SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Technology Stocks : Stock Swap

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Michael Davis who wrote (9562)11/12/1997 9:04:00 AM
From: Patrick Slevin  Read Replies (2) of 17305
 
"Turn $69 into Millions!"

I tried this once....perhaps 5 years ago. The 2 problems I had were timeliness (by the time one got the letter it often was not a practical play) and the fact that there was not always enough time to pore thru them. Not the newsletter writers' faults, of course. Other things about them, once you get on this list you will be bombarded forever with their ads and many will try to get you to sign on for their special telephone service. You will, indeed, be a prisoner of junk mail. Perhaps you can have the stuff sent to a PO Box, or something. (Another reason why I don't care for O'Neill...I ordered their Daily Graphs service and they sold my name. I received junk mail every day until I left NYC to trade out of my house. I know they sold it because they misspelled it. All the ensuing junk mail was similarly spelled.)

It also goes without saying, though I'll say it anyway to avoid a misunderstanding, that there are no special "4" that works for everyone. I might prefer the futures letters and some one else will stick to the mutual fund plays.

Having said all that I must be getting old because I am astonished that I have seen quite a few of these. Unfortunately, most do not stick out in my mind as having any interest for me at whatever time it was they crossed my path.

The ones I recall include Bernie Schaeffer's "Option Advisor", which I do not care for. As I recall he has you playing mostly options which are in far months and so many of them that it takes up a lot of time to track them all. In his promotional literature he uses Michael Burke of "Investor's Intelligence" as a reference. This may or may not be the same Burke that has a thread on SI called "Ask Michael Burke".

The "Oberweis Report", "Cabot Market Letter", and "The Prudent Speculator" I never cared for. My trading style is not suited for the purchase of stock for the long haul. If I were to buy something for the long haul, I would not subscribe to a newsletter to tell me which one...why spend the money when there are so many other avenues.

"Sturza's Medical Investment Letter" was given to me once in awhile. I did not find it to be very valuable. If it's in "Sturza's", and it's any good it can be found out somewhere else.

Ones that look interesting to me include "Volume Reversal Survey", "Chartcraft Weekly Options Service", and "Supertrader's Journal". I am not familiar with them....just stuff I might try.

Of the two Value Line ones, I tried "OTC Special Situations" and was disappointed. Mostly very obscure stocks with limited followings. I would be surprised to see if many of them take off. I did use the regular Value Line for years and found it worthwhile for stocks that I was going to buy and hold. Value Line's "Option Survey", if it is as good as the regular issue, might be worth a try.

Finally, I know an excellant trader and newsletter writer (not on this list) who told me on two separate occasions that his favorite read for mid-term calls is Marty Zweig whose staff writes "Zweig Performance Ratings Report", and his favorite for long-term is either Ned Davis or Dick Davis. I have to call him and ask, but I think it's Ned Davis. In any event, the "Dick Davis Digest" looks alike it might be a good deal because it seems to incorporate several letters.

But no; to answer your question I don't currently use any of these guys so I don't have anything I might specifically recommend unless it were Zweig.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext