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 (3520)	6/23/2002 12:34:27 PM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11633

Entirely true to form. Arrogance combined with almost unbearable stupidity. I will use your numbers in the hopes you can understand. Alternative A: You buy 1000 shares of PWI at $7.00 for an investment of $7000. It drops to $5.95. You hold it. It is now worth $7.04. You have a gain of $40.00 from your original investment of $7000. Alternative B: You buy 1000 shares of PWI at $7.00 for an investment of $7000. It drops to $5.95. You sell it and use your $5950 to buy 721 shares of PVE at $8.25. PVE is now worth $10.60, so your 721 shares are worth $7642, for a gain of $642.00 from your original investment of $7000. In your examples you calculate PWI's gain from a $5950 starting point, ----- I see that for your alternative A you simply leave out the fact that I say you buy more and much more at the lows. So while you mislead by not telling the whole story of what I had said by buying at accumulating at the lows. So for a simpleton such as yourself you add the gains made from buying at the lows plus the gains from the unit value returning to where it was before or higher. You leave the first part out as usual. ADD THAT IN LIKE I DID IN MY EXAMPLES. Your assertion was that selling at a loss and switching to another would always give better results. What I said plainly and clearly was that if one hung in their and accumulated at the lows that addition would ensure far better results when the unit prices recovered. And that is what my numbers show. PERIOD. You are true to form as usual when you can't support your claim simply change the others claim then you win. Your not fooling anyone ----------- and calculate the other examples from a $7000 starting point. ------ recheck all examples were calculated using the total number of units bought and the average cost """"For P his buying and buying again the same 1 trust on weakness his gain is 41220 - 36000 or +$5220 or +14.5%. P's gain is more than L's gain""""""------- This is either plain stupidity or intentionally misleading. I've calculated both examples from the same starting point, namely the original $7000 investment. ------- And as usual you leave out the main part of my premise. That you buy on weakness to lower your cost base. As above clearly shows 7000 + 29000 = 36000. SO AS USUAL THE STUPIDITY AND MISLEADING IS SOLELY COMING FROM YOU !!!----- You're WRONG Peter. That terrible, ugly, word which drives you crazy. Now you can spend the rest of the day confirming over and over again how incredibly stupid and arrogant you are. Let's hear it. ------ SO AS USUAL MY ORIGINAL NUMBERS STAND AS DOES MY CONCLUSION. SWITCHING DOES NOT WORK AS YOU CLAIM. AND ACCUMULATING ON WEAKNESS LOWERING ONES COST BASE STAYING WITH ONE TRUST DOES. ------ Such a lame attempt on your part ---- You tried pulling the exact same stunt by saying that buy/hold doesn't work. You failed to remember that I buy/hold/accumualte on weakness and that works. Why can't you do apple to apple comparisons? Instead of your trademark apples to oranges. Then claim how right you are? NO ONE IS BUYING INTO YOUR LIES. -------------- ------ As more added proof Message 17597029 """All the WG reasons for buying PIF.UN still seem to be valid.I think I'll go with peter on this one and hold"""""" ----- No eagerness to do the switching thing here and the unit price has been somewhat stable since then. With minor weaknesses and recoveries. Which could have been taken advantage of.---------

To: Lorne Larson who wrote (3520)	6/23/2002 1:14:25 PM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Respond to of 11633

In your examples you calculate PWI's gain from a $5950 starting point, ------ To make it clearer for you I use for the person P staying with one trust and adding on weakness keeping record of total number of units bought and average cost ------- and calculate the other examples from a $7000 starting point. ------ I use for the person L switching, $7000 ,because that is what he uses what he starts with. From his first trust he suffers a loss. He switches. He does not add anymore money but uses what is left from the $7000 namely $5950. So L's cost base is always that starting $7000. P's cost base becomes that $7000 plus what he added by accumulating $29000 ----- All this was done because of the original argument. You said that a person switching will get better returns as a result. I said that a person staying with the same trust and not switching but accumulating at the lows would fair much better. Thats what the examples clearly show. -------- This is either plain stupidity or intentionally misleading. I've calculated both examples from the same starting point, namely the original $7000 investment. ------ You change the terms of the discussion. Only when it becomes clear your wrong. Then say how right you are. YOUR NOT. ---------

To: Lorne Larson who wrote (3520)	6/23/2002 1:52:06 PM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Respond to of 11633

I will use your numbers in the hopes you can understand. Alternative A: You buy 1000 shares of PWI at $7.00 for an investment of $7000. It drops to $5.95. You hold it. It is now worth $7.04. You have a gain of $40.00 from your original investment of $7000. ------- As usual those are not my numbers. THESE ARE """Now P on the other hand he buys 1000 units of PWI at $7 ($7000). He doesn't panic when PWI falls to $5.95. He watches it for a while and buys 5000 more units at $5.80 ($29000). Bringing his total units to 6000. PWI is now at $6.87. ($41220)""""" from Message 17602123 SO AS IS ALWAYS THE CASE WITH YOU LORNE YOU LIE. AS THIS CLEARLY SHOWS. ------------

To: Lorne Larson who wrote (3520)	6/23/2002 2:05:56 PM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11633

Message 17601801 --------- Now from this post we have you claiming """"Fact of the matter is that switching from PWI to just about any other oil and gas trust would have made you money.""""""" -------- From my post siliconinvestor.com we have using the real past trading numbers for the trusts """""----- 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%.------- ----- 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%. ------- ----- 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%.-----""""" ------ Now your claim was that for just about all trusts you listed a person would have made money switching. Well clearly 2 out of the 3 would have lost money according to the real trading numbers at the time of the switches. YOUR WRONG. -----