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: LLCF who wrote (5675)	3/15/2003 5:11:30 PM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11633

Look I'm not saying they won't be able to extend or buy reserves at profitable prices... as you say, they have in the past... -------- this above says it all quite clearly. THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO IT and they will continue to do it ------ all I"m doing is trying to make sense out of the valuation criteria. ------- On this and the stockhouse board there are two extremes. One, People looking for that all important SINGLE thing or FACTOR that determines valuations. That they can use . THERE ISNT ONE. THERE ARE MANY. PERIOD. And Two, there are people who want to come up with a long math formulae they can use that looks at all factors. TOO MUCH OVERKILL. NOT WORTH THE EFFORT. The answer lies somewheres inbetween. Some are looking for the easy answer others want to plow through tons of numbers and calculations. Well there are no easy or simple answers. And it all depends on how much time and effort you want to or are willing to spend and if that in the end is all worth it or not. A person will have to decide that for himself. ----------- There are a lot more dry holes out there these days, what is your framework for trusts being able to add reserves as they have in the past if NG prices stay up here? ------- If the past teaches us one thing its that prices never stay up there or anywhere. They rise and they fall and they will continue to do so. Though the trend may be higher it will be over a period of time. A long time. Recent past years have seen ngas rise from under $2 to $10 then back down under $2 to near $10 again to now down to around $5.------- Anyway... how many years of reserves do you think Viking, Paramount really have? ----- For me its not that grave of an issue. An issue to be sure but no more or less than any other. And what it comes down to is ,am I going to keep getting that high monthly income each and every month or not. I am. And that is all that is of concern to me ----------

To: LLCF who wrote (5675)	3/15/2003 5:48:54 PM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Respond to of 11633

Correction...should read: "this statement WOULD HAVE BEEN completely false". We dont' know yet do we? ----- What we do know by the evidence is that we have trusts that have been around longer than their current or (much the same past early ) RLI (reserves lives). By what was stated by you or another was that at the end of the reserve life the unit value would be zero. Leaving the unitholder with a return of more like only around 10%. Thats not the case. The unit value current of PGF in particular prove otherwise. The cumulative distributions again by PGF prove otherwise. WE KNOW BY THAT EVIDENCE. WE DONT HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE. And PGF is not the only example. There is ERF and NCF as well. -------