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 : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MeDroogies who wrote (2551)	3/23/2001 4:22:05 PM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

I am guilty as charged. But you presume too much. I have indeed read many of your posts. Possibly more times than you have. Many that hindsight reveals as myopic, at best. Stones. Glass house. MeDroogies would throw there. Catch this. I won't presume that you haven't read Jay's posts. I state merely to summarize. Jay - feel free to correct if I am wrong in my brevity. It is to minimize the number of neurons which must fire to understand. Jay cited multiple sources of context which COLLECTIVELY (not individually) are indicative of a "DO NOT BUY", "DO NOT HOLD" signal. Which is not a "SELL" signal, noting that it is possible to sell that which you do not hold. MeDroogies disputes. War of words breaks out, eloquent on both sides but unequally matched in substance. John jumps in to the fray for fun. Said again differently. This time for effect and clarity. Perhaps an analogy: Jay says "camel has much straw on its back". MeDroogies replies "This is not a significant straw, neither is this, neither is this... alternative theory: camel's back problem is genetic." Supporting logic follows and is debated merily, one side for sport, the other in seriousness. John is merely having fun with you by picking at straws and measuring their weight. The rest is fluff. Now sir, as to your gauntlet. I am as good as I say. My portfolio (distinct from a basket of stocks) has appreciated by a hair over 135% in after tax value since Jan 2000. Without so much as a single short sale. Which portfolio used to be almost entirely in tech stocks and now is almost entirely not tech and not stocks. But not, like most others, due to deer-in-the-headlights inaction then late action or radiator fluid all over the road cleanup action. Due to action. Following a strategy much as Jay suggests (although I am not as fond of watches, I am less weighted down with heavy metals, and not so clever to obtain money for less than nothing). If you weren't so set in your all knowing position that having researched all you know all... well, you might know more than such limited all by learning from folks like Jay. I have learned from him and others you have used your wit against. Goodie for you, you have not "lost money" with your investing style. Let's set this in context. This claim would not differentiate you from a chimpanzee with a set of darts "investing" LTBH in the NASD over the past five years. You asked "who sold at the peak". Not me. I merely sold near the peak. Although most every share I sold was off $5 or less from its all time ever high, I was happy with the price at the time. If this does not give you satisfaction, I would be pleased to reply. John.

To: MeDroogies who wrote (2551)	3/23/2001 10:49:44 PM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum	Respond to of 74559

'LE, if he really had insider knowledge and wanted to really max out his gains, would've sold long before he actually did. In many cases, if you review filings by CEOs, the activity they engaged in could've been better timed and even maximized more efficiently if it were purely a "lets just sell cause we're at a peak" situation.'; Frankly MeDroogies, Methinks he sold as 'stealthily' as possible bearing the encumbrance of SEC reporting, once he realized the situation, well ahead of mom & pop. regards Kastel