades at today and that's what you have to work with.



It is very possible that stock might regain its previous losses, but the fact that you paid more for it doesn't make it any more/less likely to than any other stock.



The key is that you have to pretend that you have the cash value of the stock today and never invested it. If you would buy that stock today, keep it. If you wouldn't trade the same amount of cash for the stock, try something else.






share|improve this answer


















  • 6





    The government doesn't treat it the same way for tax purposes as just buying the stock today, right? Seems like one reason why the two wouldn't be equivalent.

    – Mehrdad
    Apr 9 at 7:18











  • "the fact that you paid more for it doesn't make it any more/less likely to than any other stock." Is this true? I would think that between 2 stocks trading at $10, if one used to trade at $20, and the other has always traded at $10, that the former would have a higher chance of reaching $20 again.

    – GendoIkari
    Apr 9 at 14:15






  • 1





    @Mehrdad Taxation is a consideration, but it might be distracting to the underlying investment question. And the fact that it went down in value should make you a bit more likely to sell the stock, not keep it.

    – wide.writing.immediately
    Apr 9 at 14:55











  • @wide.writing.immediately: Why? If you hold it and it goes up it can be long-term capital gains. Whereas if you were to sell until you thought it might go up and then buy it again, it can be short-term capital gains. Of course it depends on how long you'll have had each one but in such a scenario it can clearly be advantageous not to sell, and hence it doesn't necessarily make sense to compare it to "would you buy it right now if you didn't have any".

    – Mehrdad
    Apr 9 at 22:11







  • 1





    @GendoIkari Or, just as likely, the stock that was at $20 has just paused at $10 on its way down to $0. From the price alone you can't tell.

    – TripeHound
    Apr 10 at 21:29


















2














(1) Assets held in stocks for many years (regardless of their "paper" value at any given moment, like now) are a way to protect them from taxation for those years. Unlike bank accounts, mutual funds, real estate, income-generating assets, etc, stocks incur NO taxes AT ALL during those held years-- it's a 100% taxation shelter for that time. So if there is any chance at all that your stock will recover, hold onto it.



(2) Another reason to hold and not get rid of a stock is that if/when it does recover and you sell profitably, if you sell more than a year after acquisition, you pay long-term capital gains tax rate, which is less than short-term capital gains tax rate, and way less than wage/salary/interest/dividend income taxes.



(2) Losses on stock are NOT valueless- in the USA, when you sell at a loss, you can write-off those losses against income that year* (gains made in other stock transactions, or in your salary) when you file your taxes, which will lower your taxable income and possibly even move you into a lower tax bracket (further reducing your taxes). *there are limits to how much you can do this ($3000/yr), but you can carry-forward excesses beyond this limit into many future years, saving you taxes in those future years.



The more money you've lost, the greater the benefit.



Carefully timing your sales-at-a-loss can thus be beneficial to your taxes on a given year. Rich people do this all the time-- selling losses in the same year as they make a big gain in some other transaction. Lots of tech stock option recipients used this trick to extract at least some value out of worthless ESPP/ESOP stock.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




Jaime Guerrero is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • Jaime, you may want to add a few corrections here. Assets held over 1 year are considered long-term, not 18 months. And, at the moment, the most losses that can be deducted in a given year is $3000, with some provisions for carrying over greater losses to future years.

    – R. Hamilton
    Apr 9 at 13:58











  • thx. Corrected.

    – Jaime Guerrero
    Apr 10 at 17:32











  • @Jaime GuerreroI: used to think that way... but one should almost never think of taxes when investing. Except in December..... that's when you might want to sell some winners just to balance out the losers (if there are any)

    – sofa general
    Apr 10 at 17:33



















0















I see poor prospects in the future for this line of business




You answered your own question.



Unless a stock is already at exactly 0 it can always go down further. Holding onto a stock believing that in the long term it will go down is just about the opposite of any decent investment advice ever.



Now obviously you could be acting on good information that contradicts what you believe, but it doesn't seem like you have such information. The information you seem to have is "don't sell because you're currently down" which is terrible advice.



The advice does hold true for stocks that went down that you still think are worth holding onto because of their long term prospects. In other words: don't just sell stocks because they went down. Sell stocks because you don't think they're worth their current price.






share|improve this answer






























    0














    Say you bought 100 shares of X at $10. for 1000...



    it plummeted to $6 a share, because (let's say it missed an earning).



    The question you should be asking isn't whether you should hold.



