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.

Technology Stocks : JDS Uniphase (JDSU) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Guy Gordon who wrote (1803)	11/6/1999 8:23:00 PM
From: HoyaBob	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24042

JDSU Stops: So, where do you folks put your stops on JDSU -- I'm curious.

To: Guy Gordon who wrote (1803)	11/7/1999 11:09:00 AM
From: Bruce Brown	Respond to of 24042

RE: 4. The price has risen so much that your portfolio is out of balance--i.e., over-weighted by a particular issue and so you sell to re-balance. David, I believe wrote the above. The following is a cut and paste from an article that appeard at The Fool.com on Friday. It was an article centered around when 'not to sell'. I found it interesting, so thought I would tag it in here since David brought up one of the reasons on his post. --------- Reason 1: Don't let your portfolio become overweighted in one or two companies This can also manifest itself as a "diversification" argument. This may be the worst rationale I know of for selling all or part of a winner, but it is also something that is almost gospel in the brokerage and financial management industry. Why? The thought that a company can make up 30%, 40%, or 50% of one's portfolio is simple to look at as an undue risk. But let's look at a real-world application. ---------- The author goes on to run some real world instances of where this would have not been a good thing to do. We could plug in Dell, JDSU, Qualcomm, Brocade and many good stocks that have been on fire at various times where the re-balancing for re-balancing's sake could have resulted in loss of return. BB