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 (4348)	9/24/2002 11:15:50 AM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Respond to of 11633

Went to December to review your posts and after awhile it became apparent that the you have a fixed mindset that by selling a trust you "fix" your loss, and that is the fundamental reason why you are opposed to switching. I could post literally hundreds of your posts on this topic, but it would, as you state, be a waste of time. It is my opinion that the concept of realized vs unrealized losses is completely irrelevant to good investing, and is simply a tax concept. ----- IT IS A COSTS ISSUE. SWITCHING ADDS COSTS WHICH EAT UP GAINS THAT IS FACT. YOU DON'T WANT TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES. And realized and unrealized must be addressed because it is by the nature of the trusts cycling that unrealized losses just disappear when the next rise comes. The only way your realized losses can disappear is if you have a gain on your next trade. To do that takes more time and effort than just waiting for the unit price to rise like I have done. You must work to make it so. And if your work is in error or you get side swipped by events like ENRON, SEPT 11th or WORLDCOM then you get screwed big time. THAT IS FACT. AND YOU DON'T ADDRESS THAT.----------- Switching to a better stock is always a good idea, ------ Key here is in finding that better one. Sure its nice to look at the charts and see which one was the leader of the past year and say you would have switched into that one. TROUBLE IS THATS HINDSIGHT BULLSHIT. AND YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE KNOWS THAT. Unless you can provide some sort of method / math that will clearly do that well before the fact. YOU CAN'T PERIOD. --------------- whether we are talking about trusts or regular stocks. Your personal balance sheet is exactly the same, whether the loss is realized or unrealized. ---- The bottom line, the end result is what matters. It is that for realized it is much harder to change. As a describe above . Unrealized is much easier (trust wise) because the past long term data clearly show a rise will follow and just erase the unrealized. With that lowering of ones average cost base. We have seen cases of this after the big falls came the big rebounds. Thats all documented. My data source from FP DATAGROUP shows hundreds of such cases a good number I have posted here going back decades. Provide that same level of support for you picking the best ones to switch into. AS OF YET YOU DO NOT DELIVER ON THAT AGAIN PERIOD -------------- Buying more at the lows is an entirely different topic. ----- You only say its different because it doesnt show what you do as superior. Buying at lows is what I said,its what I do. it is what you said I said I do in your own posting. That it was part of my theory. AS SUCH IN A PROPER DEBATE WITH ALL THAT. IF YOU WANT TO DISCREDIT THAT THEORY LIKE YOU WANTED TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE YOU MUST STICK WITH THAT THEORY. FOR ALL THATS BROUGHT UP. THAT INCLUDES YOUR PWI. THAT Ex IS NO DIFFERENT THAN THE LUS OR THE MXT THAT YOU ALLOWED> THE ONLY REASON YOU DONT ALLOW IT PWI IS THAT MY BUYING MORE GIVES BETTER RESULTS I PROVED IT. SO YOU SEE WHAT YOU ALLOW MEANS NOTHING. THE TERMS OF PROPER DEBATE ALLOW IT. WHICH SAYS ITS NO DIFFERENT. CHECK THAT OUT IF YOU WISH. --------------- A person might well consider switching at a time when he has no additional funds for investment. ----- He might consider to switch because of a perceived management problem only to discover that perception wrong because there wasn't one as the price recovered fast to where it had been before or higher. The person then is kicking himself for doing so. And again show the math that guarantees he will switch into the best one. You still don't deliver on that at all. SO THIS IS ALL NOTHING BUT TALK WITH NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE PERIOD. There is a post by Kastel saying that at the time had he not switched he would not have been any worse off for doing so. And if he had bought lower he would be just fine. Thats documented. SO WHY GO THROUGH THE EFFORT THE COSTS OR THE TROUBLE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Your whole premise is that anyone (joe average included) would just automatically like magic pick beforehand the best one to switch into. THATS PURE BULLSHIT HINDSIGHT TALKING. THATS NOT REAL WORLD. And real world as I showed with switching into ERF and NAE one would have lost money. For PWI his gain would have been less than buying more --------- ------ AND ONE FOLLOWING THE METHOD I DESCRIBE WOULD ENSURE HE HAD THE RESOURCES TO CARRY IT OUT BEFOREHAND> STAGGERRING HIS PURCHASES. AND WHAT BETTER RESOURCES THAN A HUGE NUMBER OF UNITS DELIVERING HIGH INCOME EACH AND EVERY MONTH. AND AN INVESTMENT CREDIT LINE AND MARGIN ACCOUNTS. You just state it cant be done. It can, I do it. Its documented. You just have to lay it all out before hand and do it. And it is that simple. The results prove it. And those results are high income each and every month. And return to higher unit prices (over ones average cost base) because that is what happens over and over again. ITS BEEN DOCUMENTED. HAS OCCURRED AND WILL OCCUR. AGAIN THAT SIMPLE WE HAVE ALL SEEN IT.-------- And it is overly simplistic to simply say "accumulate at the lows". ------ As Scotts reply post to me said it is simple. And it works. One just has to follow it. --------- A person buying MXT at $6.00 or TAY at $7.00 might well have been buying at the than low end of their trading ranges, ----- You don't know that unless you have done the math to find that out. HAVE YOU ????????????? NO NOT AT ALL. SO UNTIL YOU DO, MIGHT IS NOT RIGHT IS IT???? ------- but would have made a critical mistake. ----- AS I SAID YOU JUST DONT KNOW THAT SO YOU CANT SAY THATS A MISTAKE UNTIL YOU DO THE MATH OF IT --------- ----- And the cases of LUS and MXT show triple digit gains from buying more as I described erasing the double digit unrealized losses. THATS DOCUMENTED.---- YOU JUST DONT WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT. THATS YOUR PROBLEM ITS FACT ITS DOCUMENTED-------- A better tactic would have been to switch out of these stocks entirely at that time. ------ AND INTO WHAT. ITS ALL WELL AND GOOD FOR YOU TO SAY JUST SWITCH INTO SOMETHING ELSE> WHAT WILL THAT SOMETHING ELSE DELIVER FOR JOE AVERAGE> ALWAYS THE BEST ALWAYS THE MOST> THATS FANTASY TALK AS I SHOWED AND HAS NO PLACE IN INVESTING. AGAIN UNLESS YOU WANT TO PROVIDE A TESTABLE METHOD THAT DELIVERS ON THAT PROMISE> CAN YOU ?????????????????? NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!------------------------ In summary, I believe your thinking is fundamentally flawed on this issue. However I am obviously not going to change your mind, and I can assure you, you are not going to change mine. ------- THEN IF YOU TRULY WANT TO HELP OTHERS WHO HAVE ASKED FOR YOUR HELP (BILL wanted to know how well stripping worked for GLH using some real numbers) (RUSSETT wanted to know how you do get your superior results share it with him like he asked) THEN SUPPORT YOUR SIDE WITH A TESTABLE METHOD THAT JOE HERE CAN USE THAT WILL GIVE HIM THE RESULTS YOU CLAIM. YOU WONT DO THAT AND THAT TELLS ALL HOW WELL IT REALLY WORKS. I ON THE OTHER HAND HAVE DELIVERED ALL OF THAT FOR MY SIDE IN MY PAST POSTINGS. I ASK NO MORE NO LESS FROM YOU OR THE OTHERS------- NOW TAKE UP THE CHALLENGE OR CONTINUE YOUR GAMES. THE GAMES ARENT CONVINCING ANYONE FOR YOU-----------

