"Jack Goff" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 04:15:01 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
news
When that Chechnyan terrorist died a few weeks back, the price blipped
down
a buck, according to the traders in the interview. That's fantasy at
work.

So these PBS experts showed how prices may have moved up and down in
reaction to some events, but don't react at all to other similar
events that should, by their reckoning, cause a flunctuation. It
seems they really aren't sure what causes the flunctuations, or at
least can't point to the real cause with any regularity.

It sounds to me like they can't see the forest for the trees. Think
about it, and get back to me on what that might mean.

They weren't "PBS experts", and you should try a little harder to hide
your
prejudice against a particular news source. They were traders with a
company
called Man Associates, one of many similar firms. On another day, it
could've been UBS, Merrill Lynch, or whoever else agreed to an interview.

You mentioned PBS, and you're assuming. It could have been any show
on any network.

You didn't answer the question, however. Another hint: maybe they are
too close to the data. Keep in mind that I'm not saying that stupid,
reactionary price flunctuation don't happen; I realize that they
indeed do.

Since the price responses are random, based on emotions, it is very likely
that the kind you're looking for may not occur. And, there may be
fluctuations based on events you were NOT paying attention to. This is
simple probability.



Are you familiar with the way some individual investors dump half their
mutual funds because just one corporation fires its CEO?


That *may* have happened at some point. How many "individual
investors" share their private portfolio transactions with you, and
their personal reasons for carrying out those transactions? Or is
this something else a PBS expert told you?

I worked for PaineWebber. About 200 clients shared their decisions with me
for a number of years, beginning on October 19th, 1987, which was a very
interesting day to start in that business. I left because 95% of my
customers made financial decisions with their emotions, which does not
work,
ever. However, I had a few who could see clearly. I ran into one a few
months ago who thanked me profusely for telling him to buy Cisco in
November
of 1987, and call-protected NY AAA insured munis yielding around 8%.

Thanks for asking.


Thanks for answering. It provides insight on your point of view.

I doubt that very much.



Overall, how many clients sat down and told you not only what, but why
to sell, compared to the others that simply told you what to do with
their investments without reasons?

I can't give you numbers, and you don't need them to test the validity of
this idea. But the "without reason" type never became my clients. I am
unable to work with people who operate that way.

Most clients who come to a brokerage firm do NOT tell the brokers what to do
because that's considered an unsolicited trade (and marked as such), which
eliminates a client's advantage in a dispute about a terrible decision. Even
back then, people who traded a lot with their own ideas went to discount
brokers. Or, they'd negotiate a permanent discount with us. The rest either
established a dialog, or didn't become clients.


Interesting that one of the people who you thought "could see
clearly", simply listened to you. Did you have any who could see
clearly that didn't follow your advice?

Of course! There are always clients who understand, but do not act on what
they learn, sometimes for reasons as simple as "I can't get the cash out of
CDs for another 4 months".