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: TobagoJack who wrote (3467)	5/7/2001 11:05:46 AM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Hi Jay, <correction> ---- - difference a --- ---[+s] ----[-s]! </correction> ahem... As it happens, we are going househunting in Honolulu ourselves...I trust it is more pleasant than Yichang for a lazybones such as myself who just wants to play tennis and surf. On above (b), my two examples were meant to put a stake at two extreme ends of a continuum of active income that is relatively more certain vs. passive portfolio gain that is less certain, and then, coupling the continuum with the idea of an financial objective, explain why different folks may have different investment styles Fair enough. I would only add that as portfolio grows, active income becomes increasingly irrelevant for all but the highest earners (although active doesn't). The mania of the past few years has given many people 60 and under the opportunity to accelerate their retirement goals in a range of T minus 35 to T minus 0. They used to say that the real estate boom was a one-time gift to the baby-boomers' parents...well, IMHO the stock boom was a one-time gift to the boomers and everyone else lucky to be in the right place at the right time. Emphasis on the "one-time" aspect. Two years ago, I had commented to a fellow poster on the Softbank thread that a strategy of selling puts, and buying stocks can easily (without stomach churning volatility) yield an annual return of 30+%. I commented so because I had achieved an 18 months track record of astounding brilliance in shamelessly amassing a 200+% Two years ago, I thought common stocks even with margin was too conservative. 30% seemed reasonable since it was so far below the easily attained triple digits and more. It is in the way of the bull to suck in all comers in the market of greater fools. Like the Roach Motel, it is easy to check in, but not to check out. Psychologically and portfoliowise. Now people listen to Buffett when he says 9% is too high. My one hope in the aftermath of the huge crash and trillions of dollars lost is that investors hold companies to a stiffer accounting standard. In particular, I want to see an acknowledgment that option grants have a cost, and I'd like to see that reflected in profitability figures. One scenario is that people look at the numbers and realize the games they play are stupid. But that bets too highly for rationality. A second possibility is that the weight of excess dilution inexorably drags shares down, to the point where options lose their attractiveness (compared to cash) for employees. whatever and every what … it just did not matter, and matter did not matter. It was like achieving massive multiple orgasm while soaking in a tub of Champaign ROFLMAO! A "good one", as Robertson Davies put it. As you may recall from Devil Take the Hindmost, a popular stock prior to the Crash of '29 was AOT (Any Old Thing).