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: Lorne Larson who wrote (4316)	9/22/2002 10:23:40 AM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Read Replies (1) of 11633

Lorne: "You have some more cash to invest and want to again invest in an oil and gas trust. Why would you at that point not analyze which trust is the better investment, just as you did when you first bought?" Peter:------- "Because of the simple fact that if one did a proper study before hand. There would be no need to do any further analysis. He would already be in the best one he could find for his own preferences and circumstances --- Nothing at all mentioned about a trading range strategy. In fact you explicitly state the reason for the theory - "there is no need to do any further analysis" because one "did a proper study before hand". -------- I like how you just leave out the main part of that which is for his own ""preferences and circumstances""" which is of paramount importance to the individual because it is what he can handle ----- -------- And what is fundamentally wrong with if you did a proper study before hand. A proper study before hand would show that the trust cycle. And not to be afraid of it and do the wrong thing because it does. It would show That lowering ones cost base with a trust that fits your own pref and circum and that pays high income would deliver that meat and gravy because of the cycling higher to and past ones average cost base. BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE PAST NUMBERS SHOW HAPPENS OVER AND OVER AGAIN. It would show that if you try to trade these your going to get sideswipped by events making you do the wrong things at the wrong times for the wrong reasons. Resulting in real losses you didn't have to take because the prices later returned to above your average cost base. You just deny the importance of all that. Your denying it doesn't make it wrong. It only makes you look stupid because your denying the so obvious. AS OTHERS HAVE SO CLEARLY STATED (SCOTT)---------- Now that is just plain dumb. I take it that your theory is not concerned that circumstances might have changed since you first bought the stock. ------- Yes like a perceived management problem which sent the price tumbling only to have that price recover just as fast because there was no management problem. You and others took a real loss on PWI only to have the price recover to where it was before or higher. So buying more at the lows presented would have not been a disaster like you say because they rose from those lows. JUST AS MY STRATEGY SAYS WILL HAPPEN. Back to where they were before or higher. So the simple math of it is that if you got scared and took a 15% loss getting out then bought another trust that went up 25% your net would be up 10% on the two. Now since the price recovered back up to its original before the fall or higher sticking and buying more and much more at the lows would have meant more than a 15% gain because you now have a lower average cost base with all that buying . LIKE FOR THE LUS AND MXT EXAMPLES BUT NOT TO THAT TRIPLE DIGIT EXTENT. All told meaning that there was no net benefit in the switch and you had extra costs because of that switching which you just ignore but they eat at your returns making that 10% net of yours actually less. The simple math of it shows that more than 15% is more than less than 10%. YOU LOSE-------- ------- Or how about an event like SEP 11th or ENRON OR WORLDCOM the prices all recovered from their lows and some substantially so. So taking advantage of the lows would have been the right thing to do. Lowering ones cost base. AS I SAID . All switching would have done would have made you take real losses when you did not have to PERIOD. ----------------- Don't need "data" to recognize that kind of blatant stupidity. -------- The data clearly shows the obviousness of the strategy. I took your own data for MXT (PETER 3 LORNE 0) and show how like for LUS it delivered triple digit gains. Far outpassing anything else because you do not provide any such evidence of a trust that delivered better PERIOD, that one could have switched into at the time. And you need fact and data to win a debate. NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY. YOU DON'T MAKE THE RULES YOU CAN ONLY FOLLOW THEM BY PROVIDING DATA. IF YOU DON'T PROVIDE DATA AND FACT YOU JUST DON'T WIN AT DEBATE PERIOD. THATS THE WAY IT IS. Thats how things go in the real world. Not the fantasy world where you can make up your purchases with no documented evidence. Having to lie about your trading successes is just so LAST RESORT. And not offering or giving when asked by others here a testable strategy of your own so others can learn from or test to see if it is real or a lie. Shows you as the coward you are. --------------

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next