Canadian REITS, Trusts & Dividend Stocks Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Canadian REITS, Trusts & Dividend Stocks

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: gg cox who wrote (2462)	1/21/2002 11:13:58 PM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Read Replies (1) of 11633

"The concept that these things are foolproof and that you "can't lose" is simplistic nonsense. ------------------ But is it??????????--------------. MXT (now UET) came very close to going bankrupt in 1998-1999" ------------------- Very close is. The key here. The fact is that not one trust in the last 2 decades has gone completely under. THAT IS FACT. Many have gone private. many have been taken over, merged and changed to new ones. Still others have ceased operations paying out unitholders. The question is with all of this is the unitholder worse off or better off because of it. Or in comparison is a trader worse off or better off because he has been on the wrong end of a trade because he failed to look at the complete info. Is a trader worse off or better off because he REALIZED a REAL LOSS because he was afraid or scared into doing the wrong thing at the wrong time and things ended up going the other way. It is those things that people should be asking and finding or demanding the information for. ---------------- Also what must be kept in mind with these trusts is the ever present danger of the "roll back"...if you get caught in it you can be severely behind the eight ball for many, many years unless one has ""unlimited funds"" to continue to buy in great quantities ---------------- By roll back I take it you mean reverse splits. This bit of info. CASE # 1 When a stock splits 4 for 1 you end up with 4 new shares for each old one. . So in illustration if you had to begin with before the split 100 shares at $10 (total $1000) , you now have after the split 400 shares at $2.50 (total $1000) . CASE # 2 When a stock splits 1 for 4 what happens here. Well from our previous example of 100 shares at $10 (total $1000) , then after the split you now have 25 shares at $40 (total $1000) . Now the question is, which case # 1 or # 2 is better off ????? The answer is -- THERE BOTH THE SAME. The only thing is what happens to them going into the future. If for case # 1 the price falls 40% afterwards are you better off than if for case # 2 the price falls 40%. There both the same there both down 40%. --------------------- Splits reverse or otherwise change only the number of shares you are holding and the value of each share, the before and after value of your total holding is the same, that has not changed. Changes occuring into the future from the time of the split would have happened the same irregardless of the split happening or which kind of split it was. THAT IS FACT. ----------------------- .( Then you are at the mercy of the "Lowen Group" or "Enron" or "Nortel" syndrome regardless of how the trust has traded in the past)Example of this is the one new share for three old shares that ncf carried out last year, which i referred to a couple of times i think up the thread.Which of the trusts is the most likely at this time to have a 1 for 3 or 1 for 4 roll back?? "Row, row, row your boat "gently" down the stream,merrily,merrily,merrily, merrily life is but a dream." This thought from Wayne Dyer. gg

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next