    Remember, you still have $600 of cash equivalent (in X) And remember what Buffett said about such situations.. "You don't have to make it back the same way you lost it"



    The REAL question you should be asking is given you have $600 ... would you buy X again at 6 dollars a share. Or is there another stock Y that you would rather buy. (the second component to the question really isn't all that important or even relevant)



    if the answer is yes.. you would buy X again, you hold.



    if the answer is no.. you should sell.



    If the answer is hell yes, then you should buy even more.




    Before I forget... someone (who shall remain nameless) is going to say I didn't answer the question...



    You already said you see poor prospect for the company.... I think the answer to the "would you buy this stock again" question is a "no"?



    Sell.






    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    sofa general is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.




















      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "93"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmoney.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f107547%2fis-it-wise-to-hold-on-to-stock-that-has-plummeted-and-then-stabilized%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes








      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      12














      This might be closer to the sunk cost fallacy with a bit of loss aversion thrown in. I know it is hard emotionally to "lock in your losses", but that money is gone and it is a new day. You have an asset that is worth what the stock trades at today and that's what you have to work with.



      It is very possible that stock might regain its previous losses, but the fact that you paid more for it doesn't make it any more/less likely to than any other stock.



      The key is that you have to pretend that you have the cash value of the stock today and never invested it. If you would buy that stock today, keep it. If you wouldn't trade the same amount of cash for the stock, try something else.






      share|improve this answer


















      • 6





        The government doesn't treat it the same way for tax purposes as just buying the stock today, right? Seems like one reason why the two wouldn't be equivalent.

        – Mehrdad
        Apr 9 at 7:18











      • "the fact that you paid more for it doesn't make it any more/less likely to than any other stock." Is this true? I would think that between 2 stocks trading at $10, if one used to trade at $20, and the other has always traded at $10, that the former would have a higher chance of reaching $20 again.

        – GendoIkari
        Apr 9 at 14:15






      • 1





        @Mehrdad Taxation is a consideration, but it might be distracting to the underlying investment question. And the fact that it went down in value should make you a bit more likely to sell the stock, not keep it.

        – wide.writing.immediately
        Apr 9 at 14:55











      • @wide.writing.immediately: Why? If you hold it and it goes up it can be long-term capital gains. Whereas if you were to sell until you thought it might go up and then buy it again, it can be short-term capital gains. Of course it depends on how long you'll have had each one but in such a scenario it can clearly be advantageous not to sell, and hence it doesn't necessarily make sense to compare it to "would you buy it right now if you didn't have any".

        – Mehrdad
        Apr 9 at 22:11







      • 1





        @GendoIkari Or, just as likely, the stock that was at $20 has just paused at $10 on its way down to $0. From the price alone you can't tell.

        – TripeHound
        Apr 10 at 21:29















      12














      This might be closer to the sunk cost fallacy with a bit of loss aversion thrown in. I know it is hard emotionally to "lock in your losses", but that money is gone and it is a new day. You have an asset that is worth what the stock trades at today and that's what you have to work with.



      It is very possible that stock might regain its previous losses, but the fact that you paid more for it doesn't make it any more/less likely to than any other stock.



      The key is that you have to pretend that you have the cash value of the stock today and never invested it. If you would buy that stock today, keep it. If you wouldn't trade the same amount of cash for the stock, try something else.






      share|improve this answer


















      • 6





        The government doesn't treat it the same way for tax purposes as just buying the stock today, right? Seems like one reason why the two wouldn't be equivalent.

        – Mehrdad
        Apr 9 at 7:18











      • "the fact that you paid more for it doesn't make it any more/less likely to than any other stock." Is this true? I would think that between 2 stocks trading at $10, if one used to trade at $20, and the other has always traded at $10, that the former would have a higher chance of reaching $20 again.

        – GendoIkari
        Apr 9 at 14:15






      • 1





        @Mehrdad Taxation is a consideration, but it might be distracting to the underlying investment question. And the fact that it went down in value should make you a bit more likely to sell the stock, not keep it.

        – wide.writing.immediately
        Apr 9 at 14:55











      • @wide.writing.immediately: Why? If you hold it and it goes up it can be long-term capital gains. Whereas if you were to sell until you thought it might go up and then buy it again, it can be short-term capital gains. Of course it depends on how long you'll have had each one but in such a scenario it can clearly be advantageous not to sell, and hence it doesn't necessarily make sense to compare it to "would you buy it right now if you didn't have any".

