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: Scott Mc who wrote (3457)	6/14/2002 1:08:31 PM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Respond to of 11633

1. I assume that if you own the trust, and the trust is realizing costs, then you are effectively paying them. ------ Point of fact is that the costs if any are made up by the gains made. Pure and simple. A quite simple fact that you just want to ignore -------- 2. You are saying that since the distribution did not decrease then you are not paying them. ------ It was you who had said that the distributions as a result of the offering of the rights would be absolutely affected (lower). The data clearly shows otherwise. Again you are ignoring fact. The statement you made was incorrect and does not jive with the data. PERIOD . Distributions were never cut as a result. What you are saying above are your words not mine----------- I believe that my "assumption" is more correct that what you are "seeing", maybe the distribution would have gone up. ----- Please support that with some factual data. Fact is for SDT. The previous month's distribution was $0.04 per unit prior to the rights offering. The months distribution after the rights offering was $0.04 per unit. Show with some real trust data how and why the months distribution could be higher. YOU WON'T. So enough said about that. ---------- 3. You have to agree that there are costs/fees and that someone must be paying them. ----- As I stated quite clearly the "costs" perceived or otherwise pale in comparison to what is gotten for those. Thats the bottom line. A point you can't refute with real world data. The likes of which I have provided ------------ If you are in a card game, you look around to see who the sucker is and don't see one, its a fair assumption that its you seems to carry some weight here. ----- Typical you can't or won't provide any numbers of your own to support your claims so you must resort to name calling and insults. Name calling and insults don't win arguments and debates. Facts and data do. That you have to resort to that as your only defense is just so sad ---------------