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 : How To Write Covered Calls - An Ongoing Real Case Study! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: David Wright who wrote (10601)	5/1/1999 2:22:00 PM
From: Ira Player	Respond to of 14162

There is new wealth "created" all the time. Unlike the physical world, wealth is a perception. When an artist or a craftsman combines materials in a manner or style that others cannot easily replicate, wealth has been created. The whole is "worth" more than the sum of it's parts. This is wealth creation. Business is the accumulated experience of generations toward maximizing this efficiency of adding value to materials by transforming them from one form to another, with minimum input of labor. I specify labor, because on the whole it it the primary cost of everything. Even raw materials prices reflect heavily the cost, in labor, to recover them. The equities and derivative markets reflects the accumulation of these change in value, or the potential for it, as rising share prices. However, since wealth (or worth) is a perception, it changes over time with attitude and expectations. Different people read different meaning into the same basic information. That does not mean that the analysis is useless. Just that some perceptions will be wrong at each instance. This, of course, includes the perceptions regarding the assumptions being made by others as they perceive the information being presented by others that ... (I think you get the depth that this could go.<ggg>) Why does all this preclude some individuals from developing a method of perceptions that are more on the right side of the equation? Enjoy the ride, Ira

To: David Wright who wrote (10601)	5/1/1999 6:34:00 PM
From: Casaubon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14162

OT the universe has not been proven to be closed and invoking the use of a closed universe, with a limited amount of energy is a sophist argument, at best, against the market representing wealth accumulation. With regard to war, I would argue that we fight to preserve wealth, rather than create it. Additionaly, I am not convinced that the increase in stock prices recently are in any way correlated with the bombing of Serbs. Nor would I argue, that the short term rapid fluctuations in price movement would accurately reflect new wealth. If you choose not to believe new wealth is created through generations of hard work, that is your choice, and I cannot change your mind with my simple arguments. While it is true that money flows around with somewhat perplexing behavior, I would not argue that is proof that wealth is not created and accumulated. I have been adding "new wealth" to my portfolio every payday. <g>

To: David Wright who wrote (10601)	5/1/1999 7:16:00 PM
From: Greg Higgins	Respond to of 14162

David Wright writes: Anyway, I still stand by my "zero sum game" (not gain) comment. For every trade, there is a counter-balancing trade...or there isn't a trade. This is true only in isolation. Usually the other side of a trade is a market maker, whose business it is to be on the other side of the trade. The market maker uses the "greeks" to create market neutral portfolios from which their position, however opposite from you, neither wins nor loses. They then collect their trading commissions and the difference between bid and ask. Furthermore, your statement totally ignores the different reasons people enter into the market in the first place. When you sell a put, the person buying it (if not a market maker) normally buys it for protection, not because they're convinced the market will go down. Some folks buy puts to speculate in a stock, but most don't. If buying the put gives them a good night's sleep and benefits you, who's to say that they lost, just because you earned money. The problem with statistics and the market isn't that the statistics don't work. The problem is that most of us don't have sufficient funds to play the market statistically. If we did, we'd all sell naked calls on stocks projected to go down, and buy calls in stocks expected to go up. Not all our up stocks would go up and not all our down stocks would go down, but given sufficient funds, we'd probably do reasonably well. Value Line claims their Long/Short Call hedge strategy averages a return of 28% per quarter over the last 3 years. You and I make our trades in isolation, as does each and every other trader. But our rationals and goals are all different. Just because we're on opposite sides of a trade doesn't make one of us a winner and one of us a loser.