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: a.handbag. who wrote (2614)	2/9/2002 4:37:46 PM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Respond to of 11633

The problem as I see it is that Peter Pan is too easy a target. -------------- So you think I am an easy target. That is far from FACT because I use FACT. I use REAL DATA. I use a REAL METHOD that can be tested and verified. That other side (traders) use MAGIC that somehow gets them superior gains each and every time. Their magic can't be tested it can't be verified and its real results are pathetic at best. They are the easy target. That is if you base your investing decisions on fact and data (evidence). If you base your investing on anything else like their "word" alone. Then you can suffer the consequences. And those consequences would be following Lornes advice to short days after and suffering real losses or at best getting pathetic gains that are eaten up by the costs. ------------------- It's a shame because his underlying strategy is defensible. ----------------- And it is easily defensible with the real facts. As I have done ------------------------ I can only skim over his diatribes, and I am not comfortable with his patronizing of Joe Average. ---------------- I am not patronizing joe average I am looking out for his interests by asking the questions he needs to ask to come to a correct decision. By demanding those that make the outrageous trading claims to back those up by giving joe the info to test it , to verify it, and where to find the infos source so it can be validated all before joe risks his hard earned money undertaking the venture himself. I get the sense from you here that all of this joe is just not entitled to get, if you think so then just come out and say so. --------------------------- I suspect that Mr. Market sees to it Joe Average is rewarded more often than Joe Above Average. --------------- Where have you been in regards to the market of the last couple of years? Who has been the worst hit by the BREX's , the ENRON's, AND OTHERS and the coning by advisors to buy into the tech sector at its highs saying it just will go much much higher.?????? Its Joe Average. You seriously can't be blind to that FACT. In addition all one need do is look to the stock newsgroups and get joe averages own investing horror stories. Of how con men (advisors) got them into things without knowing the risks involved. Only to be burned later. The advisor collects his fees and says well joe himself is to blame because he didn't ask, or the cop out well that is just how the market works, too bad. -------------------- 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. ----------------- Now thats a big IF and again don't you think it is joes right to demand from those that say it is just so easy and so superior to prove that? From what you seem to be saying is that they don't have to. Thats a great peice of advice from you -------------- No amount of chest thumping is going to solve the question as to which is better because of the number of variables involved. ----------------Its not a matter of chest thumping. Its a matter of providing the proof to back up what is being said. If you (traders) can't or won't then quite simply you (traders) should not be making the claim in the first. And you (traders) should not be promoting it to joe saying how easy and how superior it is. Again if you yourself think so. Then just say so --------------------------- 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? ----------------- A typical apples to oranges comparison. Nothing more. What does ones choice of a proffession possibly have to do with what joe invests his hard earned money in. NOTHING. I give my side of the issue with all the facts and data to back me up. I take apart the othersides comeback with more fact and data to back that up. The other side of the issue delivers what? Nothing that can be tested nothing that can be verified NOTHING. NOW HONESTLY WHO GIVES THE BEST ADVICE? And if you honestly can say that people like Stan or Lorne or Graham give all sides of the argument leave nothing out and show beyond any doubt to you that trading is superior and easy. Then my question to you is Why aren't you doing it for yourself?????? If joe can take what they claim as gospel and they don't have to back themselves up or have done that to your complete satisfaction then something just doesn't jive. BECAUSE YOU WOULD BE DOING IT. If your not and you say your not. Then joe should take that FACT alone as a big warning sign--------------------- 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. ----------------- Are you sure that is the case. According to the traders that just isnt so. Lorne or Stan dismissed or ignored that fact when I presented it. ------------------------------ They are hardly empty tanks, claiming years of reserves, ---------------- But again according to past posts from Stan or Lorne or both. That has been exactly what they have been saying. They state these trusts operate in a vacuum and have no control over their own operations and what and how they do their buisness. Their costs they say are fixed and there is nothing they can do about those. They look at how high ngas got to and how far it has fallen from that height. And they say they are selling their product at below their costs of production. They dismiss or ignore the fact that current prices are still within or slightly above long term past averages. The trusts survived these past and paid out to unitholders in that past. These doomsayers had been saying that the trusts were going to go under disappear and or stop paying out. ALL COMPLETE BS. -------------------- and with unit prices higher than at the outset. What am I missing? ------------What you are missing out is the fact that these doomsayers have been spouting BS. Or you don't or can't or won't see the BS for what it is. BS. ACCORDING TO THEM YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN OUT OF THE TRUSTS OR SHORTING THEM IN THE LAST 9 MONTHS. YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GETTING HIGH CURRENT INCOME. YOU SHOULD HAVE SHORTED AND SUFFERRED LOSSES OR GOT GAINS THAT ENDED UP BEING NOTHING MORE THAN WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE GOTTEN MONTHLY AS INCOME WITHOUT THE WASTED EFFORT AND WITHOUT WORRYING ABOUT EVERY PEICE OF NEWS EVERY SINGLE DAY DAY AFTER DAY------------------------------