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 (4365)	9/24/2002 10:27:15 PM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Respond to of 11633

You've given the low range using the information to date. A guy buying in 1997 ----- Now a person following my method (joe average in particular) would probably not have bought MXT at all in 1997 because quite simply there was not enough info for him to base a decision upon. And the theory needs that information. So he would not chose that one but another with enough info to base a proper decision on. Now a more sophisticated intelligent person may have further more complex calculations that he could use to do it. Like take a trust with a longer term history compare the data between the two when they coexisted then come up with a ratio to use to make price adjustments to the newer trust for the necessary look back then complete the necessary calculations. Giving him the info data he would need and the theory would need to do the job. I used similar in my own analysis for AY.UN--------- wouldn't know that MXT was going to drop to .92. ------ The theory doesnt require that you know where the absolute bottom is. Just the range where to start your accumulating. Thats its key part. ---------- In 1997 $6.00 would be at the low end of the trading range. According to your theory he should have bought a lot more MXT at that time. ---- It is a remote possiblity he could have bought more then. That more complex calc ulation I speak of. But then one has to look at what he would then do also according to the theory going forward ,and that would be to buy more at the lower levels as they presented themselves. -------- Would have been a absolute fiasco. ----- Hardly an absolute fiasco. Because the theory states to buy more as it is going lower and lower, lowering ones cost base. Meaning he would have picked up more lots more at $1 and lower. That rise from $1 to $5 after delivers what kind of returns in comparison to the declines. Quite simply by buying at $1 and it going to $5 is a 500% return. His losses then from $6 (his initial) down to $5 are 16%. HIS NET THEN IS 500% - 16% or 484%. SINCE WHEN IS GETTING A 484% NET RETURN A FIASCO. THINK ABOUT THAT. THAT IS WHAT THE THEORY WOULD HAVE DELIVERED. PERIOD.----------------- Your theory doesn't always work nothwithstanding your own opinion that you are infallible. ----- The theory always works as long as one follows it as he should and as it states to do. Without exception. --------