Illogical. If he sold, he now had cash money to spend, thus the barrel to show that he is broke wouldn’t make sense. In value, he might have lost, but in expendable money, he gained.
In case he would have kept his shares, he would have the chance to recover, but had to wait until a surge in prices, which might take some time. But for the moment, he would have less money as he didn’t sell his shares.
So, why should he be totally broke now, if he was able to live before he got the cash from selling his shares? He should have more money than before, and could even wait for a good moment to reinvest. When buying the shares at a lower price than when he sold them, he would even make a profit, as he would get more shares for the same price. And if he wasn’t able to stay in or get out and reinvest later, than he HAD to sell and his decision was correct, although not able to compensate fully for the damage caused by the falling stock prices.
Illogical. If he sold, he now had cash money to spend, thus the barrel to show that he is broke wouldn’t make sense. In value, he might have lost, but in expendable money, he gained.
In case he would have kept his shares, he would have the chance to recover, but had to wait until a surge in prices, which might take some time. But for the moment, he would have less money as he didn’t sell his shares.
So, why should he be totally broke now, if he was able to live before he got the cash from selling his shares? He should have more money than before, and could even wait for a good moment to reinvest. When buying the shares at a lower price than when he sold them, he would even make a profit, as he would get more shares for the same price. And if he wasn’t able to stay in or get out and reinvest later, than he HAD to sell and his decision was correct, although not able to compensate fully for the damage caused by the falling stock prices.