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: Tommy D who wrote (3001)	3/23/2002 7:33:07 PM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Respond to of 11633

Peter you are missing the point of my comments. -----------Perhaps I am and perhaps not. Perhaps too you are missing the point of my counters. ----------------- I am simply stating my opinion ---------- Quite simply these boards are full of opinions. Opinions are not what joe average needs or wants. Opinions don't tell both sides of the issue, or alternate sides, or other factors. They don't tell joe what questions he should be asking, what answers he needs, and where to get further information, or even confirming (not confirming) information. More often then not opinions are brought out as "fact" by those claiming superior returns but then not delivering on that. Or even looked at as "fact" by those that just don't know (can't tell) the difference -------- that investors should consider the relationship between interest rates and the price of oil and gas trusts. If my opinion is right, a fundamental shift in interest rates could effect the pricing of the trusts. ----------- BUT IF YOUR WRONG. What then? What if someone follows your opinion because he sees it or you as fact? In the recent past we have seen Lorne telling people he was shorting this and that, trading this and that. In his cases or for his cases I have shown that someone who may have followed that pattern would have had pathetic returns or losses. And simply holding on , not getting scared , accumulating on the weakness, then having unit prices rise as they have over the last couple of months. Would not have proved to be as disasterous as first foretold by the doom and gloomers. As some here have stated. And would have been even the more prudent thing to do according to others. DOCUMENTED HERE ON THIS BOARD. ------------- When investing and considering the various factors that a person looks at when investing, it is an issue which the investor may consider or ignore. -------------- But as I have said above he may ignore or not based on himself thinking that the person who is delivering that knows what he is talking about. Or that that deliverer is as superior as he says he is ------------ You obviously disagree with my position -------------- If you care to go over my response to you of before. You will see that I did not disagree with it. I clearly said you maybe correct, but that you may also be wrong. As I am doing now. Your reading into my reply what you think I said and not what I said ---------------- and I assume you will ignore rising interest rates, which is your right. However, some of your comments in your reply are totally out of context. You refer to me not providing any "DATA" but perhaps you could clarify how someone provides "DATA" for the future as it has not occurred so any comment on the future is simply conjecture, (although some may be based more on history and anlysis than others). -------------- Your bit at the end in ( ) is your answer. So what you seem to be saying is that in your opinion interest rates in the past have not moved higher when in that same past the trusts have been around. That is incorrect. As you yourself had said. In 98 and 99 interest rates spiked up. With that peice of info from you I said then go look to see what happened to unit trust prices. I even gave some price moves directly from the trusts during that same said period. Again what do they show. A rise from one years low to the next years high. Something you opinioned that could not happen. But it did. The past data show it. If it happened before it most certainly can happen again. I'll give you another example of the past predicting the future. We saw ngas prices go from over $10 down to below $2. Some even suggested that they could go to $1 or lower. What history shows however is that ngas prices averaged between $1 and $2 from much of the past before the great rise rudyard.ab.ca So as a result of the big scare from the doom and gloomers (showing how far ngas prices had fallen). And trying to use that to get trust holders to panic sell. That fall in fact meant nothing to the trusts. Ngas prices not only stabilized to their historical norms but even moved higher. And all the time the trusts never stopped payouts and none went out of buisness. Now for another example which I used before. And that is the events of Sept 11th. I gave some facts data ( rebound after the war, rebound after pearl harbor, etc) at that time that showed that from every major upset to the economy the economy always came back. And guess what it did or is. Just like the past history shows and shows all to clearly for those that wish to look. ------------- Peter, how do you measure the influence a matter such as the relationship between rising interest rates and trust returns has on the psyche of the investor in the marketplace. --------------- Thats easy. Because people behave the same way under the same sorts of circumstances. And that is all reflected in the trading numbers or the economic numbers. So as I and you clearly show rising interest rates and trusts returns have occurred in the past and people have reacted to them then and they will react to them now similarly. And it will all be in the numbers. ---------------------- If you have solid "DATA" about the future or psyche of the investor that will allow all of us to know what will happen tomorrow, next week or next year, please post it -------------- I already gave ample examples of this in the past. For one was my saying that the trusts sold their stuff above there costs of production in the past with similar ( then as now) commodity prices. And distributed income to their unitholders (then as now) That prices for ngas fell from $10 to $2. Hasn't changed that