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: Lorne Larson who wrote (2588)	2/7/2002 12:25:33 AM
From: russet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11633

Lorne, By closing your shorts are you thinking we may have hit the bottom with gas prices now. I hear that storage penalties due in the spring might be forcing producers and consumers to drain the storage tanks,..so to speak,..and cause them to stop buying the ever cheaping spot. This would then feed back to the wells causing a reduction in production that will hit 1st quarter income statements. If so we may be seeing more dividend reductions in the first two quarters and hopefully the final bottom. Any thoughts?

To: Lorne Larson who wrote (2588)	2/7/2002 3:08:47 AM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Respond to of 11633

----- More than a week of not responding to my last post. And this is the best you can come up with. Still intent on your apples to oranges point A to point B in time comparisons. As I put it in my last post why not look at what I REALLY DO ( an accumulate on weakness strategy over the long term - my post #1998 ). You CAN'T or WON'T because It does not help your flimsy case. Now as to an error I made in calculating some numbers in my last post. Seems I inadvertently used the unit value for PVE ($6) instead of for NCF ($12) which then puts your claimed SUPERIOR RETURN DOCUMENTED for the undertaking in question at not less than 2% but instead well less than 1%. POINTING TO THE FACT THAT A LESS THAN 1% RETURN IS NOT SUPERIOR. ""And the costs of the venture eat these miniscule gains to making the whole undertaking not even worth doing in the first place""--------------- Just in case you're interested, if you'd listened to me on Jan 19 and went long 1000 shares of PVE and short 1000 shares of PGF on Jan 21, --------------- Not really interested since your shorting of PGF did not even take place. Care for that post number. And since you still wish to only concentrate on point A to point B in time examples. I only have to show joe average here. An example of such, your short NCF as mentioned above, or your loss on PWI. And ask joe if he wants that to happen to him if it can so easily happen to an expert such as yourself ------------ ------------- Now care to show joe some REAL and REALIZED DOCUMENTED SUPERIOR GAINS. And not the FANTASY AND "WHAT IF YOU DID" SCENARIOS. No that would be just too much to ask for.------------- you'd be ahead $1.04 right now. ------------ Sorry but "what if scenarios" just don't cut it. And as with the case where you could have sold PWI for a gain earlier than you did and instead took a loss on the undertaking later. Clearly shows that your REALIZED are quite different from your UNREALIZED fantasy. And that is all joe average should be concerned about. --------------- If instead, you'd followed your own "these things are always a buy" approach, ----------- Another of your getting the FACTS just completely wrong again as usual. As a simple look to my method would clearly indicate ( post # 1998). Accumulate on weakness. Do not buy in the high ranges. As per my previous post # 2550. """"""Now with PGF having a high of $21.95 in 2001 a starting point to the accumulating strategy of around $17 would be an acceptable starting point according to my detailed method of accumulating on weakness. As the same would hold for NCF """""""" Now care to do some number crunching with real historical data showing how well that strategy works. Of course not that would be just too much to ask. Since you are so fond of doing point A to point B in time comparisons. Here is one for you. For PGF its 2000 low of $15 to its 2001 high of $21.95. A gain of 46%. Another its 1999 low of $10.50 to its 2000 high of $20.35. Thats a gain of 94%. I could go on and on. Please verify the numbers yourself the source is FP Datagroup Annual Dividend Record and Ten Year Price Range 2000 Edition. An accumulate on weakness strategy would guarantee you got near the lows and benefitted from the gains in unit value that followed. You may also want to look at the chart I put up for NCF in post # 2484. And do some number crunching with that. For NCF its 1995 low of $1.35 to its 1996 high of $20.85. Thats a gain of 1444%. Another its 1999 low of $5.46 and its 2000 high of $18.15. Thats a gain of 232% Again with an accumulation on weakness strategy you would be assured getting at or near the lows. ----------------- and bought 2000 shares of PGF, you'd be sucking to the tune of ($1.34). ------------- Sucking an UNREALIZED LOSS. That the REAL historical numbers I give above show beyond any doubt whatsoever that getting at or near the lows ensures so easily wipes out. And wipes out quite dramatically I might add too. NOW GO RIGHT AHEAD AND IGNORE THE REAL FACTS YOU ARE ALL TOO GOOD AT DOING THAT. The others don't. ----------- These numbers have factored in dividends on both the short and long positions. Just a little difference of net $2.38 in about 2 weeks if you now closed out the position, ----------- As I said your "IF" example is just that. ITS PURE FANTASY. Its all too likely as with your failing in PWI, you would have really held on not realized any gain. Then have things turn and then be forced to close out at a REAL LOSS ----------- which is probably equal to the total dividends that PGF will pay in the next 2 years. Closed out my ERF short position yesterday. Net 80% long. For the record. ---------- Now care to disclose to all your SUPERIOR RETURN on that undertaking. Its well in line with your other "not so superior returns" Just a quick look shows in your post # 2443 you stated you shorted ERF at $24.90. Now a more detailed look at when your first documented post of shorting this most probably shows it too be more misinformation on your part. But just for this case putting your number to work and ERF at $24.50 for yesterday puts your gain on the venture at again well under 2%. Your costs again would eat up these nicely. SO AS USUAL HARDLY SUPERIOR. ----------------- Now if it was not that SUPERIOR for you as it should have been by your claims then what would it have been like for joe average following your advice days later. LOSSES AS USUAL.------------- --------- REALLY LORNE YOU JUST MAKE THIS ALL TOO EASY TO SHOW IT FOR WHAT IT IS ---------------------