        – Mehrdad
        Apr 9 at 22:11







      • 1





        @GendoIkari Or, just as likely, the stock that was at $20 has just paused at $10 on its way down to $0. From the price alone you can't tell.

        – TripeHound
        Apr 10 at 21:29













      12












      12








      12







      This might be closer to the sunk cost fallacy with a bit of loss aversion thrown in. I know it is hard emotionally to "lock in your losses", but that money is gone and it is a new day. You have an asset that is worth what the stock trades at today and that's what you have to work with.



      It is very possible that stock might regain its previous losses, but the fact that you paid more for it doesn't make it any more/less likely to than any other stock.



      The key is that you have to pretend that you have the cash value of the stock today and never invested it. If you would buy that stock today, keep it. If you wouldn't trade the same amount of cash for the stock, try something else.






      share|improve this answer













      This might be closer to the sunk cost fallacy with a bit of loss aversion thrown in. I know it is hard emotionally to "lock in your losses", but that money is gone and it is a new day. You have an asset that is worth what the stock trades at today and that's what you have to work with.



      It is very possible that stock might regain its previous losses, but the fact that you paid more for it doesn't make it any more/less likely to than any other stock.



      The key is that you have to pretend that you have the cash value of the stock today and never invested it. If you would buy that stock today, keep it. If you wouldn't trade the same amount of cash for the stock, try something else.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered Apr 9 at 2:17









      JohnFxJohnFx

      35.8k985189




      35.8k985189







      • 6





        The government doesn't treat it the same way for tax purposes as just buying the stock today, right? Seems like one reason why the two wouldn't be equivalent.

        – Mehrdad
        Apr 9 at 7:18











      • "the fact that you paid more for it doesn't make it any more/less likely to than any other stock." Is this true? I would think that between 2 stocks trading at $10, if one used to trade at $20, and the other has always traded at $10, that the former would have a higher chance of reaching $20 again.

        – GendoIkari
        Apr 9 at 14:15






      • 1





        @Mehrdad Taxation is a consideration, but it might be distracting to the underlying investment question. And the fact that it went down in value should make you a bit more likely to sell the stock, not keep it.

        – wide.writing.immediately
        Apr 9 at 14:55











      • @wide.writing.immediately: Why? If you hold it and it goes up it can be long-term capital gains. Whereas if you were to sell until you thought it might go up and then buy it again, it can be short-term capital gains. Of course it depends on how long you'll have had each one but in such a scenario it can clearly be advantageous not to sell, and hence it doesn't necessarily make sense to compare it to "would you buy it right now if you didn't have any".

        – Mehrdad
        Apr 9 at 22:11







      • 1





        @GendoIkari Or, just as likely, the stock that was at $20 has just paused at $10 on its way down to $0. From the price alone you can't tell.

        – TripeHound
        Apr 10 at 21:29












      • 6





        The government doesn't treat it the same way for tax purposes as just buying the stock today, right? Seems like one reason why the two wouldn't be equivalent.

        – Mehrdad
        Apr 9 at 7:18











      • "the fact that you paid more for it doesn't make it any more/less likely to than any other stock." Is this true? I would think that between 2 stocks trading at $10, if one used to trade at $20, and the other has always traded at $10, that the former would have a higher chance of reaching $20 again.

        – GendoIkari
        Apr 9 at 14:15






      • 1





        @Mehrdad Taxation is a consideration, but it might be distracting to the underlying investment question. And the fact that it went down in value should make you a bit more likely to sell the stock, not keep it.

        – wide.writing.immediately
        Apr 9 at 14:55











      • @wide.writing.immediately: Why? If you hold it and it goes up it can be long-term capital gains. Whereas if you were to sell until you thought it might go up and then buy it again, it can be short-term capital gains. Of course it depends on how long you'll have had each one but in such a scenario it can clearly be advantageous not to sell, and hence it doesn't necessarily make sense to compare it to "would you buy it right now if you didn't have any".

        – Mehrdad
        Apr 9 at 22:11







      • 1





        @GendoIkari Or, just as likely, the stock that was at $20 has just paused at $10 on its way down to $0. From the price alone you can't tell.

        – TripeHound
        Apr 10 at 21:29







      6




      6





      The government doesn't treat it the same way for tax purposes as just buying the stock today, right? Seems like one reason why the two wouldn't be equivalent.

      – Mehrdad
      Apr 9 at 7:18





      The government doesn't treat it the same way for tax purposes as just buying the stock today, right? Seems like one reason why the two wouldn't be equivalent.