fact. No trust stopped payouts and no trust went out of buisness as was the fear layed by the doomsayers. The other was for the events after Sept 11 th I said the economy would come back. Because that is what it has always done. And it did. Now you have to get a grip on reality. I talk of the broad and you talk of the specific. The specific next day next week next month doesn't matter. What matters is the much broader outlook. And that much broader outlook shows that getting scared , then doing the wrong thing at the wrong time for the wrong reasons doesn't end up being the right thing to do, period ------------------ Just ask someone who sold out of ngas weighted trusts because prices for ngas were going to go to $1 but never did but instead rose ( to now close to $4) when they could have bought much more on weakness and not taken any real losses or profits (paying fees and taxes) when they did not have to. All that posturing and worrying and fear and for what. NOTHING. -------------- and perhaps also where your clairvoyant powers arise from. ------------ They come from the past data. Because the same things have happened before. And people and the numbers react the same. And the outcome is always the same ------------ I don't have any similar talents ----------- Its not so much talent as is it looking at all the information. Not ignoring any because you don't think it is important. Because more often then not it is important sometimes very important. And can stop someone from doing the wrong thing at the wrong time for the wrong reasons --------------- so simply state my opinion. ----------- And that opinion is not fact. And all should be more concerned with fact then opinion. Following opinion means you maybe right or you maybe wrong. Following fact means your right much more often. ----------- A second issue is one of accuracy. You stated in reply to me and in other posts that your investment method has been successful for close to 20 years. Perhaps you could define "close to 20 years". I was reviewing an article on royalty trusts in Canada and the author (who is a well respected tax practitioner) stated that the first royalty trusts were launched in 1986 --------------- 2002 - 1986 = 16 years. 16 years is close to 20 years is it not. If not then my apologies for the error and will in future for clarities sake say only 16. I realize it must be a very big deal. Though I cannot understand why. And in fact some started out as mutual funds first so have a longer history. If the facts are of interest to you. ------------------- but that the explosion of royalty trusts occurred in 1994. ------------ So what does that mean because most started relatively lately and only a few much earlier. That makes me wrong. Boy your reaching ----------------- Unless you were investing in the United States, even if you bought the first day the royalty trusts came out, it would seem that your success has been for closer to 15 years. ----------- As I show the numbers above its 16. But again if this is your way of trying to say the method I follow and my success somehow must not be as stated because of 4 years. Then you really are reaching. Reaching like this means only that the meat of the facts you can't dispute. So try to find something anything even this and then jump up and down with joy claiming victory. Lorne does it all too often and it hasn't helped his case much. The meat as I say cannot be refuted. Go to the actual past trading numbers for confirmation. Until you do. Your criticisms if any. Are just so weak. ----------- Still admirable performance but certainly for a person who seems to pride himself on accuracy, --------------- I talk of near two decades, of near 20 years and that is in fact accurate. Your only reaching for 4 years and is a lame attempt to say the least. But as I said there is not much else you can do. -------------- your previous posts seem to be in error. -------------- They seem that way to you. Not to the others that have looked to the meat of the numbers from those years. Something you will never do. Others have and have stated public confirmation of my method. See a handbag and others. I have challenged all traders to look at the numbers the simple math and all refuse. And that is documented. So where does most of the ERROR lay. --------------- For the record, while I suggested that people consider interest rates in their investment decision making process, at no point did I suggest it was the only issue. ------------- But that is the major message of your post. And I only provide a counter because you yourself do not include one. As with all traders they provide one side and one side only. The side they want to put across. --------- I review my investments based on a number of parameters but I do not see any need when talking about a particular issue to review these other issues but rather to focus on the topic I wish to discuss. ----------- Then quite simply your not giving joe average both sides and then letting him decide. You don't need that but joe does. And that is why I always provide counters. Then joe has both and can make a proper decision. He doesn't have to search for answers or questions or confirmation. And he most certainly then doesn't have to take your good word. Which may not be. And which he might end up sufferring for. When he need not. -------------- Your response implies that only one issue is considered by me in making my decisions. ---------- In another response I told a poster that part of my response to any and all other posters. Is of two parts. One part is directed at the original poster. The other part to the reader (lurker) the joe averages. This is afterall a public forum. It is a public message board for the public. It is not a private message to you and you alone. ------------- TommyD