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: Tommy D who wrote (3010)	3/24/2002 9:58:05 PM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Read Replies (1) of 11633

Now, now Peter, you criticize everyone else for getting nasty but you seem to be just that in your response. --------------- Again get your facts straight I do not criticize everyone. I only counter what they say to keep the discussion balanced. As to getting nasty. Nasty is failing to respond without any backup facts and data, to overlook or ignore data that is presented , or to fail to check out the data before you ignore it or criticize it. It is also having to respond with nothing but insults and name calling or misinformation. None of which I am the starter of though I may respond in kind ( name calling) to it when it is presented. So you may want to go over your response to Graham about me first before pointing fingers --------------- Please be civil. 25% out as to the length of holding your investments is just math. You initially said you had been following your successful investment strategy for close to 20 years. I pointed out that royalty trusts had been around for 16 years and you indicated that 16 is close to 20 years. Well 20 years is 25% more than 16 years (ie. 4 out 16) so the number is not out of thin air but rather is based upon the facts stated in your post. -------------------- As I said you choose to look at the only flimsy peice of so called "evidence" that you can find to counter. Why not go to the actual historical data for my method. Concerning and about the actual historical trading data (daily unit prices) for the trusts. That you do not do. And will not do. Because you know that it in facts holds. And you can't have that. Your debating skills like most traders are pathetic. To counter one sides data you attack that data and not some peice and then say hey look what I found as proof. Any high school debater would handily beat you no contest. So again I say go through the trading numbers apply those to my method and see the results. They are as I have said and indicated. But you will not. So until you do as I said nice try but it (what your doing) just doesn't hold------------- In your recent post you state: "Just to add, all you have shown is that the trusts as they ARE have been around since 1986. Which is 16 years ago. And as I said close to 20 or two decades. You also fail to consider the evidence that some of the oldest ones were first around as mutual funds for years prior to that. Which definitely makes it 20 years or more. Look to Royal Trust Energy Trust Fund prior to 1986 which became Westrock Energy Income which was then managed by Enerplus. Where from there it still existed as Westrock Energy Income and then which later was consolidated taken over into Enerplus. Again as I stated you just don't have the facts straight. And that is what is really amusing. So what you have shown is nothing. AS USUAL. ---------------" Last night you stated: "2002 - 1986 = 16 years. 16 years is close to 20 years is it not. If not then my apologies for the error and will in future for clarities sake say only 16. I realize it must be a very big deal. Though I cannot understand why. And in fact some started out as mutual funds first so have a longer history. If the facts are of interest to you." Last night you confirmed that you invested for 16 years. Now it is 20 years. So what is it Peter. --------------- What having a problem with simple english. Thats 16 years for the trusts AS THEY ARE NOW. Prior to that they were mutual funds NOT AS THEY ARE NOW. But similar. So both hold with the facts as they were presented. The source you provide only looks to the trusts as they are. Not how long similar or same have been around. Your attempts at counter are just so lame. Look to the Royal trust - Westrock - Enerplus , FACT. You sure like to ignore facts when they clearly show you to be wrong. Check it out at your leisure. And from above in last nights message from me as you have copied above """""And in fact some started out as mutual funds first so have a longer history. If the facts are of interest to you."''''''''''''''' Gee both appear in each message. The one from last night I made mention of and from today I give the specific example of. Odd that you see the two as different -------------- -------------- I might remind you of what you implied that because the majority came along in 94 we should not be counting the few earlier. So for you its pick and choose the info your going to look at and just disregard or ignore any other. As I said how typical. I don't ignore data I stand by it. And unlike you have an ample supply concerning these trusts because I took the time to find it ,use it , and verify it before hand. Something you clearly have not done and will not do. So until you choose to do so. Your only spouting opinion. -------------------- Many people might think that the longer the success in an investing strategy the more credibility there is to the particular investing system or strategy and therefore, might conclude the you are touting. --------------- Just what is this suppose to mean. Because of a supposed 4 year difference. A strategy according to you has no credibility. A strategies credibility lies in its data (historical trading data) , in its math ( modified regression model), and how well it fits the historical data in back testing and in real time follow through testing as we have seen with the PWI example and others. That your only attack of the strategy is 20 when it should be 16 (according to you) and not the real meat of the data itself is laughable. ------------------ I accept that perhaps it was an honest error on your part but perhaps you should do the same thing when criticizing other people's positions because anyone can make an error in posting or recollection or even in their opinion. ---------------- Other people don't come out with a testable mathematical method/startegy , or the historical trading data (yearly) for the trusts as I have done. Others don't come out with the data for the historical trading ranges for ngas. Or for the cycling of both unit prices and commodity prices. They come out with bits and peices to show that which they want to show ONLY. And they disregard or ignore the rest. It has been me that has provided real hard data counters to any and all. And more importantly where to confirm such. And the only thing others can do is to hone in on the most insignificant when they should be looking at the meat. Lorne tried to give his own numbers for his PWI failing and I quickly and easily showed that for what it was with the same real numbers and simple math. He couldn't even counter that. And you and your side cannot even do the same. Or will not. And we all know too well why that is. Even now you still refuse to even acknowledge that you are doing that same not looking to the real TRUST numbers. -------------------- Accept that and life will be much easier. In any event, I don't propose to waste any more of the thread's time on this issue -------------------- This is hardly a waste of the threads time. It is an underlying key to the whole matter of investing in trusts. And whether one should do that investing on FACT or on OPINION. And which gives better results. That can be documented and verified. But I can see why you and your side would call it a waste. Because it doesn't show what you say to be true. ------------------ as I know you will want the last word whether it is after this posts or many more. TommyD Enter symbols or keywords for search: Symbol Lookup Subject Titles Only Full Text Go to Top

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next