      – Mehrdad
      Apr 9 at 7:18













      "the fact that you paid more for it doesn't make it any more/less likely to than any other stock." Is this true? I would think that between 2 stocks trading at $10, if one used to trade at $20, and the other has always traded at $10, that the former would have a higher chance of reaching $20 again.

      – GendoIkari
      Apr 9 at 14:15





      "the fact that you paid more for it doesn't make it any more/less likely to than any other stock." Is this true? I would think that between 2 stocks trading at $10, if one used to trade at $20, and the other has always traded at $10, that the former would have a higher chance of reaching $20 again.

      – GendoIkari
      Apr 9 at 14:15




      1




      1





      @Mehrdad Taxation is a consideration, but it might be distracting to the underlying investment question. And the fact that it went down in value should make you a bit more likely to sell the stock, not keep it.

      – wide.writing.immediately
      Apr 9 at 14:55





      @Mehrdad Taxation is a consideration, but it might be distracting to the underlying investment question. And the fact that it went down in value should make you a bit more likely to sell the stock, not keep it.

      – wide.writing.immediately
      Apr 9 at 14:55













      @wide.writing.immediately: Why? If you hold it and it goes up it can be long-term capital gains. Whereas if you were to sell until you thought it might go up and then buy it again, it can be short-term capital gains. Of course it depends on how long you'll have had each one but in such a scenario it can clearly be advantageous not to sell, and hence it doesn't necessarily make sense to compare it to "would you buy it right now if you didn't have any".

      – Mehrdad
      Apr 9 at 22:11






      @wide.writing.immediately: Why? If you hold it and it goes up it can be long-term capital gains. Whereas if you were to sell until you thought it might go up and then buy it again, it can be short-term capital gains. Of course it depends on how long you'll have had each one but in such a scenario it can clearly be advantageous not to sell, and hence it doesn't necessarily make sense to compare it to "would you buy it right now if you didn't have any".

      – Mehrdad
      Apr 9 at 22:11





      1




      1





      @GendoIkari Or, just as likely, the stock that was at $20 has just paused at $10 on its way down to $0. From the price alone you can't tell.

      – TripeHound
      Apr 10 at 21:29





      @GendoIkari Or, just as likely, the stock that was at $20 has just paused at $10 on its way down to $0. From the price alone you can't tell.

      – TripeHound
      Apr 10 at 21:29













      2














      (1) Assets held in stocks for many years (regardless of their "paper" value at any given moment, like now) are a way to protect them from taxation for those years. Unlike bank accounts, mutual funds, real estate, income-generating assets, etc, stocks incur NO taxes AT ALL during those held years-- it's a 100% taxation shelter for that time. So if there is any chance at all that your stock will recover, hold onto it.



      (2) Another reason to hold and not get rid of a stock is that if/when it does recover and you sell profitably, if you sell more than a year after acquisition, you pay long-term capital gains tax rate, which is less than short-term capital gains tax rate, and way less than wage/salary/interest/dividend income taxes.



      (2) Losses on stock are NOT valueless- in the USA, when you sell at a loss, you can write-off those losses against income that year* (gains made in other stock transactions, or in your salary) when you file your taxes, which will lower your taxable income and possibly even move you into a lower tax bracket (further reducing your taxes). *there are limits to how much you can do this ($3000/yr), but you can carry-forward excesses beyond this limit into many future years, saving you taxes in those future years.



      The more money you've lost, the greater the benefit.



      Carefully timing your sales-at-a-loss can thus be beneficial to your taxes on a given year. Rich people do this all the time-- selling losses in the same year as they make a big gain in some other transaction. Lots of tech stock option recipients used this trick to extract at least some value out of worthless ESPP/ESOP stock.






      share|improve this answer










      New contributor




      Jaime Guerrero is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.




















      • Jaime, you may want to add a few corrections here. Assets held over 1 year are considered long-term, not 18 months. And, at the moment, the most losses that can be deducted in a given year is $3000, with some provisions for carrying over greater losses to future years.

        – R. Hamilton
        Apr 9 at 13:58











      • thx. Corrected.

