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: Goldberry who wrote (2602)	2/9/2002 4:14:52 AM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Respond to of 11633

I love the "backwater prairie" touch. ---------------- I received a private message from a lurker to this thread. He states ""how very strange it is that someone would say that he "LOVED" an INSULT directed to another"". Yes that is very strange indeed. Especially if one considers that in a previous post to me Graham had said he did not like my insults to Lorne. Though as with the most recent here we see it was Lorne who at first decided throwing insults was again necessary. Just another prime example DOCUMENTED of how these people feel it is okay and right for their side to do something. But when it comes to getting back what you give out. Well thats just uncalled for ----------------- I was sorely tempted to go back and look at his posts but it is such a treat to read these threads when messages originating from him simply say "This message is ignored" ------------ Now this is rather of interest too. He describes it as a treat to read messages stating only "This message is ignored". I have had a number of positive comments from the joe averages here concerning my delivery of the information that shows the significant advances made by the trusts from one years lows to the next years highs. Advances which completely erase the previous yearly drops (unrealized). See Message 17026287 """"""""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%""""""""""""""""" And which those that follow an accumulation strategy take well advantage of. I guess that this shows where Grahams priorities lay. And its not in getting the real facts about these trusts. --------------- ----------- As I stated in a previous post I respond to all. I do not ignore anything that is said. I have told of how since this is a public forum that part of the replies I give are directed to the original poster of the message. And the other part is directed to the rest of the joe averages who read the messages in the background. Now if Graham wants to ignore what is being said that is his right. It however it does not mean that joe average should miss out on his part of the message. And as an added bonus the questions I have previously raised to Graham by not being answered by him tell all a very great deal indeed about him. Case in point was my last response to his message to me. I asked him what was wrong with someone asking for others to back up what they were saying or claiming. NO REPLY. I further asked if he thought that these claimers should not have to be made to provide both info and data which support their claims so that joe average could easily find it, verify it and from that make the right decision for himself. AGAIN NO REPLY. It is all these NO REPLIES and what they suggest, and much much more of the same, that joe average should concern himself with -------------------- By the way those of you on this thread that are into the oil and gas trusts or stocks should take the time to follow the following subject thread Subject 3540 ---------------- By all means everyone should take the time to follow as much of the other threads as possible. Unlike Graham I believe that all info provided by all is useful in getting the complete picture of these trusts. Joe average should not ignore anything. But at the same time they should insist that that info be able to be supported and backed up and defended by those that supply it. If it isn't then a big warning light should be joes response to it. ------------------------ especially posts by Richard Saunders who unlike Peter knows what he is talking about when it comes to oil and gas related issues. -------------- Gee I guess all the data from the FP DATAGROUP about the past performance of these trusts that I supplied and referenced for all must mean that I do not know what I am talking about. If that is the case then why was it only me that has brought them to joe averages attention. To tell him to look at it and the past cycling of oil and gas prices over the past to get an idea of how the current present will likely play itself out. As all will recall in my response to Harry Message 16825869 Message 16825958 It was I alone who stated that with my method buying PWI at below $6 was a good place to start at. Real time what followed from that was its recovery in unit price. Not a single superior trader got that one right. Most of those like Lorne enjoyed real realized losses. Its real documented cases such as this over the past that clearly proves I know what I am talking about. IGNORING IT or PRETENDING ITS NOT THERE is just so lame -----------

To: Goldberry who wrote (2602)	2/9/2002 3:28:23 PM
From: a.handbag.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11633

The problem as I see it is that Peter Pan is too easy a target. It's a shame because his underlying strategy is defensible. I can only skim over his diatribes, and I am not comfortable with his patronizing of Joe Average. I suspect that Mr. Market sees to it Joe Average is rewarded more often than Joe Above Average. I personally adhere to a buy and hold forever strategy for income trusts, and I agree with P.P. that distributions are the meat while capital gains are gravy. Now if you guys can generate lots of extra gravy by trading in and out then good luck to you. No amount of chest thumping is going to solve the question as to which is better because of the number of variables involved. Let me try another analogy. Suppose a young person came to ask the best way to make a lot of money in life. You might advise him to become the CEO of a corporation, while P.P. might point him towards dentistry. Do you really think we can know who gives the best advice? Can someone explain to me why investment advisers hate royalty trusts? They say that you're getting mostly a return of capital, but so what? Isn't that a tax issue? Several royalty trusts have now paid total distributions over 5 or 6 years that amount to their original unit cost. They are hardly empty tanks, claiming years of reserves, and with unit prices higher than at the outset. What am I missing?