To: Allan Harris who wrote (2867 ) 5/18/1999 4:00:00 PM From: michael r potter Read Replies (1) | Respond to
Allan, exactly right. Most should keep that in perspective, and not lose sight of the forest for the trees. Despite posting about some short term buys and sells, and trading on them as I do, the vast majority would be best served by owning companies they believe have a very bright long term future and hanging on through all the ups and downs. On the long term holdings [including SFE], there have been huge swings up and down, but as in the case of SFE and TLAB, many others, it didn't matter hardly at all if you bought them at the yearly high 5 years ago or the yearly low 5 years ago. What is the difference if the adjusted cost basis is $2.35 or $3.50. The vital thing is to have owned them and not gotten shook out by the short term volatility. If a lot of short term timing is involved, it is to easy to not get back in for a number of reasons and look back years hence and wonder why the stock is not owned. So far this year, short term trading has added to my performance significantly and I will continue to do it and highlight short and long term opportunities, but am well aware of the numerous risks and costs involved and therefore, keep it at something like 25% of overall portfolio. There are a lot of reasons stocks should be sold, but short term volatility in itself is certainly not one of them. Most would be best served by buy and hold, at least if the past is any guide. IMO, most [but not all], should stay away from options in any form, because the learning curve can be quite expensive in the long run, and not just in ways that are stated in the books. Thanks, your comments are very apt. Mike
