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: Uncle Frank who wrote (34302)	11/3/2000 2:14:38 PM
From: tinkershaw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

I calculated the money I lost on GSTRF and compared it to the money I would have lost on GSTRF if I had held on to the underlying shares. Surprisingly, although I lost a greater percentage of the money on the LEAPS, I would have actually lost practically the same amount of money on both approaches in absolute dollars. The LEAPS I had cost approximately 50% less than the shares I held, yet the LEAPS controlled a little more than 2x as many shares as the shares I did hold. Anyways, that is my experience in the GSTRF regard. LEAPS do indeed provide great leverage, it still must be ascertained if they are much riskier if you buy say a 3 year LEAP. This GSTRF experience would indicate that this is not necessarily the case. But this is only one situation, and a situation in which I assumed either the company would go bankrupt or succeed wonderfully. In the case of what happened to QCOM, I don't know if the absolute dollar risks would be the saem given Q's inevitable recovery someday. Tinker