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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Buffettology -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cfimx who wrote (817)	12/27/1998 7:22:00 PM
From: Tomato	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 4691

twister, I don't know if you were the first to use them, but you certainly use ad hominums and would do everyone a favor if you stopped. I appreciate Chuz's analysis and am amazed how he turns the other cheek when attacked. That said, you did have me LOL with your fake NR the other night. You said several things that deserve comment. 1. Soros and Rogers. I am impressed by Jim "don't call me 'Jimmy'" Rogers after reading his interview in the Wizards book. He said he couldn't remember far enough back to think of a single mistake he made in investing. After reading that I started tracking his picks in the Barron's Roundtable. Bottom line- the guy is full of shit as far as I'm concerned. If you don't believe me, go back and look at the Roundtable issues from the past 5 years or so. Based on what I've seen of him I doubt he had much role in Soros' success. 2. Blake and others in Wizards. I don't know if one can prove that Gil Blake has done as well as the Wizards book alleges, but the author, Jack Schwager, is pretty well repected (he was might still be head of futures at Prudential and has writeen some must-read tomes on the subject) and I personally believe he has done as well as advertised. I think the burden is on you to discredit Schwager. I understand that the guy who made 700+% was in a nationally monitored contest which I am sure can be verified somewhere if want to try to debunk him. 3. Forbes Richest 400. I thought IRS records are private? How can Forbes or you or anyone know who the richest people are? If I was making 700% a year as a trader, I wouldn't want to advertise it. It's been about 10 years or more since Wizards came out and I have have yet to see any challenge to Schwager's assertions and profiles. Has anyone? One of the people profiled in Wizards- Ed Seykota, I think, is quoted in Wizards as laughing his ass off whenever he hears people say that there are no rich technical analysts. I personally have not been able to made money using TA, but I don't doubt that there are people who do so on a regular basis. One other thing- you dismiss Soros in part because he uses leverage. Is there something illegal about doing that? If it's legal and it makes money, it's within the rules, as far as I'm concerned. If Soros uses leverege and beats Buffett, maybe Buffett should use leverege? One of the best newsletter writers, track-record wise, Al Frank, uses leverage. I guess what comes to mind while I'm writing this is that whether it is Buffett or Soros or Blake, it's all gambling since you can lose money, or looked at another way it's not gambling if the odds are in your favor based on an edge you have. Buffett makes it sound so rational and even advocated putting short term traders out of business by changing the tax laws if I'm not mistaken. But I would guess that if for some unforseen reason a depression ever happens in Buffett's future lifetime, he would lose money like most everyone else- everyone except traders who know how to short or to move their money quickly into asset classes that might go up in value.