Forum Archive Index - February 2003

["Morgy" <morgy40@xtra.co.nz>]

Harry

Enough already, what a load of waffle, I am happy with the buffettology when
it is on general forum as I hit the delete button and leave it for those
that enjoy it, fairs, fair and  as you correctly say everyone has a right to
say what they think.  If you want to expand the discussion thats fine, but I
know what he said & it wasnt what you said regardless of the mass of
information you put forth, I'm sure someone read it and was educated by it.
By the way your 10k email doesnt really use any bandwith to speak of, dont
stress about it.

At no point did I criticise Travis on his discussion regarding "support and
resistance", I think you will find that was Phaedrus (by the way I have
framed Phaedrus's email and hung it on the wall). Kindly direct your right
of reply to the correct person !.

You then elaborate & begin once again I note to divert into some argument
about support and resistance being relevant (or not) in the future etc etc ,
once again please refer this to the person who wrote about it, if anyone did
?, certainly not me

 I suggest you go back and read my emails dated 9/2/03, 10/02/03 and lastly
once again on 10/02/03 that relate to this thread and if at any point you
can show "me" writing of or mentioning "support and resistance" & or any
criticisim of  such in regard to Travis's email, I will donate $10.00 to
Team New Zealand .

I am extrememly flattered that you confused me with Phaedrus, If I was him I
would be gutted however.
I therefore did not read the long waffle that followed as it was not
directed at me given you had the wrong person !.

Finally, I shall not be replying again to this thread, considering you have
now managed to completely move my comments away from its origonal form &
inference , accuse me of things I did not write and even confuse me with
someone else , where could we possibly go with this?.  I always appreciate a
good discussion on points of difference when there is a clear definition of
the topic, your moving target philosophy is a bit much.

Harry, I shall leave the last say to you

Until next time

Regards

Morgy








> >
> >Yes you are correct,  this is a public forum and I for one certainly
> >didnt mind you putting your spin on his words or any others for that
> >matter, feel free my friend. My comment was & is that what you said
> >sounded nothing like what he said, in my opinion.
> >
> >
>
> Right.  Which is why I made my post.  I wouldn't waste bandwidth
> parroting what Travis said.  My post was additional material that did
> not follow on from what Travis said.  However, just because my post
> did not follow from what Travis said does not mean that I am not
> making the same point as Travis.
>
> You criticised Travis for being 'two faced' by slagging off the
> concept of support and resistance as 'predictive' tools, while in the
> next breath mentioning he uses predictions up to ten years out in his
> fundamental approach.
>
> I think that was a fair criticisim that required some answering.
>
> I'm guessing that one of the reasons behind your criticisim is that
> you don't appreciate the distinction between Buffett style
> predictions verses the idea that support and resistance lines have
> value into the future.
>
> To try and explain:
>
> 1/  Buffett type predictions are not precise, in terms of daily
> market price.  Buffett is not saying each daily price is
> significant, because that price may depend on the market perception
> of the day.  As a general rule Buffett isn't interested in market
> perception.  OTOH a particular price level may be very significant to
> a chartist.
>
> 2/ Buffett type predictions are based on what is happening within the
> business.   Charting style predictions are based on what the market
> thinks of that business.   Reality does not always directly
> translate to perception.  OTOH to a chartist perception is
> everything.
>
> Morgy, you seem to have the idea that if a Buffetologist makes a
> prediction that an investment is worthy and the price goes down in
> the next month then that means the prediction was wrong.  But
> Buffetologists never claim to be able to predict short term share
> price movements.  The only prediction that Buffetologists make is
> that the further out into the future you go, the more likely the
> market will at some point reflect the true value of the underlying
> business.   But (and here is the important rider) *only* if that
> business is a 'consumer monopoly'.  For any other kind of business,
> predictions using fundamental anlysis are pretty much a hit and miss
> affair when the time horizon is more than two years out.
>
>
> >
> >
> > Phaedrus's total demolition of Travis's posts stands on its own as a
> > wonderful work  of intellect over Bluster.
> >I note you did not rush to clarify matters then
> >
> >
>
> Phaedrus's points were that:
>
> 1/ You can use support and resistance over short time frames to
> select likely buying and selling prices when you are trying to
> enter/exit a share.
> 2/ It is possible to devise a trading system with very low turnover
> (two transactions over five years).
> 3/ That you can use a hybrid system where you use fundamental
> analysis to pick the companies to put on your radar screen.  Then use
> a T/A system to try and optimise your entry and exit points, AFTER
> you have determined that a share is undervalued or overvalued.
> 4/  All traders should have a good risk management, exit/strategy in
> place.
>
> There is nothing to clarify here.  I agree with all of Phaedrus's
> points.
>
> >
> >
> >and there but now once again as you have done  many times before
> > you now seek to alter the topic or divert attention away
> > from what was actually said
> >
> >
>
> The allegation (yours Morgy) was that it was hippocritical to
> criticise 'support levels' which may persist over several years as an
> investment tool, when in the next breath (Travis) says that he is
> making predictions ten years into the future to determine his own
> investment decisions.
>
> I suggest to you that the reason you perceive I am going 'off topic'
> is that you do not appreciate the context in which Travis has framed
> his own comments on using predictions.   In short, the reason why you
> see my comments are off topic is that you choose to look at the topic
> without an overview of Travis's perspective.
>
> >
> >
> >to some obscure point clearly not intended in the original post.
> >
> >
>
> Anyone who has read any one of the Buffetology books around the place
> would know that all the comments that I made were indeed implicit in
> Travis's original post.
>
> I suggest that those who think that my 'support' of Travis on this
> post was somehow trying to twist his original meaning , have never
> read any of those Buffettology books.
>
>
> >
> >Your obsession on Buffett reminds of my theory
> >on religion, while I believe in god, catholics  make it hard to
> >enjoy the experience !.
>
>
> Your idea that I have an obsession with Buffett simply shows that you
> do not understand the philosophy of Buffett.  In fact, I have
> discussed several investments over the last few months, (Wrightsons,
> Contact Energy and BHP Steel, are examples that spring to mind) that
> Buffett wouldn't touch.
>
>
>
> >
> >all buffetologists seem to enjoy
> >the pain as there shares go down on them but there religion is still
> >almighty and they continue to buy into it because only they know
> >true value. I would be extremely interested in your views on this
> >particular subject   :-)
> >
>
>
>
> Shares I have selected using 'Buffettology' that go down in value
> cause me no pain.  A Buffetologist does base investment decisions on
> what the market may think over the next few months.   There is no
> guarantee that by using Buffetology you will buy in at the lowest
> share price.   The Buffetologist is only interested in the difference
> between the buy price the ultimate selling price and the dividends
> that are received along the way.  If someone else can buy in at a
> lower price than the Buffetologist that is fantastic for that
> person, but is of no consequence for the Buffetologist.   What other
> people do with their own investments doesn't matter to a
> Buffetologist.
>
> But then Morgy, if you had ever read any of the Buffetology books you
> would already know all of that.   Why not try reading one Morgy?  May
> I suggest "The Buffetology Workbook" by Mary Buffett and David Clark
> first published in 2001 as recommended by Gerry in the 'Learning to
> Invest' series.
>
> SNOOPY
> ---------------------------------
> Message sent by Snoopy
> e-mail  tennyson@caverock.net.nz
> on Pegasus Mail version 2.55
> ----------------------------------
> "Stay on the upside of the downside,
> Anticipate the anticipation!"
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> To remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
> http://www.sharechat.co.nz/chat/forum/
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.445 / Virus Database: 250 - Release Date: 21/01/2003


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/chat/forum/