        – Jaime Guerrero
        Apr 10 at 17:32











      • @Jaime GuerreroI: used to think that way... but one should almost never think of taxes when investing. Except in December..... that's when you might want to sell some winners just to balance out the losers (if there are any)

        – sofa general
        Apr 10 at 17:33
















      2














      (1) Assets held in stocks for many years (regardless of their "paper" value at any given moment, like now) are a way to protect them from taxation for those years. Unlike bank accounts, mutual funds, real estate, income-generating assets, etc, stocks incur NO taxes AT ALL during those held years-- it's a 100% taxation shelter for that time. So if there is any chance at all that your stock will recover, hold onto it.



      (2) Another reason to hold and not get rid of a stock is that if/when it does recover and you sell profitably, if you sell more than a year after acquisition, you pay long-term capital gains tax rate, which is less than short-term capital gains tax rate, and way less than wage/salary/interest/dividend income taxes.



      (2) Losses on stock are NOT valueless- in the USA, when you sell at a loss, you can write-off those losses against income that year* (gains made in other stock transactions, or in your salary) when you file your taxes, which will lower your taxable income and possibly even move you into a lower tax bracket (further reducing your taxes). *there are limits to how much you can do this ($3000/yr), but you can carry-forward excesses beyond this limit into many future years, saving you taxes in those future years.



      The more money you've lost, the greater the benefit.



      Carefully timing your sales-at-a-loss can thus be beneficial to your taxes on a given year. Rich people do this all the time-- selling losses in the same year as they make a big gain in some other transaction. Lots of tech stock option recipients used this trick to extract at least some value out of worthless ESPP/ESOP stock.






      share|improve this answer










      New contributor




      Jaime Guerrero is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.




















      • Jaime, you may want to add a few corrections here. Assets held over 1 year are considered long-term, not 18 months. And, at the moment, the most losses that can be deducted in a given year is $3000, with some provisions for carrying over greater losses to future years.

        – R. Hamilton
        Apr 9 at 13:58











      • thx. Corrected.

        – Jaime Guerrero
        Apr 10 at 17:32











      • @Jaime GuerreroI: used to think that way... but one should almost never think of taxes when investing. Except in December..... that's when you might want to sell some winners just to balance out the losers (if there are any)

        – sofa general
        Apr 10 at 17:33














      2












      2








      2







      (1) Assets held in stocks for many years (regardless of their "paper" value at any given moment, like now) are a way to protect them from taxation for those years. Unlike bank accounts, mutual funds, real estate, income-generating assets, etc, stocks incur NO taxes AT ALL during those held years-- it's a 100% taxation shelter for that time. So if there is any chance at all that your stock will recover, hold onto it.



      (2) Another reason to hold and not get rid of a stock is that if/when it does recover and you sell profitably, if you sell more than a year after acquisition, you pay long-term capital gains tax rate, which is less than short-term capital gains tax rate, and way less than wage/salary/interest/dividend income taxes.



      (2) Losses on stock are NOT valueless- in the USA, when you sell at a loss, you can write-off those losses against income that year* (gains made in other stock transactions, or in your salary) when you file your taxes, which will lower your taxable income and possibly even move you into a lower tax bracket (further reducing your taxes). *there are limits to how much you can do this ($3000/yr), but you can carry-forward excesses beyond this limit into many future years, saving you taxes in those future years.



      The more money you've lost, the greater the benefit.



      Carefully timing your sales-at-a-loss can thus be beneficial to your taxes on a given year. Rich people do this all the time-- selling losses in the same year as they make a big gain in some other transaction. Lots of tech stock option recipients used this trick to extract at least some value out of worthless ESPP/ESOP stock.






      share|improve this answer










      New contributor




      Jaime Guerrero is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.










      (1) Assets held in stocks for many years (regardless of their "paper" value at any given moment, like now) are a way to protect them from taxation for those years. Unlike bank accounts, mutual funds, real estate, income-generating assets, etc, stocks incur NO taxes AT ALL during those held years-- it's a 100% taxation shelter for that time. So if there is any chance at all that your stock will recover, hold onto it.



      (2) Another reason to hold and not get rid of a stock is that if/when it does recover and you sell profitably, if you sell more than a year after acquisition, you pay long-term capital gains tax rate, which is less than short-term capital gains tax rate, and way less than wage/salary/interest/dividend income taxes.



      (2) Losses on stock are NOT valueless- in the USA, when you sell at a loss, you can write-off those losses against income that year* (gains made in other stock transactions, or in your salary) when you file your taxes, which will lower your taxable income and possibly even move you into a lower tax bracket (further reducing your taxes). *there are limits to how much you can do this ($3000/yr), but you can carry-forward excesses beyond this limit into many future years, saving you taxes in those future years.



