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 : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (83898)	5/1/2007 10:55:27 PM
From: chowder	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 206334

Dale, I agree with you. The larger the portfolio, the tougher it is to get the higher returns. Here's my point though. Most of us aren't a Templeton, Buffet or Seykota. What they do, or have done, doesn't help us as individual investors. All we can do is look at some of their strategies and see if they can apply to us. In fact, I find it hard to believe any of us can apply what Templeton or Buffet does because we don't have the resources to research a company the way that they do or the capital to take advantage of said research. We can take concepts and theories used by them and try to apply them, but using those same concepts and theories have us buying stocks they would probably avoid in most cases. Putting all of that aside for the moment, I had an opportunity to watch the Chicago pit traders a couple of years ago. Watching them changed my whole outlook in the way I looked at the market. They didn't use any fundamental analysis in their buy and sell decisions. They didn't use any technical analysis, as most people conceive technical analysis to be, either. Their total focus was on price and the direction of price. I watched the traders trading the YM. (Dow e-mini). They took price up and when I thought they were going to lock in profits, based on what I know about TA, they said, let's take it higher, there's lots of demand lined up on the long side. I watched as the DOW headed higher and higher and then this one trader I was observing told the others, it's time to take profits and the DOW headed lower. I watched CNBC later that day as they tried to explain why the DOW ran up the way it did. It was so far off what really happened, I had to shake my head in dismay and as a result, I never listen to the talking heads anymore. I watch price, just like the pit traders. I learned from that experience how to look at supply vs. demand. I'm not saying FA doesn't work. I just happen to think that anything you or I know, is already priced into the stock. And, if that's the case, what's the point? Value investors look for reasons that will induce demand to pick up in the market. Value stocks can't rise without demand picking up. FA can't tell you when, only why it should. That's OK. Knowing why is important to most people. I don't need to know why. I just need to know when. TA provides that better than any other method I know of. If there's another method of determining when a price move is going to happen, my mind is open to embrace it. Bottom line is, we all have different objectives. We all are at various stages in our lives that determine how much risk we can or can not take. What works for one, may not work for another. What a Templeton, a Buffet or a Seykota may do doesn't help us per say. We have to do what we have to do. If I can show a profit every year, allowing compounding to work in my favor, then I'm happy. I won't have the greatest results on this board. I have had consistent results though. And as long as I'm consistently profitable, I can continue to grow. Last 2 years were 40%+ each year. Three years prior 20%+ each year. This year just under 40%. Again, others have done better I'm sure. I tip my cap to them. But I've done what I've done without an ounce of FA and without an ounce of using options. I may not be able to continue at this pace, but I do think a little bit of skill was involved. And that's what got us off on this debate ... luck vs. skill.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (83898)	5/2/2007 9:39:49 AM
From: Tommaso	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 206334

I was thinking last night about what might be the next big thing in energy after tar sands and uranium. Nuclear fusion. The "ITER" project (with almost every important world power involved and located in southern France) is a very serious attempt at getting back ten times the energy one puts in, with a target date of about 2017 to do so. The cost is estimated at about 10 billion euros (about one-tenth of the current military appropriation that Bush just vetoed). Looks like it will be a while before it's clear who will make money off nuclear fusion. A very good bet might be Areva, since it is certainly a world leader in fission production of electricity. I would imagine GE would get in on it. Anyone else thinking fusion?