Gasoline prices - another record high
 

But none of this has anything to do with that awful subject...politics.

Right?


If you watch CNBC, you'll learn that oil prices are directly proportional to
the number of Israeli soldiers taken hostage by radical Islamists.

Today's headline:
"Oil Prices fall on rumors Israeli soldiers have been released" (CNBC)

Gasoline prices - another record high
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...
But none of this has anything to do with that awful subject...politics.

Right?


If you watch CNBC, you'll learn that oil prices are directly proportional
to the number of Israeli soldiers taken hostage by radical Islamists.

Today's headline:
"Oil Prices fall on rumors Israeli soldiers have been released" (CNBC)



It's not always that simple. On the PBS news show I mentioned earlier, the
futures trader had a graph of price changes going back a month or two, and
labels indicating news events that either caused price changes, or didn't.
In some cases, there were events that really should've caused spikes, but
nothing happened. And, events which had no imaginable impact on oil produced
jumps. This is the investor stupidity I pointed out a few days back, which
Bertie got so inflamed about.

Gasoline prices - another record high
 

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 16:42:20 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...
But none of this has anything to do with that awful subject...politics.

Right?


If you watch CNBC, you'll learn that oil prices are directly proportional
to the number of Israeli soldiers taken hostage by radical Islamists.

Today's headline:
"Oil Prices fall on rumors Israeli soldiers have been released" (CNBC)



It's not always that simple. On the PBS news show I mentioned earlier, the
futures trader had a graph of price changes going back a month or two, and
labels indicating news events that either caused price changes, or didn't.
In some cases, there were events that really should've caused spikes, but
nothing happened. And, events which had no imaginable impact on oil produced
jumps. This is the investor stupidity I pointed out a few days back, which
Bertie got so inflamed about.


Hmm... maybe the events the "futures trader" chose to put on his graph
had little, or nothing, to do with the changes in the oil prices.

Gasoline prices - another record high
 

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 16:42:20 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...
But none of this has anything to do with that awful subject...politics.

Right?


If you watch CNBC, you'll learn that oil prices are directly
proportional
to the number of Israeli soldiers taken hostage by radical Islamists.

Today's headline:
"Oil Prices fall on rumors Israeli soldiers have been released" (CNBC)



It's not always that simple. On the PBS news show I mentioned earlier, the
futures trader had a graph of price changes going back a month or two, and
labels indicating news events that either caused price changes, or didn't.
In some cases, there were events that really should've caused spikes, but
nothing happened. And, events which had no imaginable impact on oil
produced
jumps. This is the investor stupidity I pointed out a few days back, which
Bertie got so inflamed about.


Hmm... maybe the events the "futures trader" chose to put on his graph
had little, or nothing, to do with the changes in the oil prices.

He put them there because they resembled events which had, in the past,
caused blips.

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

Gasoline prices - another record high
 

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 00:58:27 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


"Jack Goff" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 16:42:20 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...
But none of this has anything to do with that awful subject...politics.

Right?


If you watch CNBC, you'll learn that oil prices are directly
proportional
to the number of Israeli soldiers taken hostage by radical Islamists.

Today's headline:
"Oil Prices fall on rumors Israeli soldiers have been released" (CNBC)



It's not always that simple. On the PBS news show I mentioned earlier, the
futures trader had a graph of price changes going back a month or two, and
labels indicating news events that either caused price changes, or didn't.
In some cases, there were events that really should've caused spikes, but
nothing happened. And, events which had no imaginable impact on oil
produced
jumps. This is the investor stupidity I pointed out a few days back, which
Bertie got so inflamed about.


Hmm... maybe the events the "futures trader" chose to put on his graph
had little, or nothing, to do with the changes in the oil prices.

He put them there because they resembled events which had, in the past,
caused blips.

But you also wrote:

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.


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?

Gasoline prices - another record high
 

The profiteers do not need much of an excuse to raise oil prices. I think we
should
take all the oil executives and line them up against a wall and shoot them.
They
recently opened up a significant pipeline through Turkey to help deliver oil to
the
West, but did we see oil prices go down? It's a one way street for these oil
companies. There is plenty of oil available, but they try their hardest to
convince us
it is in short supply. It's amazing to me that we Americans put up with this
kind of
nonsense. We can't expect any government action, while we have a Texan
president
with big interests in the oil business.

Sherwin D.

NOYB wrote:

But none of this has anything to do with that awful subject...politics.

Right?


If you watch CNBC, you'll learn that oil prices are directly proportional to
the number of Israeli soldiers taken hostage by radical Islamists.

Today's headline:
"Oil Prices fall on rumors Israeli soldiers have been released" (CNBC)

Gasoline prices - another record high
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
..... 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%.


I'd thank you profusely if you could tell me where to buy
some call-protected insured munis yielding 8%, even if they
weren't from NY.

Some things are a no-brainer.

DSK

Gasoline prices - another record high
 

sherwindu wrote:

The profiteers do not need much of an excuse to raise oil prices. I think we
should
take all the oil executives and line them up against a wall and shoot them.

What, to encourage the others?

They
recently opened up a significant pipeline through Turkey to help deliver oil to
the
West, but did we see oil prices go down? It's a one way street for these oil
companies. There is plenty of oil available, but they try their hardest to
convince us
it is in short supply.

Yeah, all that BS about the Hubbert peak is just libby-rull
psycho-babble, huh? The Earth has enough oil to last
forever, no matter how much we use!


... We can't expect any government action, while we have a Texan
president
with big interests in the oil business.