      The more money you've lost, the greater the benefit.



      Carefully timing your sales-at-a-loss can thus be beneficial to your taxes on a given year. Rich people do this all the time-- selling losses in the same year as they make a big gain in some other transaction. Lots of tech stock option recipients used this trick to extract at least some value out of worthless ESPP/ESOP stock.







      share|improve this answer










      New contributor




      Jaime Guerrero is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited Apr 10 at 17:29





















      New contributor




      Jaime Guerrero is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      answered Apr 9 at 4:44









      Jaime GuerreroJaime Guerrero

      212




      212




      New contributor




      Jaime Guerrero is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      Jaime Guerrero is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      Jaime Guerrero is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.












      • Jaime, you may want to add a few corrections here. Assets held over 1 year are considered long-term, not 18 months. And, at the moment, the most losses that can be deducted in a given year is $3000, with some provisions for carrying over greater losses to future years.

        – R. Hamilton
        Apr 9 at 13:58











      • thx. Corrected.

        – Jaime Guerrero
        Apr 10 at 17:32











      • @Jaime GuerreroI: used to think that way... but one should almost never think of taxes when investing. Except in December..... that's when you might want to sell some winners just to balance out the losers (if there are any)

        – sofa general
        Apr 10 at 17:33


















      • Jaime, you may want to add a few corrections here. Assets held over 1 year are considered long-term, not 18 months. And, at the moment, the most losses that can be deducted in a given year is $3000, with some provisions for carrying over greater losses to future years.

        – R. Hamilton
        Apr 9 at 13:58











      • thx. Corrected.

        – Jaime Guerrero
        Apr 10 at 17:32











      • @Jaime GuerreroI: used to think that way... but one should almost never think of taxes when investing. Except in December..... that's when you might want to sell some winners just to balance out the losers (if there are any)

        – sofa general
        Apr 10 at 17:33

















      Jaime, you may want to add a few corrections here. Assets held over 1 year are considered long-term, not 18 months. And, at the moment, the most losses that can be deducted in a given year is $3000, with some provisions for carrying over greater losses to future years.

      – R. Hamilton
      Apr 9 at 13:58





      Jaime, you may want to add a few corrections here. Assets held over 1 year are considered long-term, not 18 months. And, at the moment, the most losses that can be deducted in a given year is $3000, with some provisions for carrying over greater losses to future years.

      – R. Hamilton
      Apr 9 at 13:58













      thx. Corrected.

      – Jaime Guerrero
      Apr 10 at 17:32





      thx. Corrected.

      – Jaime Guerrero
      Apr 10 at 17:32













      @Jaime GuerreroI: used to think that way... but one should almost never think of taxes when investing. Except in December..... that's when you might want to sell some winners just to balance out the losers (if there are any)

      – sofa general
      Apr 10 at 17:33






      @Jaime GuerreroI: used to think that way... but one should almost never think of taxes when investing. Except in December..... that's when you might want to sell some winners just to balance out the losers (if there are any)

      – sofa general
      Apr 10 at 17:33












      0















      I see poor prospects in the future for this line of business




      You answered your own question.



      Unless a stock is already at exactly 0 it can always go down further. Holding onto a stock believing that in the long term it will go down is just about the opposite of any decent investment advice ever.



      Now obviously you could be acting on good information that contradicts what you believe, but it doesn't seem like you have such information. The information you seem to have is "don't sell because you're currently down" which is terrible advice.



      The advice does hold true for stocks that went down that you still think are worth holding onto because of their long term prospects. In other words: don't just sell stocks because they went down. Sell stocks because you don't think they're worth their current price.






      share|improve this answer



























        0















        I see poor prospects in the future for this line of business




        You answered your own question.



        Unless a stock is already at exactly 0 it can always go down further. Holding onto a stock believing that in the long term it will go down is just about the opposite of any decent investment advice ever.



        Now obviously you could be acting on good information that contradicts what you believe, but it doesn't seem like you have such information. The information you seem to have is "don't sell because you're currently down" which is terrible advice.



        The advice does hold true for stocks that went down that you still think are worth holding onto because of their long term prospects. In other words: don't just sell stocks because they went down. Sell stocks because you don't think they're worth their current price.






        share|improve this answer

























          0












          0








          0








          I see poor prospects in the future for this line of business




          You answered your own question.



          Unless a stock is already at exactly 0 it can always go down further. Holding onto a stock believing that in the long term it will go down is just about the opposite of any decent investment advice ever.



