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: Lorne Larson who wrote (3514)	6/23/2002 4:35:48 AM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Respond to of 11633

Message 17602123 ------- You never responded to my taking apart your claim with the above linked post. I used your own trusts you gave as examples. I used the real past trust trading numbers. YOU DID NOT EVEN HAVE THE BALLS TO RESPOND TO THOSE DIRECT NUMBERS WHICH PROVE YOU COMPLETELY WRONG. With this latest post of yours its just your trademark name calling and not one peice of real trust data to counter. So either put up or go crawl back into your hole ---------

To: Lorne Larson who wrote (3514)	6/23/2002 4:42:48 AM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Respond to of 11633

I now look forward to one of your long convoluted posts attempting to explain why the above simple premise is wrong. In the process you will again make a complete ass of yourself. ------ Check that post I just linked to. In there all will see that I countered your claims with real trust data. Nothing more. I explained why you were wrong with the real past numbers from the trusts themselves which clearly show how wrong you are. Now instead of providing some real counters you return after many days with nothing but name calling. So with that FACT all can see just who the complete ass is ----------

To: Lorne Larson who wrote (3514)	6/23/2002 4:46:49 AM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11633

LORNE THIS IS WHY YOUR WRONG READ IT AND WEEP Message 17602123 ----- Care for another example. L sells PWI at that 15% loss. He has $5950 left from his original $7000. He buys ERF which at the time of the switch ,mid dec ,is $24 which gives him 248 units. ERF is now $26.95 He now has $6681 6681 - 7000 is -$319 or -4.6% Now since we can just reuse P's results from above. P's +14.5% gain is more than L's -4.6% here.------- ----- Lets do another. L sells PWI at that 15% loss. He has $5950 left from his original $7000. He buys NAE which at the time of the switch, mid dec, is $9 which gives him 661 units. NAE is now $9.85. He has $6512 6512-7000 is -$488 or -7.0%. Compare that to P's +14.5% gain. ------- ----- Yet another, L sells PWI at that 15% loss. He has $5950 left from his original $7000. He buys PVE which at the time of the switch , mid dec, is $8.25 which gives him 721 units. PVE is now at $10.60. He has $7645. 7645 - 7000 is +$645 or +9.2%. Compare that to P's +14.5% gain.-----

To: Lorne Larson who wrote (3514)	6/23/2002 4:50:42 AM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Respond to of 11633

There you are I have just given you some real numbers (from before when you refused to offer a response). RESPOND IF YOU DARE. YOU WON'T, NOW TIME FOR YOU TO RUN AWAY WHEN CONFRONTED WITH THE EVIDENCE. AS PER USUAL.

To: Lorne Larson who wrote (3514)	6/23/2002 5:42:47 AM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Respond to of 11633

An investor has Stock "A". He has a choice as to whether to keep Stock "A" or sell it and buy Stock "B". If he sells Stock "A" and buys Stock "B", and thereafter Stock "B" increases on a percentage basis more than Stock "A", he's made a good decision. This is so basic that a 8 year old could understand it, but apparently you can't. ----- You know why an child can understand the above. Because its all make believe. """"IF,IF,IF""""""""""". Where are the real past numbers. They are no where to be seen. According to you stock B always increases afterwards and always much more to offset the previous thats just not the case. When you first provided your feeble attempt to claim switching always worked the examples you gave . Message 17601801 you made one big mistake you took the time of the switch and the lows for the trusts you cited matched. They did not. Therefore it was very easy for me to go through the actual numbers at the time of the switch to show what really would have happened in the real world. And the results were not as you had claimed. So you may be able to con an 8 year old child with your fantasy but those that want real facts , real numbers , real past trust trading to show what really happens. Before they risk their hard earned money. Your going to have a much tougher time. -------------------