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: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (2601)	3/28/2001 4:15:04 PM
From: MeDroogies	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

No, I'm long term buy and hold, but I like to remove my capital when given the opportunity. I suppose that's a variation of a theme. My feeling in the last bull run was that it was overblown, and that removing capital was a good sense maneuver. It kept me in my stocks for the LTBH, but protected my downside risk. I am an advocate of LTBH, generally. It makes the most sense, unless you have the time (not me) to manage things on your own, or the money (not me) to have someone do it for you. I do some light trading, but my forays into the trading field have not produced the values I'd like (read losses). I still trade, but much less aggressively and with much smaller sums than I originally felt I needed to use. I'm better at picking a company based on fundamentals than technical value. Technically, I've gotten good at reading charts, but not at timing them well. As is often the case with others, I'm good at telling others when to buy and sell, but lousy when I do it on my own. So I try to limit my exposure there. I don't think there is much of a difference between promoting the game and playing it. If you're playing it, you want it promoted. If you're promoting it, you want it played. Ethically, I have issues with people promoting things that don't have value, but I realize that it happens and try to get the best of those situations when they are apparent. I also believe that while the game is rigged, it isn't rigged if you don't know how it is rigged. I liken it to a horse race. I have no idea which horse the mob has "picked" to win. So, if I simply bet using the odds as a means of decision making, or only using the charts, or only using the colors of the jockey, whether the race is rigged or not is meaningless. However, if there is something really VALUABLE that can help me make a better decision (the charts, for example) and those have been fixed to read a certain way so that I am led to make a decision in order to improve the odds on the rigged winner....well, that's fraudulent. There are very few cases of that on Wall Street. Fundamentals are fairly transparent in stocks. The "rigging" occurs with market makers who pump and dump, and CEOs who issue overblown forecasts and hide the truth. I don't see anything that LE did with ORCL as evidence of rigging. He promoted his market and his product, and both were growing at astounding rates. The promoter had a viable game. Even with his latest downward revision, ORCL hasn't gone out of its way to mislead anyone. In fact, they have used the strength of their software to provide information in a timely fashion. I do see the dotcom millionaires as an evidence of pump and dump style rigging.