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 (3004)	3/24/2002 3:22:02 PM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Respond to of 11633

He was only out by 25% (or more when you consider he made similar claims last year) but that isn't significant now is it. ---------------- Now where did this number (25%) come from. ??????????? Picked out of thin air. Care to elaborate. Most likely not. As with all else the simple math examples I use with real historical data show nothing of the kind. Unless of course you would care to provide them for all to check its authenticity. I THOUGHT NOT. When it comes to bringing up real past numbers showing anything concerning anything you say. THERE IS NEVER ANY DELIVERED. How about going over the numbers (supplied by Lorne) with his selling PWI at that loss and then buying PVE. He is worse off then if he had just held on to PWI accumulated at the lower levels and benefitted from the rise. It is real time happenings like that that all you traders do not even want to respond to. What the simple math of that to complicated for you to handle. Or just afraid of the real results. And how is that that my model predicted that future event well before hand. A thing that you opinioned just could not happen. LOOK TO Message 16825869 Message 16825958 Then look to how PWI moved from a low of $5.80 to where to is now well over $7. Just one bit of evidence used by poster J-R tobenefit from because he used it to buy PWI at the time. And is enjoying that trusts rise. Not one single trader got that one. THATS MY DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE . READ IT AND WEEP. NOW WHERE IS YOURS?????? NOWHERE TO BE SEEN. AS USUAL. --------------- -------------- How about too going over the historical numbers showing FOR ANY TRUST of the last year how accumulating on weakness buying on the way down has resulted in some nice gains. Both unit price wise with lowering of the cost base and the rise which I predicted would happen and did. And the getting of the monthly income payouts. A FACT DOCUMENTED by many poster here including a handbag, Kastelco, J-R, and others. --------------- What if his facts and information that he relies upon are out by 25% -------------- Easily checked upon by going to their source which I mentioned. Financial Post DataGroup's ANNUAL DIVIDEND RECORD and TEN YEAR PRICE RANGE 2000. That is if you have the brains or the balls to go check for yourself. TO VERIFY. But you do not. So its just WHAT IF from you. HOW TYPICAL. Sorry to rain on your opinioned parade but what ifs don't cut it with anyone. Especially anyone here. Who sees the true value in the real facts and data. As I have presented over and over again. -------------- or if the return that he actually earned was out by 25%. -------------- Easily checked on by again going to the source of the information. The real recent past historical trading data for the trusts. Which can be gotten easily enough from your own discount broker or any of the other financial data providers. With that data use my method (simple number crunching) as outlined in post # 1998 Message 16672644 That is of course if you have the brains or the balls to do so. Which you do not. ------------------ But then, to suggest another error by Peter would only be reaching on my part, wouldn't it. ------------- You can suggest all you want. You can opinion all you want. The only trouble is that you can't prove any of it with anything like REAL FACT or DATA. I challenge you or any "superior trader" to go to the sources get that info that proves me wrong (and more importantly you right) and supply it here so all can verify its authenticity. Any and all of the very feeble data you or yours has provided I have countered with ever more and more of my own. YOU WON"T DO THAT. And that very simple fact shows just how good your suggestions or opinions are. And more importantly what joe average should do with them. And it is interesting that joe average here more and more going by the documented posts here is taking that long term approach of mine. Just shows how good of a case your side has put together. And another interesting note to make here is when it comes to countering anything I bring forward fact and data wise. It is far better to ignore than to respond to. JUST WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF?? THE TRUTH and that is all to apparent. ----------------------------

To: Tommy D who wrote (3004)	3/24/2002 5:52:25 PM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11633

It is amusing that when Peter is shown to be wrong as to the number of years of his successful investing, -------------- Just to add, all you have shown is that the trusts as they ARE have been around since 1986. Which is 16 years ago. And as I said close to 20 or two decades. You also fail to consider the evidence that some of the oldest ones were first around as mutual funds for years prior to that. Which definitely makes it 20 years or more. Look to Royal Trust Energy Trust Fund prior to 1986 which became Westrock Energy Income which was then managed by Enerplus. Where from there it still existed as Westrock Energy Income and then which later was consolidated taken over into Enerplus. Again as I stated you just don't have the facts straight. And that is what is really amusing. So what you have shown is nothing. AS USUAL. --------------- that I am reaching -------------- And you are reaching because you just can't argue against the meat (data, simple math) that I present. So you try to find something else anything else. Then jump for joy when you think you found something but which yet again I show to be more misinformation and lies. KEEP TRYING THOUGH -------------------