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 (5707)	3/18/2003 4:04:27 PM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11633

One can certanly 'observe' quite a bit of weight given to limited reserve life by the market for most of these trusts. ----- Nonsense. And here is the reasonings/evidence/fact I have used before. On the stockhouse board a poster stated in a recent past posting (documented evidence) that recent past with the write down in reserves of one of its properties PGF was about to collapse and unitholders should sell. The unit price of PGF then at $15 fell $0.40 . It was at $0.20 that that same poster then came out to say that the big sell off was over and now one should be buying back in. On a statistical basis that kind of movement in price given the trusts unit price is or was not signoficant. PERIOD. THATS PURE MATH FACT. Therefore there was no big selloff as was forecasted. The unit price for PGF then recovered back up to $15. Again that also is PURE FACT it is supported by the trading numbers for PGF during that period in question. Thus Making the whole effort of selling out and buying back a complete waste of time and effort. Not too mention the costs involved of doing so which would have eaten up any gains and may have resulted in losses. Once again PURE MATH FACT. You can or anyone can do the number crunching of it to see. PERIOD. All this being said then the initial premis that RLI was such a prime factor in affecting unit price was in fact NOT FACT AT ALL. It was Not Supported by any of the real world real time evidence (trading data). And that is the pure math numbers of it. ----- ----- Further would be a simple look at the 14 year ago annual report for ERF. It shows a RLI of close to 10 years at that time. The pure math of it states that 14 - 10 or 4 years ago the trust should have stopped paying out income and the price of the trust unit should be 0. THIS WAS STATED BY YOU OR CHECK IN PAST POSTING. But a look to the evidence/fact of the current price of $27 and the current monthly payout of $0.35. Dispells that entirely. Thats the pure math of it. ----- ---- Now I have given some real hard numbers to show my case. WHERE ARE YOURS????????????. Please show some real trading numbers and real past occurrences with the real math of it like I have done. As in that for PGF above. Or counter that ERF above with something of your own. Until you do. You havent shown anything. You havent shown one bit of evidence/data to show that the market does place a high importance on RLI. PLEASE DO SO IF YOU CAN. IF YOU CANT OR WONT THEN THAT CLEARLY WILL SHOW THAT RLI IS NOT THAT IMPORTANT. At least to the extent it has been made out to be. I and others eagerly await your response or lack of it ---- ---- PS. Much like the lack of response we have seen from CHECK from all I have introduced on the matter. Just another case of when the otherside in the discussion gets so overwhelmed by the amount of data I have at my disposal to prove my case. They just stick their tails between their legs and run away. And what I have present thus far is only a small sampling of that which is on my server and at my disposal concerning and about the trusts. --------