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 (3757)	7/26/2002 1:20:36 AM
From: trustmanic	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11633

I hold NCF & NCA for years, the dividend could not cover the loss. Then more I buy the deeper the hole.

To: Lorne Larson who wrote (3757)	7/26/2002 2:19:34 AM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Respond to of 11633

A holder from Nortel from $120 to $2 has suffered a loss, but a holder of NCF from $18 to $10 hasn't -------- You did not respond to my reply for this one. So here it goes again. And if you can dispute with real fact and data please do so. From Message 17790003 Sorry but you do not suffer a "real loss" on NCF because you DO NOT SELL IT. The loss is "unrealized". The loss then completely and easily disappears with the, and each and everytime, the cyclical rise next comes. Because that is what the trusts do. Now compare that to NT. When a holder here sells he suffers a real loss. He has no chance of a comeback because for one he is out of it completely his loss on NT will never disappear , its fact and done with, and for two it (NT) does not display a consistent yearly cyclical change from highs to lows like NCF does. Thats historically documented with the facts. Trading data. Add to that the fact that all the while NCF pays high monthly income NT pays out nothing. Now quite arguably NT holders too as well have the choice of not selling. Not taking the loss. Or taking the loss but sticking with NT at the much lower levels. Those who are real professional and experienced traders may decide to trade NT as it has bounced around these lower levels quite a bit over the period. Successfully doing these trades and many of them going forward. Could result in this activity wiping out the earlier losses suffered on NT. But the fact of the matter is that most just won't do this. They will just suffer the loss and not look back. So you see there is no distinction between the trust and the stock. The distinction is that for the stock one to be done. It has to be done with a lot more effort a lot more guts and surely not so easily as just waiting for NCF to cycle higher because each and every year it has shown to do that. And again NCF holders have that added bonus of the high monthly income being paid out each and every month month after month. To make the wait much easier to cope with. Now in addition as was mentioned before Revenue Canada rules on the matter of what is realized and what is unrealized by taxing you on your realized gains. And conversely by allowing you to claim a capital loss with realized capital losses and use that against realized capital gains or future capital gains. RC has final say over the matter not YOU. ---

To: Lorne Larson who wrote (3757)	7/26/2002 2:47:47 AM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Respond to of 11633

If you have cash to invest, and already hold an oil and gas trust, it is ALWAYS better to buy more of that trust than another trust -----The original argument started when you had said in your posting that it was always better to switch out of a trust take the loss and buy another. (See last referenced posting in below list). I used real trust trading data to show otherwise. You provided no real trust data to support your own side of the argument. some referenced past postings on the matter the last is the start of the discussion Message 17643401 Message 17643250 Message 17642390 Message 17642368 Message 17642325 Message 17642217 Message 17642113 Message 17641961 Message 17641738 Message 17640954 Message 17640928 Message 17640916 Message 17640837 Message 17640745 Message 17640194 Message 17640184 Message 17640181 Message 17640178 Message 17602123 Message 17601801

To: Lorne Larson who wrote (3757)	7/26/2002 3:03:23 AM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Respond to of 11633

It is ALWAYS a mistake to substitute an oil and gas trust for another oil and gas trust, if you are in a losing position on the trust you are going to sell. --- This ties in with my last reply so you can use it. Now again respond to the real time, real past, real trust trading data ,I use and provide throughout, with some of your own. Name calling and insults are not proper debating replies. Which you used only in the past. If you have to answer with them. Then you have lost the argument. ---

To: Lorne Larson who wrote (3757)	7/26/2002 3:06:23 AM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Respond to of 11633

pronouncements, which are elaborated with lengthy, incoherent, blither ------ What you call blither is real past trust trading data. All can see by my referenced posts. YOU REFUSE TO RESPOND TO THEM WHY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ---------------

To: Lorne Larson who wrote (3757)	7/26/2002 3:10:46 AM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Respond to of 11633

I apologize to all the posters on this site who have to put up with this, but I have made up my mind that I'm going to harass this jackass for as long as he posts on this site. ---- No need to apologize just respond to the real trust trading data that I always provide with the same. That you clearly state it is your goal to HARASS and not provide useful trust info and data. Should be viewed by all for what it is. Thanks for making that all to clear -----

To: Lorne Larson who wrote (3757)	7/26/2002 3:19:38 AM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Respond to of 11633

The bickering is counter-productive. Maybe, but I just can't let Pompous Peter's wacko theories pass by without comment. ------ These wacko theories are based on real past trust trading data. They are based on a mathematical model or method that I gave out to all in an early past post. Instead of commenting on it. Why don't you try to dispute it with the same real past trust trading data. YOU HAVEN'T AND YOU WON'T. AND THAT SAYS IT ALL THERE. SO UNTIL YOU DO YOU'RE DELIVERING NOTHING BUT BLITHER ------------------ ------ SO TAKE UP THE CHALLENGE IF YOU HAVE THE BALLS ---- ------ I also notice you once again failed to comment on my original posting of the early evening. What is it no response to your own after hours purchase claims. With not even a hint of at the time during trading hours. -------