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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Canadian REITS, Trusts & Dividend Stocks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stan_hughes who wrote (1849)	11/9/2001 10:50:34 AM
From: gg cox	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11633

Hi Stan, I new there must be another "dust up" here when I saw there was 72 posts to read..<<ggg>>looks like there are no clear winners just two sides...here is a repeat of one side...I'm still on your side(for the moment)Peter I'll be on your side shortly. NCF.UN presently around $12.80.. Message 16328690 I still can't find that $7.80...I'll keep digging.<<gg>> gg

To: stan_hughes who wrote (1849)	11/9/2001 11:11:04 AM
From: Goldberry	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11633

Stan Stan Stan. You don't get it Peter isn't concerned about what they did for the past 5 months or even the past 5 years (based on a post with data I did which showed that Canadian REITS performed better than the top rated Oil and gas trust on an income basis and cap gain basis with less volatility) he keeps talking about 20 year data which is history and based on the initial start of these O & G trusts when they were cheap. In fairness to Peter he has mentioned a number of times in his posts that the key is to buy more when they are depressed in their cycles. He is adamant that guys like you and I who chose to trade that is sell when they are near, at the top or coming of high points in their cycles are wrong in that we should hold on and suck up as these things go down. What Peter needs to understand is that when you talk these investments up as he was doing last Spring when they were approaching there highs and some of us were preaching caution some readers might not heed his due diligence warnings and may have plunged in to buy. Now they are down 30%+ and these people may not have the funds to average down. Anyhow after he stated calling people names (I became Einstein) I put his name on ignore. I should have done this back when he refused to admit or apologize for all his messages about the U.S. Canadian pricing which indicated his own due diligence was suspect plus the fact that he insists that the trusts shut down there wells and do not sell if the price goes below there cost. If the latter was the case there would be a lot of shut in wells from their purchases of junior oil and gas companies and assets this past year when prices were 25-50% higher than they are selling for now. Sure if they use an average of all there wells they may stay above cost but once the older ones are depleted the higher priced assets become predominant.

To: stan_hughes who wrote (1849)	11/9/2001 9:29:10 PM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11633

Okay sport, here's the deal - it's all the data we need. -------------- Hardly you think providing a small peice of the entire picture gives the complete info, it does not. From the very beginning I have said a few key points that I keep repeating over and over again. ONE --- THESE TRUSTS ARE LONG TERM INVESTMENTS. Now what is so hard to understand about that. One month , 5 months or 5 years even, is """NOT"""" LONG TERM. TWO ---- I FOLLOW A REAL METHOD WHICH CAN BE FOLLOWED AND TESTED AND VERIFIED WITH THE LONG TERM DATA . Buy/Hold/Accumulate on weakness. Look to post # 1108 where I detail my method. It uses linear regression on past trading data to set up ranges (high and low). With these set ranges you never buy at the high range and buy mostly in the low ranges when they come about. Simple enough to back test on and verify using real data. Unlike yours which works by magic and supposedly hits every high and low points in the cycles when they come about. The only problem is that you can't test your way ( good thing for you too ) but following it real time as we have been, shows you miss miserably just about every time. ---------------------- This is a chart of the unit price performance of some board favorite trusts since June 1, 2001, a mere 5 months ago -http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/intchart/frames/frames.asp?... What part of this chart do you not comprehend? Or do you mean to try and tell us that the distributions since June 1st more than offset a 25-30% capital loss in just 5 months? Gimme a break. ------------- You fail to understand the concept of realized and unrealized losses. What you talk of is unrealized losses which come back when the unit prices recover because I do not sell. Unlike the real losses we have seen with Lornes shorting. That is when he has shorted a trust and it ends up rising in value then he is forced to close out , he suffers a real loss. A real loss has absolutely no way to recover it is done and finished. Its a loss PERIOD and FINAL.. So what you see as a loss in the short term , in the long term that loss disappears as the price recovers and then becomes a gain with an even further recovery. Then you get the added bonus of the distributions too. You need a break alright to go relearn some basic principles. -------------- Now let's look at this chart of natural gas prices -http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/NG/W As anyone can see or remembers, NG prices topped out almost a year ago. Even if you hung in there in the hope that the original break might only be a correction, last year's uptrend was clearly broken in April 2001 when NG headed below US$5/MCF, and it didn't take a rocket scientist to see what was going to happen to the trust units. -------------------- Maybe you should look to a longer term chart. rudyard.ab.ca One dating back 1988 to prices for ngas . This is a few years after the longest trusts first started. For the majority of the time forward the price for ngas was between $1 and $2. The trusts were making and distributing income to their unitholders. A quick check to the prices for the trusts at the time will reveal they were going up then going down then going up, over and over again. So much for your confirmation of the disaster to the trusts longer term. As all who look to the real and complete data expected all along. ---------------------------------------------------- There was lots of opportunity to accept the game was over and walk between April when the writing was on the wall and June when the slide actually began. Anybody that stayed in denial and didn't step aside has IMO unnecessarily taken the hit. ----------- And what hit is that, an unrealized loss that will only turn into a future gain. Add to that simple fact buying in on the weakness ensuring additional units lowering the cost base and gaining additional income along the way. In the last five months or so I have added some additional trusts AY.UN and NCF.UN and bought much more of them additionally on weakness. As my past posts will verify I bought AY.UN at $11.50 , $10.50 and $9.50. For this one I am ahead of the game and I have months of high income too. Now lets look at NCF.UN I did much the same bought at $18, $16, $10.80. For this one I am about flat but still have the high income. All this at a time when you and the other doomsayers were waiting and or shorting , getting nothing or loosing. I direct you to post # 1856 from another poster --------------- """""""""As far as the energy trusts I see that I'm pretty well even price wise (as of today anyway) and have this month's dividend on top. I was until a few months ago pretty bearish on energy in general (as my posts will attest) when I began dipping my toes back in. I'm expecting to be fine until spring now so 'before that' I'll be re-evaluating my positions and the economy in general.""""""""""" ----------- Now how can this be.? Well its simply because Stan, you and the others are just full of BS when it comes to what is really happening. ------------------------- Maybe that best explains why you have such a sunny disposition. ------------ Hows your disposition now given the real facts ???????????????????? -------------------