STANLEY DRUCKENMILLER: "I SHORTED $200 MILLION OF INTERNET STOCKS IN MARCH 1999. IN THREE WEEKS I COVERED THEM AT A $600 MILLION LOSS." "I was short 12 stocks. They all went bankrupt. Every one of them." He was right on every single pick. Still lost $600M. "If you're dead wrong on a long, you can lose 100%. If you're dead wrong on a short, you can lose 10 times your money." "Frankly, I'm not sure I've ever made money in shorts. I've never had a down year, but I'm not sure I've made money in shorts. I like it. It's fun. But you can get your head handed to you." "Don't try that at home."
A clear two-panel schematic of how short selling works (borrow-and-sell, then later repurchase-and-return). It directly illustrates the mechanics and timing risk that Druckenmiller describes — namely that shorts must buy to cover (potentially at much higher prices), which explains how being ‘right’ about a company’s eventual failure can still produce very large short-term losses (short squeezes).
Source: Wikimedia Commons (upload.wikimedia.org)
Research Brief
What our analysis found
Legendary investor Stanley Druckenmiller, speaking at Bloomberg Invest New York on June 7, 2023, recounted one of the most painful trades of his career: shorting $200 million worth of internet stocks in March 1999 while managing money at the Soros Quantum Fund. Within just three weeks, the positions moved so violently against him that he was forced to cover at a staggering $600 million loss — a tripling of the original bet turned against him. The cruel irony, as Druckenmiller noted, was that all 12 stocks he shorted eventually went bankrupt, meaning his fundamental thesis was correct on every single name.
The anecdote has become one of the most cited cautionary tales in professional investing, illustrating the asymmetric risk profile of short selling. While a losing long position can only go to zero — a 100% loss — a short position can theoretically produce losses many multiples of the original investment if the stock surges before eventually collapsing. Druckenmiller's experience unfolded roughly 12 months before the Nasdaq Composite reached its all-time dot-com peak on March 10, 2000, meaning the bubble had another full year of irrational exuberance left to punish early shorts.
Druckenmiller has told this story publicly on multiple occasions, including at a January 2015 speech at the Lost Tree Club and again in the 2023 Bloomberg interview. The episode was part of a broader period of turbulence at the Quantum Fund, which experienced multi-billion-dollar swings during the late 1990s tech mania and ultimately led to Druckenmiller's departure and the fund's restructuring in 2000. His blunt advice to everyday investors — "Don't try that at home" — underscores that even the most accomplished money managers can be devastated by the mechanics of short selling, regardless of whether their analysis proves correct.
Fact Check
Evidence from both sides
Supporting Evidence
Primary source confirmation from Bloomberg
Druckenmiller personally stated the $200 million short and $600 million loss anecdote on camera at Bloomberg Invest New York, in a video published June 7, 2023. This is the direct, primary source for the quotes in the tweet (bloomberg.com).
Consistent retelling across multiple years
The same figures and narrative appear in a transcript of a Druckenmiller speech at the Lost Tree Club in January 2015, demonstrating that the anecdote has been part of his repeated, public recollection for nearly a decade and is not a one-off or misquote (scribd.com).
Contemporaneous reporting corroborates Quantum Fund turmoil
Press coverage from the period, including InvestmentNews reporting, documents that the Soros Quantum Fund experienced large losses and significant restructuring around 1999–2000, which is consistent with Druckenmiller's account of massive short-selling losses during the dot-com bubble (investmentnews.com).
The math of short-selling losses is well established
Druckenmiller's observation that a wrong short can cost multiples of the original investment is a widely recognized financial principle. A stock shorted at $10 that rises to $100 before being covered produces a 900% loss on the original position, validating his claim that shorts can lose "10 times your money."
Contradicting Evidence
No independent verification of the specific $200M/$600M figures
The exact dollar amounts come exclusively from Druckenmiller's own retrospective accounts. No audited Quantum Fund profit-and-loss statements, contemporaneous press articles, or regulatory filings have been located that independently confirm the $200 million notional short or the $600 million loss for that specific three-week episode (bloomberg.com).
Timing ambiguity with the dot-com peak
Druckenmiller consistently says "March 1999," but the Nasdaq Composite did not peak until March 10, 2000 — a full year later. Some retellings and readers conflate the two dates, and it is possible that Druckenmiller's memory has compressed or slightly shifted the timeline across multiple retellings over two decades (scribd.com, wikipedia.org).
The 12 shorted stocks have never been publicly identified
Druckenmiller has never disclosed which 12 internet companies he shorted. Without knowing the specific names, there is no way to independently verify the claim that all 12 eventually went bankrupt.
Multiple overlapping loss anecdotes from the same era
Druckenmiller has publicly recounted several large-loss episodes from the 1999–2000 period, including references to a separate roughly $3 billion loss related to tech positions. The existence of multiple, large-figure anecdotes from the same period means individual quotes can be taken out of context or conflated, and the $600 million short loss was only one component of a more complex portfolio story (scribd.com).
Report an Issue
Found something wrong with this article? Let us know and we'll look into it.