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 (3543)	6/24/2002 1:44:39 AM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Respond to of 11633

You are such a complete slimeball, aren't you? You're using an NAE/PWI example because you spent all night and all day trying to explain your stupidity, and than found that NAE was one of the few trusts that did not move more than PWI (on a % basis) from the date that PWI hit its low on Dec 21/01. You and I both know, slimeball, that I have have never owned NAE and that the switch was from PWI to AVN. ------ You made the comment that in most all cases someone switching from PWI to any other trust on your list would have made money and more than sticking with PWI and buying more on its lows. That was not the case. I showed it for NAE I showed it for ERF I showed it for AY (in last post). Just how many is it going to take to make you realize its not just one or a few. I can deliver much more. Your own past posts I referenced has you saying the switch was in fact from PWI to AY and PVE. READ IT AND WEEP. ITS DOCUMENTED. -------- Try this analysis: 1000 shares of PWI are bought at $7.00 and at Dec 21/02 are trading at $5.95. The options considered at that point are to hold it or to switch. Option 1: PWI is held. It now trades at $7.04 for a net gain of $40.00 from the original $7000 cost. ------ And yet once again you come out saying something I did not say. Where is accumulate on the lows. You leave that out again -------------- Option 2: PWI is sold at $5.95. A loss of $1050 is realized. The proceeds of $5950 are used to buy 745 shares of AVN at $7.98 (which was its price at Dec 21). AVN now trades at $12.02. The 745 shares are worth $8955, for a gain of $3005. The net gain after the realized loss of $1050 on the PWI share sale is $1955. If you held PWI, you are ahead $40. If you switched on Dec 21 to AVN you are ahead $1955. ------ Sorry but from the start it has been add more PWI at lows. Your own past posts at the time which I referenced clearly show in your own words you sold PWI and put that money into AY and PVE. So here you are again changing what is documented to suit your conclusion. CAN'T DO THAT --------- Your original point, and one which you have repeated continually and in your usual pompous manner is that this was a bad trade. You now have an opportunity to explain why. Take the above analysis through step by step, and explain why. ------- Its bad first because you do not stick to the points of P accumulating PWI at the lows. The trade/switch you claim I have already proven as a lie from your own past post. ------- more of your trademark lies. Changing your story to fit your needs Message 16816422 """" Also dumped the last of my PWI yesterday and today. Had a huge position in May and dumped about 1/2 then; should have got rid of it all. Moved some money into AY, and will probably look at some more PVE.""""""""------- -------http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=16945533 """As indicated I sold PWI and bought PVE and AY."""""

To: Lorne Larson who wrote (3543)	6/24/2002 2:11:52 AM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11633

You now have an opportunity to explain why. Take the above analysis through step by step, and explain why ----- The truth of the matter is that I have already used 3 examples from your lists of trusts using the at the time real trust trading data. Using what you said about selling one trust at a loss and buying another with what was left. And also using sticking with the one trust and adding more at its lows. In those cases and more switching doesn't work. Period. Sticking with and accumulating wins out. The analysis you put forward doesn't want to include adding at the lows. It also doesn't use the trusts that you actually switched into. Your trying to change the terms because you can't win otherwise. Sorry but that is not debating the facts. Its debating lies. And you just make it all too easy to show it for what it is --------