          Now obviously you could be acting on good information that contradicts what you believe, but it doesn't seem like you have such information. The information you seem to have is "don't sell because you're currently down" which is terrible advice.



          The advice does hold true for stocks that went down that you still think are worth holding onto because of their long term prospects. In other words: don't just sell stocks because they went down. Sell stocks because you don't think they're worth their current price.






          share|improve this answer














          I see poor prospects in the future for this line of business




          You answered your own question.



          Unless a stock is already at exactly 0 it can always go down further. Holding onto a stock believing that in the long term it will go down is just about the opposite of any decent investment advice ever.



          Now obviously you could be acting on good information that contradicts what you believe, but it doesn't seem like you have such information. The information you seem to have is "don't sell because you're currently down" which is terrible advice.



          The advice does hold true for stocks that went down that you still think are worth holding onto because of their long term prospects. In other words: don't just sell stocks because they went down. Sell stocks because you don't think they're worth their current price.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Apr 9 at 13:39









          xyiousxyious

          1,259314




          1,259314





















              0














              Say you bought 100 shares of X at $10. for 1000...



              it plummeted to $6 a share, because (let's say it missed an earning).



              The question you should be asking isn't whether you should hold.



              Remember, you still have $600 of cash equivalent (in X) And remember what Buffett said about such situations.. "You don't have to make it back the same way you lost it"



              The REAL question you should be asking is given you have $600 ... would you buy X again at 6 dollars a share. Or is there another stock Y that you would rather buy. (the second component to the question really isn't all that important or even relevant)



              if the answer is yes.. you would buy X again, you hold.



              if the answer is no.. you should sell.



              If the answer is hell yes, then you should buy even more.




              Before I forget... someone (who shall remain nameless) is going to say I didn't answer the question...



              You already said you see poor prospect for the company.... I think the answer to the "would you buy this stock again" question is a "no"?



              Sell.






              share|improve this answer










              New contributor




              sofa general is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.
























                0














                Say you bought 100 shares of X at $10. for 1000...



                it plummeted to $6 a share, because (let's say it missed an earning).



                The question you should be asking isn't whether you should hold.



                Remember, you still have $600 of cash equivalent (in X) And remember what Buffett said about such situations.. "You don't have to make it back the same way you lost it"



                The REAL question you should be asking is given you have $600 ... would you buy X again at 6 dollars a share. Or is there another stock Y that you would rather buy. (the second component to the question really isn't all that important or even relevant)



                if the answer is yes.. you would buy X again, you hold.



                if the answer is no.. you should sell.



                If the answer is hell yes, then you should buy even more.




                Before I forget... someone (who shall remain nameless) is going to say I didn't answer the question...



                You already said you see poor prospect for the company.... I think the answer to the "would you buy this stock again" question is a "no"?



                Sell.






                share|improve this answer










                New contributor




                sofa general is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.






















                  0












                  0








                  0







                  Say you bought 100 shares of X at $10. for 1000...



                  it plummeted to $6 a share, because (let's say it missed an earning).



                  The question you should be asking isn't whether you should hold.



                  Remember, you still have $600 of cash equivalent (in X) And remember what Buffett said about such situations.. "You don't have to make it back the same way you lost it"



                  The REAL question you should be asking is given you have $600 ... would you buy X again at 6 dollars a share. Or is there another stock Y that you would rather buy. (the second component to the question really isn't all that important or even relevant)



                  if the answer is yes.. you would buy X again, you hold.



                  if the answer is no.. you should sell.



                  If the answer is hell yes, then you should buy even more.




                  Before I forget... someone (who shall remain nameless) is going to say I didn't answer the question...



                  You already said you see poor prospect for the company.... I think the answer to the "would you buy this stock again" question is a "no"?



                  Sell.






                  share|improve this answer










                  New contributor




                  sofa general is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.










                  Say you bought 100 shares of X at $10. for 1000...



                  it plummeted to $6 a share, because (let's say it missed an earning).



                  The question you should be asking isn't whether you should hold.



                  Remember, you still have $600 of cash equivalent (in X) And remember what Buffett said about such situations.. "You don't have to make it back the same way you lost it"



                  The REAL question you should be asking is given you have $600 ... would you buy X again at 6 dollars a share. Or is there another stock Y that you would rather buy. (the second component to the question really isn't all that important or even relevant)



                  if the answer is yes.. you would buy X again, you hold.



                  if the answer is no.. you should sell.



