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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: chaz who wrote (22891)	4/17/2000 12:31:00 AM
From: Normandi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Chaz. I agree with your last statement...I will be able to buy in multiples of which I held for years prior for the same money. Cheers Norm

To: chaz who wrote (22891)	4/17/2000 12:32:00 AM
From: freeus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Absolutely. Gemstar: I wouldn't have sold at 107, how could I know, but by my system (10-15% off its high) should have sold at 92-95. Would have gotten 184,ooo dollars.(2000 shares) Average buying price 45: profit $94000. Tax approx $33,000, leaves $61,000 profit plus my original $90,000. If I put right back into gmst at 40 could buy 3775 shares, almost twice as many shares after paying taxes. Next time I take profits. This was stupid, stupid, stupid. I buy IBD: I saw the naz charts, not to mention the gmst charts. The trend has been clear. Freeus If l.t. b&h means you just hold through any market environment, I am no longer a ltb&h investor. This taught me a most unpleasant lesson that I don't want to relearn anytime soon. (And actually that was just for examples: my gemstar is half in the IRA where there would have been no tax consequences.)

To: chaz who wrote (22891)	4/17/2000 12:38:00 AM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

Chaz, Maybe I didn't state my point very well. I wasn't suggesting that there is a blanket buy-or-sell decision applicable to all situations. Instead, I was trying to make the point that we have the edge on Peter Lynch (in the days when he was a fund manager). He told us that in One Up on Wall Street and I still believe it to be true. Being a fund manager, he had reasons that he had to buy stocks we wouldn't think of buying, or at least I wouldn't think of buying. As a result, when some of those stocks attained a certain amount of profit he understandably locked them in. But for individual investors who have far worse tax consequences than any fund manager has, I maintain that it is not in the interests of our financial health to plan on buying stocks we know can't hugely appreciate over the long term, that we have no reason to expect to become a ten-bagger. Just the opposite, I don't own a stock and won't buy a stock I think won't become a ten-bagger. It's not at all unrealistic that every one of my stocks will become ten-baggers. Not having a crystal ball, I can't be certain that any of them will but the fundamentals are in place that make the expectation reasonable. To plan otherwise, knowing that a sale has to be made in the near-term that generates more taxes and minimizes the profound impact of compounding, makes no sense to me at all. --Mike Buckley