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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Stock Attack II - A Complete Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TechTrader42 who wrote (33598)	4/2/2002 1:33:25 PM
From: ajtj99	Respond to of 52237

Brooke, nice to hear from you again. I think you're just warming up from the looks of things <G>

To: TechTrader42 who wrote (33598)	4/2/2002 1:41:28 PM
From: dennis michael patterson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52237

FWIW, I think the market is "driven" at the moment by hedge funds and day traders. I bet small and take my winnings. I still think it's mostly noise. I also know Jan is long -- that is one sign I would never underestimate

To: TechTrader42 who wrote (33598)	4/2/2002 1:42:17 PM
From: Mike Learner	Respond to of 52237

Just to share with all posters here what I read over this weekend from John Mauldin's newsletter to his readers regarding investing (http://www.2000wave.com/) "By definition, 50% of you will not achieve the average; 10% of you will do really well; and 1% will get rich through investing. You will be the lucky ones who find Microsoft in 1982. You will tell yourself it was your ability. Most of us assign our good fortune to native skill and our losses to bad luck. But we all try to be in the top 10%. Oh, how we try. The study above shows how most of us look for success, and then get in, only to have gotten in at the top. In fact, trying to be in the top 10% or 20% is statistically one of the ways we find ourselves getting below average returns over time. We might be successful for awhile, but reversion to the mean will catch up." I like this part: "but reversion to the mean will catch up." FWIW - Regards, Mike