To: Lorne Larson who wrote (4348)	9/24/2002 9:49:07 PM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11633

A person buying MXT at $6.00 or TAY at $7.00 might well have been buying at the than low end of their trading ranges, but would have made a critical mistake. ------- Now previously I stated that you dont know the low ranges until you do the math. SO GO DO THE MATH. I challenged you to do the math. You refused. CHICKEN. So here is the data and the math for MXT and TAY from my source FP DATAGROUP 10 YEAR PRICE RANGE AND DIVIDEND RECORD. Remember the math is doing a linear regression analysis and spread analysis of past yearly high low unit price ranges to come up with low ranges and high ranges one can use as per my method. As previously outlined in a previous posting ------------- For MXT now UET 1996 high $12.25 low $9.90 1997 11.55 5.60 1998 8.00 1.42 1999 3.00 0.92 2000 4.40 2.05 2001 5.17 3.65 The linear regression and spread analysis gives high range ---- $7 ----- to -------$ 9 low range ----- $2 ----- to ------- $4 rounded to nearest dollar to make it simple. Therefore following the method I outlined one would not beginning accumulating until the unit price got near enough or into the low range. SO THE DATA CLEARLY PROVE YOU WRONG ON THE MATTER. You said the low range is $6 and lower when in actual fact it is $4 and lower. So your person wouldnt have been buying MXT then at all at $6. Thats no where nears close enough to the low range. FOR TAY 1996 high 14.90 low 10.20 1997 15.75 8.40 1998 12.00 3.90 1999 5.85 3.01 2000 5.75 3.61 2001 5.49 4.20 The regression and spread analysis gives high range $7 ----- to ----- $9 low range $3 ----- to ----- $5 Therefore following the method I outlined one would not beginning accumulating until the unit price got near enough or into the low range. SO THE DATA CLEARLY PROVE YOU WRONG ON THE MATTER. You said the low range for here was $7 and lower when in fact its $5 and lower. So once again here your person would not be buying it. THATS WHAT THE REAL DATA AND REAL MATH SHOW.