### Comment:
ah yeah. i think you and op are saying the same thing if you interpret ops def of price to be relative to the worth of the stock. thus, low price (relative to stocks actual worth) seemingly has lesser risk than high price (relative to stocks actual worth).

### REPLY:
Well he didn’t define what high or low was. As I interpreted it it meant just price potential. As in you can lose more with Alphabet than GE because one has a higher price than the other, but that’s not actually the case. But yeah I agree with that explanation

### END.