Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Non-Tech : NIFTY NINE IN NINETY NINE PLUS ONE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Arthur Radley who wrote (526)	7/1/1999 1:11:00 PM
From: Brander	Respond to of 613

>>Any input from others? << I'm opposed also; I think we should leave the portfolios as they are.

To: Arthur Radley who wrote (526)	7/1/1999 2:21:00 PM
From: RCMac	Respond to of 613

>>input from others?<< TD, I don't feel strongly about it either way, but I agree with Greg: >>Personally, I wouldn't mind if some portfolio turnover were allowed, say 50% for instance, to approximate real-world trading behavior!<< Recall that the whole exercise is somewhat arbitrary, as I muttered when the contest started: >>I note that the game differs from real investing, in that (1) the rules tend to reward risk-taking more than careful assessment of risks and potential rewards, and (2) you have to buy at an arbitrary time and be measured at arbitrary endpoints, rather than more carefully choosing entry and exit points, buying on dips or selling on spikes when the market offers them. . . . . . . . But within your rules, the various entrants' picks may stimulate good discussion, which is the main point.<< Message 7048308 Maybe the strongest argument for allowing some limited switching is that it might reactivate discussion on the thread, which has been notably somnolent for a couple of months. Let us know what you decide, and I'll think about what to switch out of (into GLIA, for one). --RCM