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 (4311)	9/21/2002 10:27:07 PM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Respond to of 11633

You're the one the used the word "always". ----- As did you for your side. -------- Now you're using an example that relies on someone buying at an absolute low - not "always". If someone bought Luscar at $10, should he have bought more at $8? At $6? At $5? ----- According to my method you always buy within the low range. That was confirmed by my post to Stan about it. Not absolute at all but to lower ones average cost. So for LUS that meant buying much at under $1 like I did. And then having it rise above that average cost base. Like it did----- That certainly would have been at the low-end of its trading range at that time. ----- The net result speaks for itself. WELL AHEAD OF THE GAME PERIOD --------------- What about MXT? ------ Now for this would haveto go through the actual past trading numbers to accurately set the ranges out according to the method. And yet once again as I showed using your own numbers is that triple digit net gain at the end (today) with its rise from the lows --------- What about TAY? Fact of the matter is that when TAY was at $6 it was at the than low end of its trading range, ---Again where are your numbers following my method (math) that shows using real past numbers what the actual ranges are or were at the time for TAY. You don't present them. PRESENT THEM. And still further you provide no numbers showing actual accumulating at these lower levels and the resulting rise from those levels afterwards ---- but it would have been a mistake to buy more of it rather than, say, AET. ------- Once again you provide no real numbers between or of the two to test it out with the math. DO THAT TO SEE THE REAL RESULTS ------ For every example of where your silly theory has worked, I can give you one where it hasn't. --- You haven't provided any real trust numbers or the math to show that your examples hold. I took that MXT apart easily enough with the real numbers. Buying at below the present price and to $1 gave net a triple digit return. You provide nothing to counter those numbers. So actually I have now NCF ,LUS and that MXT to show my case workks as stated. You have 0, nothing.-------- And since you said one should "ALWAYS" buy more of what you own, you lose the argument. --- You lose the argument because the numbers you present and the math just do not hold not one bit. THATS PETER 3 LORNE 0.----------------