Q: I'm stuck in a losing position I can't bear to sell — should I realize the loss and switch to the Nasdaq?

In 30 seconds: Sell it all at market immediately and switch to the Nasdaq. Don’t stay stuck in a bad holding just to “wait for it to come back.” James uses the “broken elevator” metaphor: the elevator is broken — do you keep standing in it waiting for a repair, or just switch to a good one? You want to go up to the 55th floor, you took the broken elevator, there’s a good one right next to it, yet you insist on staying in the broken one — that logic itself is wrong. What’s already fallen is a sunk cost; moving your capital to something that “keeps creating value and will rise” is the point.¹

Variants (how people actually ask)

• “I have a batch of ETFs (healthcare, consumer, HK Hang Seng Tech) I bought at ‘lows’ and they fell another 20% — can’t bear to sell, should I realize the loss and switch to the Nasdaq?”
• “These positions have fallen for years; I’m waiting for them to come back — should I wait a bit more?”
• “My A-share account still has 40% stuck — won’t switching it all to the Nasdaq mean selling at the very bottom?”

James’s answer: swap out the broken elevator

00575 a member had already moved 60% from A-shares to the US Nasdaq, with 40% stuck: part in “bought after a big drop” healthcare / consumer / HK Hang Seng Tech ETFs (which then fell another 20%), part in A-share dividend-low-volatility (income). She can’t bear to sell and wants to wait for a recovery. James’s response:¹

• “That you’d even ask this shows you haven’t watched enough of our videos.” The answer is blunt: sell everything at market immediately, buy the Nasdaq (the 14 / 100 companies) immediately, and it’s done.
• The broken-elevator metaphor: “What’s broken is broken — rather than wait for it to be fixed, just switch to another one. You have three elevators, two are broken — will you keep standing in a broken one waiting, instead of switching to the good one?”
• On “but what if it rises later”: “Then keep waiting in the broken elevator.” The opportunity cost of not switching to a good holding far outweighs the occasional missed bounce.
• This is the same psychological trap as “always wait a bit longer”: being unable to realize a loss = letting the sunk cost hold you hostage, keeping capital locked in an inefficient holding.

Why this doesn’t violate “hold to the death”

“Hold to the death” means not selling the core index position (QQQ / Nasdaq); it never included “clinging to a bad holding you shouldn’t own at all.” Switching from single stocks, thematic ETFs, or A-shares into the Nasdaq is moving assets onto the correct vehicle — do it once and then enter “hold to the death.” This matches James’s own path from market-timing to holding-to-the-death (see 從擇時操作到打死不賣). Get both the buy and the sell right, and don’t jump around once you’ve switched (see 家人朋友賣掉了該怎麼辦).

⚠️ Don’t confuse this with “I bought at the top” — that’s the opposite answer

The two look alike, but James’s answers point in opposite directions, and the difference is one thing only: what you’re stuck in.

	Stuck in the right holding (Nasdaq / QQQ / 00662)	Stuck in the wrong holding (single stocks, thematic ETFs, A-shares)
Typical phrasing	”I bought at the top and I’m underwater — should I keep buying?"	"These healthcare / Hang Seng Tech ETFs are down 20% — should I take the loss and switch to the Nasdaq?”
Answer	Don’t sell, keep buying. Let time erase the risk	Sell everything at market immediately and switch to the Nasdaq.
Source	00155, 00193, 00375	00575 (the body of this page)

• The whole theme of 00375 (2022) is “bought at the top? just keep buying”: “Whether you bought at a high or a low, whether you bought at a PE of 30 or a PE of 10 — if you hold for 30 years the returns are almost identical. Risk can be eliminated by time.”²
• 00193 (2021, titled “even buying at the 2000 top isn’t a risk”) pushes it to the extreme: the risk isn’t your entry price, it’s whether you have enough capital. “It isn’t about whether you bought at the top — it’s about whether your capital is enough, and that you can only spend 3% of your invested capital a year.” Someone with NT$1.5M spending only NT$45k survives fine.³
• 00155 (2020) supplies the arithmetic: even buying QQQ at the 2007 peak (120), by 2020 it was 260 — “take the 12th root and you still have 6.6% a year, plus 1% in dividends makes 7.6%.”⁴

One line to tell them apart: the reason to switch must be “the holding is wrong,” never “I lost money.” Losing money is not by itself a reason to sell — losing money while holding a bad vehicle is. That’s also why this page’s answer doesn’t violate hold to the death.

Answer log

• 2026-07-25 (00575): a member, should the 40% stuck position switch to the Nasdaq → sell all at market immediately and switch; broken-elevator metaphor; if you fear it rebounding, “keep waiting in the broken elevator.”¹

• 2022-10-11 (00375): Adjacent question — “Bought at the top, can I keep buying?” → just keep buying; over 30 years the return from a high or a low is nearly the same, risk is erased by time.²

• 2021-02-26 (00193): Adjacent question — even buying at the 2000 top isn’t a risk; the real risk is whether your capital is sufficient and your withdrawal rate too high.³

• 2020-07-17 (00155): Adjacent question — QQQ bought at the 2007 peak still returned about 6.6% a year plus dividends 13 years later.⁴

🔎 Correction (2026-08-03): this page previously listed 00375 as “the same question, with a consistent core answer” — that was wrong. 00375 asks about being stuck in the right holding, and its answer is don’t sell, keep buying; this page asks about being stuck in the wrong holding, and its answer is switch immediately. The two are now separated in the table above.

⚠️ Realizing a loss to switch crystallizes the loss and may have tax implications (varies by locale), and “switching to the Nasdaq” still carries market risk; this page only organizes James’s spoken stance, not personalized investment advice.

Footnotes

1. CLEC James, 長篇 00575 “What truly teaches you is not the result, but the process!”, 2026-07-25, a member switching a stuck position to the Nasdaq, broken-elevator metaphor @1:16:30–1:19:00 (“You just sell everything at market immediately and buy the 14 immediately and it’s done … a broken elevator — rather than wait for the repair, switch to another … there’s a good elevator next to you and you insist on staying in the broken one?”). Transcript in raw/transcripts/長篇/00575…. ↩ ↩² ↩³

2. CLEC James, 長篇 00375 “Bought at the top — can you keep buying? Just keep buying”, 2022-10-11, returns after 30 years nearly identical from a high or low, risk erased by time @45:30. Transcript in raw/transcripts/長篇/00375…. ↩ ↩²

3. CLEC James, 長篇 00193 “The market rises for 20 years; even buying at the 2000 top isn’t a risk”, 2021-02-26, the risk is capital sufficiency, not entry price @04:30, @26:30, @42:00. Transcript in raw/transcripts/長篇/00193…. Amounts are spoken examples. ↩ ↩²

4. CLEC James, 長篇 00155 “The path to 100× returns”, 2020-07-17, the QQQ 120→260 annualized calculation from the 2007 peak @12:30–16:00. Transcript in raw/transcripts/長篇/00155…. Prices and annualized figures are 2020 spoken estimates. ↩ ↩²