Eli 74,
In response to your response to Master Investor MGV, wherein you speculated that my investment performance was basically flat in the past 12 months since I had a large position in Valence, which has not really moved, I would offer the following:
(1) The initial comment triggering this 'little discussion' with MGV was a comment that I had made that he really had no business criticizing stock investments when his latest "pick to click", LVCI, had acted in such a way as to be "humiliating" for him.
This, I think, was in response to his posting of a chart on NPSP, which I had sold (for a substantial profit) at significantly higher prices in late 1997 and early 1998.
Apparently he is not "humiliated" by recommending on more than one occasion a stock (LVCI) around $ 14 or so which in the next several weeks sinks to $ 8.00 and change. I would be humiliated, and I suspect most others would be.
(2) So he responded with a challenge of sorts, ie, to measure investment returns over a year period from the end of October to the end of October.
(3) I responded by indicating that this was fine with me, and I would pose two stocks VLNC (70% of holdings) and NKCIF (30% of holdings), which I would glad match against any of his selections.
(4) MGV, in typical fashion, responded, calling me a "liar" on two fronts. First, I guess he disagreed when I said I had tried to be civil in my response to him. And second, I suppose, that I had failed to take up his "challenge"...
(5) On several successive occassions on SI he has posted that I hadn't the courage to take him up on his challenge, although I thought I had. However, in his latest posting of "the challenge", he stipulated the 12 months beginning 11/1/98 and ending 10/31/99.
Of this I was unaware, and you just responded that you expected that my investment returns were probably flat in view of my large, somewhat concentrated position in Valence.
(6) Now there are two reasons that I did not respond to Mark Visnic.
(a) Why should I be obligated to do so? MGV in the vast majority of cases doesn't respond to questions. He called me a liar on at least two occasions, and when I questioned him about the specific nature of his data, of course he didn't respond.
He seems to pretty much most of the nasty things that his detractors call him on these threads. But in addition he is just not really a very good investor, in my opinion. The two stocks since 6/98 that he took pains to mention were MIKL and LVCI - one is OK and the latter a real shitter so far. But it sure doesn't mute his arrogance....
(b) The other reason I haven't responded to Master Investor Mark is that I have been out of town and haven't really compiled any kind of intelligent response to his question regarding my own documented investment peformance.
I have received some of the data and will relate it to you for the record:
(A) My IRA, which has had no investment infusions from the period 10/30/98 through today, shows:
(a) A return for the year period in question 10/31/98 to 11/1/99 of 4.02 x, or a gain of 302%.
This IRA also shows a gain from the period 10/31/98 through today of 4.85 x, or a gain of 385%.
(b) I have several accounts at several brokerage firms, and make frequent withdrawals from some of these accounts for private investment and haven't made a concise calculation regarding investment performance. To do this for MGV is not really warranted, since he doesn't warrant the effort, frankly. But, if I leave the private investments which I have made in the past period since 10/31/98 in the account at their initial invesment value, I feel confident in saying that my investment return for the period 10/31/98 through 11/1/99 is approximately 79%, though I may have neglected some minor withdrawals from the account which would raise to over 80%. These are pretax numbers. But they include an account which has shown over the period a steady and heavy increase in Valence shares, ie, from 95,000 to more than 325,000 shares today. So, I guess, despite the relative lack of performance in VLNC shares during this period, the overall return of between 75% - 80% is OK. Actually, it's pretty good.
So I am not going to respond directly to MGV and whatever "challenge" he wishes to issue on past performance, since I am comfortable with my own investment results despite "having such a failing dog as Valence" in my portfolio.
The real returns for me will come in the next 12-48 months, as we are beginning to see today with the Valence satellite cellphone contract.
But I will be happy to have MGV list his portfolio on which he wishes to wager $10,000 for the next 12 month period ending at the close of business today - versus the 70% VLNC and 30% NKCIF stock mixture I posted on SI and effective as of 11/1/99.
MGV will become increasingly irrelevant as Valence prospers, since he wrongly believes Valence is destined to fail.
Perhaps he will post his portfolio selections for all to see on SI and you can email them to me, Eli74. I have him on Ignore, where he belongs.....
Regards,
Mooter775 |
