SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Ron Everest who wrote (4185)9/13/2002 6:06:10 PM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 11633
 
To make this strategy work, you must be buying at the lows,

---- Then how do you assess that it is at the lows. You make no mention of that anywheres. In the case of my strategy I do so very clearly and mathematically that all may check on. Just how are others to check on this with your strategy. Simply they cannot. Unless you wish to provide some. Further to this is what I had mentioned before about being sideswipped by events (like we saw with the worldcom bankruptcy). That shock sent things into a nose dive for several days afterward. What does something like that do to your strategy? Once again you give no clues whatsoever. The example I gave of Lorne being fully leveraged though an extreme it did nonetheless happen. And can quite easily happen again (or similar). And no matter if your fully leveraged or partially leveraged it will have an impact on the bottom line results or at the very least what one ends up doing next which then can have an impact on those results. Making those results clearly not so rosy as Lorne or Graham pretend. Thats fact. -----------

the stock must be stable, the sector must be at a dip or low.

---- And again what about events that can and do upset what you call just a dip or just a regular low. Once again you just don't take that happening into accounts. Not at all. Not one bit. But it does and now those occurances seem more the norm than the exception. As several have happened in the recent past (few years - sept 11th, enron , worldcom, etc). ----

The idea is that one is margined to say 10%. This is not a process for heavily leveraged accounts.

---- Even at 10% margin your still going to have some sort of impact. Be it first hand. Or be it second hand. And by second hand I mean maybe it causes you to react because of fear. Suddenly something happens the value of your account drops suddenly that 10% margined isn't 10% its now higher and going higher because your account value is going lower and lower because of a collapse. You start to get scared and you panic sell at a loss. Lorne and others did that with PWI because of management concerns and took real losses as a result. Things like that can and do happen. And too frequently too.-- YOU IGNORE OR DON'T MENTION THAT -------

Further, presumably one is sticking with very solid performers.

----- Solid performers fair just the same when unexpected events happen. They tumble too. And just as much. Something once again you do not acknowledge -------

Goal is to glean fixed income, if the market turns, sell enough of another stock that has not dipped, clear the margin loan and sit back and collect the dividends.

----- That is all well and good in theory but in practise fear as I state above causes one to do otherwise. Then that fixed income means nothing in comparison to the real losses that someone ends up taking. And like for example that PWI happening thats a real world occurrence and not THEORY -----

Your attitude is showing again Peter, perhaps you should tone it down,

---- That attitude in part is your own view. Additionally it comes from Lornes reply to my post which he says """MORE OF YOUR BULLSHIT"""". Check the recent past posting he was the one to start the tone with that not me. That is fact. Its documented. You ignore that for your own biased reasonings -------

you don't have a lock on knowledge.

---- My knowledge is and has always been supported by real world past trust trading data. Now show me and the others where is Lornes or Grahamns or yours confirming trust data. Its now where to be seen -----------

My system is approx 95% on the plus side, very few losses, so, I will stick with it.

----- If that is indeed the case then show some of that confirming data. You don't or won't or can't. If you want to convince others quite simply show the confirming data. Thats what people here want. BILL SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR IT FROM LORNE AND NOT A SINGLE PEICE OF IT HAS BEEN DELIVERED. THAT SHOWS HOW WELL IT WORKS ALL TOO CLEARLY -------------

You won't be getting too much help from people that receive your insulting and crass side.

------- I don't need people to come here and make unsupported statements saying my strategy works I provide the real trust data that shows it clearly does. Those that came here to support Lorne NOT ONE HAS DELIVERED ANY REAL TRUST PAST DATA """"""PERIOD""""""" """"""SHOW IT""""""""""" ----------



To: Ron Everest who wrote (4185)9/13/2002 9:27:35 PM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn  Respond to of 11633
 
---Just a couple of additional points---

Goal is to glean fixed income, if the market turns, sell enough of another stock that has not dipped,

-----If that turn is like a result of something like worldcom bankruptcy you will be hard pressed to sell enough of another stock that has not dipped,THEIR ALL COLLAPSING AND FAST----

clear the margin loan

----- You can't clear the loan unless you are willing to ensure a loss ------

and sit back and collect the dividends.

----- So with the above you can't clear the loan (unless you take a real loss).Things are dropping like crazy. That dividend any dividend then pales in comparison to the resulting fall in your holdings values that are being suffered plus you still have that loan which you have to pay on. SO YOUR REALLY NOT "COLLECTING" AS MUCH AS YOU FIRST THOUGHT ----- And the longer it lasts the worse off you are and the more desperate you become. That spells nothing but trouble --------