                  If the answer is hell yes, then you should buy even more.




                  Before I forget... someone (who shall remain nameless) is going to say I didn't answer the question...



                  You already said you see poor prospect for the company.... I think the answer to the "would you buy this stock again" question is a "no"?



                  Sell.







                  share|improve this answer










                  New contributor




                  sofa general is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited Apr 9 at 14:30





















                  New contributor




                  sofa general is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  answered Apr 9 at 14:22









                  sofa generalsofa general

                  1525




                  1525




                  New contributor




                  sofa general is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.





                  New contributor





                  sofa general is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  sofa general is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.



























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Personal Finance & Money Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmoney.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f107547%2fis-it-wise-to-hold-on-to-stock-that-has-plummeted-and-then-stabilized%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      រឿង រ៉ូមេអូ និង ហ្ស៊ុយលីយេ សង្ខេបរឿង តួអង្គ បញ្ជីណែនាំ

                      Crop image to path created in TikZ? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Crop an inserted image?TikZ pictures does not appear in posterImage behind and beyond crop marks?Tikz picture as large as possible on A4 PageTransparency vs image compression dilemmaHow to crop background from image automatically?Image does not cropTikzexternal capturing crop marks when externalizing pgfplots?How to include image path that contains a dollar signCrop image with left size given

                      Romeo and Juliet ContentsCharactersSynopsisSourcesDate and textThemes and motifsCriticism and interpretationLegacyScene by sceneSee alsoNotes and referencesSourcesExternal linksNavigation menu"Consumer Price Index (estimate) 1800–"10.2307/28710160037-3222287101610.1093/res/II.5.31910.2307/45967845967810.2307/2869925286992510.1525/jams.1982.35.3.03a00050"Dada Masilo: South African dancer who breaks the rules"10.1093/res/os-XV.57.1610.2307/28680942868094"Sweet Sorrow: Mann-Korman's Romeo and Juliet Closes Sept. 5 at MN's Ordway"the original10.2307/45957745957710.1017/CCOL0521570476.009"Ram Leela box office collections hit massive Rs 100 crore, pulverises prediction"Archived"Broadway Revival of Romeo and Juliet, Starring Orlando Bloom and Condola Rashad, Will Close Dec. 8"Archived10.1075/jhp.7.1.04hon"Wherefore art thou, Romeo? To make us laugh at Navy Pier"the original10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.O006772"Ram-leela Review Roundup: Critics Hail Film as Best Adaptation of Romeo and Juliet"Archived10.2307/31946310047-77293194631"Romeo and Juliet get Twitter treatment""Juliet's Nurse by Lois Leveen""Romeo and Juliet: Orlando Bloom's Broadway Debut Released in Theaters for Valentine's Day"Archived"Romeo and Juliet Has No Balcony"10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.O00778110.2307/2867423286742310.1076/enst.82.2.115.959510.1080/00138380601042675"A plague o' both your houses: error in GCSE exam paper forces apology""Juliet of the Five O'Clock Shadow, and Other Wonders"10.2307/33912430027-4321339124310.2307/28487440038-7134284874410.2307/29123140149-661129123144728341M"Weekender Guide: Shakespeare on The Drive""balcony"UK public library membership"romeo"UK public library membership10.1017/CCOL9780521844291"Post-Zionist Critique on Israel and the Palestinians Part III: Popular Culture"10.2307/25379071533-86140377-919X2537907"Capulets and Montagues: UK exam board admit mixing names up in Romeo and Juliet paper"Istoria Novellamente Ritrovata di Due Nobili Amanti2027/mdp.390150822329610820-750X"GCSE exam error: Board accidentally rewrites Shakespeare"10.2307/29176390149-66112917639"Exam board apologises after error in English GCSE paper which confused characters in Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet""From Mariotto and Ganozza to Romeo and Guilietta: Metamorphoses of a Renaissance Tale"10.2307/37323537323510.2307/2867455286745510.2307/28678912867891"10 Questions for Taylor Swift"10.2307/28680922868092"Haymarket Theatre""The Zeffirelli Way: Revealing Talk by Florentine Director""Michael Smuin: 1938-2007 / Prolific dance director had showy career"The Life and Art of Edwin BoothRomeo and JulietRomeo and JulietRomeo and JulietRomeo and JulietEasy Read Romeo and JulietRomeo and Julieteeecb12003684p(data)4099369-3n8211610759dbe00d-a9e2-41a3-b2c1-977dd692899302814385X313670221313670221