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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ahda who wrote (161361)	4/22/2002 12:13:05 PM
From: GraceZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

For the most part to be successful in your own business you have to be persistent, hard working and lucky. Smart hardly enters the equation. More businesses fail from too much capital then not enough. As for the difference in me then and now, we're about to find out since I'm winding down that accidental biz and starting a new one at close to 50 years in age. Does it scare me? It does a little. But what are the alternatives? Sitting by the pool until I die? The old biz is becoming obsolete and my interests are elsewhere. If you work for yourself long enough you are unemployable and even if you work for someone else your whole life you are unemployable at 50 here in America where they'd rather hire two 20 somethings than pay one 50 year old. The definition of risk becomes more on sixty forty base where you showed with your screening you have to dump 58 percent of all stocks you are looking at to come up with the 42 percent who will have given you a return for your investment. There are more losers than winners obviously Your math is faulty or you didn't understand the screen. The screen turned up 42% with returns over 20%. Here I'll do a screen with returns less than zero and you can see how many were losers. I came up with 2644 with returns less than zero, which is about the same number as ones over 20% which means 60% of the stocks screened had positive returns. Sounds different doesn't it? A screen for those up more than 50% yields 1346 which is almost half of the above 20%. Believe it or not this is the kind of result one expects in a bull market, not one that is headed straight to hell! What does this mean for those nations that have a higher poverty rate in a shared information age? The reasons individuals are poor and nations are poor are vastly different. More often than not nations are poor because they embrace terrible fiscal and economic policies that make it impossible or difficult for individuals to start and run businesses or they have corruption or high taxes that confiscate potential profits.