What do you expect him to do? He already started a war for
cheap oil and colluded with the Saudis (of course, that was
just in the short term for the election).

DSK

Gasoline prices - another record high
 

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 04:15:01 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
.. .

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.



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.

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?

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?

Gasoline prices - another record high
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
..... 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%.


I'd thank you profusely if you could tell me where to buy some
call-protected insured munis yielding 8%, even if they weren't from NY.

Some things are a no-brainer.

DSK


It took immense effort for most customers to buy them, believe it or not.
They were hypnotized by the stock market. Bonds seemed boring. My mother in
law was always reading financial stuff and she insisted that I find her some
of those bonds. Everybody else needed to be educated.

One of our technical analysts, a guy named Ed Kerschner, ran an asset
allocation model that was brilliant. Not asset allocation as it's usually
thought of, adjusting portfolios to match your current goals, but a model
which predicted with uncanny accuracy which assets were more attractive at
the moment in terms of price (stocks, bonds or cash). Early in 1987, his
model began moving toward 90% bonds, 5% stocks and 5% cash, the breakdown in
early October. Few people listened in the time leading up to October 19th.
The model didn't expect every investor to shuffle their portfolio completely
to match his numbers, but it would've been a great idea to do something
rather than nothing.

I was still studying for the series 7 exam in that time period. On October
19th, mid-morning, the branch manager literally ran to my desk, said "You
passed your test- I can't talk now - go hang out with Jack so-and-so & see
if he can use any help talking to clients", and flew back to his office.
Around 5:00 PM, he handed me a bunch of cash, and asked if I'd mind going
out for a couple of bottles of scotch. :-) Learning about margin and risky
options trading in a book is one thing. Seeing real people's accounts turn
to crap (or even negative crap) in 4 hours is much different.

Gasoline prices - another record high
 

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

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
. ..

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.



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.

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?

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?

It is just typical of an elistist arrogance extreme left mindset. :-)

Gasoline prices - another record high
 

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

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
. ..

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".

Gasoline prices - another record high
 

I'd thank you profusely if you could tell me where to buy some
call-protected insured munis yielding 8%, even if they weren't from NY.


JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
It took immense effort for most customers to buy them, believe it or not.
They were hypnotized by the stock market. Bonds seemed boring.

Sure.
Most people want to play "the money game" for fun & thirlls,
not for serious long term gain. That's why most people think
the stock market is rigged, and most people think stock
investing is for the rich, and most people think picking
good stocks is a matter of luck, and most people buy
investments that are sold to them rather than choosing
wisely for themselves.

But then, look at how many people buy lottery tickets.


... My mother in
law was always reading financial stuff and she insisted that I find her some
of those bonds. Everybody else needed to be educated.


Did your wife inherit her mom's acumen?
Investing is boring. And most people would be far better off
putting their money into a no-load index fund than chasing
after yesterday's (or last month's) hot tip market-beater.

Most people lose at poker, too.


One of our technical analysts, a guy named Ed Kerschner, ran an asset
allocation model that was brilliant. Not asset allocation as it's usually
thought of, adjusting portfolios to match your current goals, but a model
which predicted with uncanny accuracy which assets were more attractive at
the moment in terms of price (stocks, bonds or cash). Early in 1987, his
model began moving toward 90% bonds, 5% stocks and 5% cash, the breakdown in
early October. Few people listened in the time leading up to October 19th.
The model didn't expect every investor to shuffle their portfolio completely
to match his numbers, but it would've been a great idea to do something
rather than nothing.


What would this model suggest now, with stocks doing nothing
much and bonds already bid down, interest rates low and
little or no upward pressure?

Today's investing climate reminds me of that that old
Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times."


I was still studying for the series 7 exam in that time period. On October
19th, mid-morning, the branch manager literally ran to my desk, said "You
passed your test- I can't talk now - go hang out with Jack so-and-so & see
if he can use any help talking to clients", and flew back to his office.
Around 5:00 PM, he handed me a bunch of cash, and asked if I'd mind going
out for a couple of bottles of scotch. :-) Learning about margin and risky
options trading in a book is one thing. Seeing real people's accounts turn
to crap (or even negative crap) in 4 hours is much different.


Haven't had an account turn to crap, but I have had a
professionally managed "low risk" investment account lose
40% and got no intelligent explanation. At the same time, my
account of stocks chosen by my dropped only a few percent
and I had a gain overall for the year (no thanks to them).
Where is Mr Kerschner working now?

Most "investment professionals" are shills & lackeys. I've
had an account with one or another of the big firms since
1978, and in that time found 3 that I respected. Some have
been real doozies (like the Merril Lynch guy who used to
call me on his car phone... this was in the '80s when having
a car phone was a big deal... to try to browbeat me into
buying his latest hot tip), and 2 were outright crooks.

Sometimes I wonder if if I went into the wrong business.
Engineering is for chumps!

Regards
Doug King

Gasoline prices - another record high
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...

... My mother in law was always reading financial stuff and she insisted
that I find her some of those bonds. Everybody else needed to be
educated.


Did your wife inherit her mom's acumen?

No. My ex is amazing at creating budgets that aren't painful, and she's a
brilliant woman in other ways. But, it took forever to get her to understand
how a bond with a 7% coupon could end up yielding only 6%. I'm talking
years.



One of our technical analysts, a guy named Ed Kerschner, ran an asset
allocation model that was brilliant. Not asset allocation as it's usually
thought of, adjusting portfolios to match your current goals, but a model
which predicted with uncanny accuracy which assets were more attractive
at the moment in terms of price (stocks, bonds or cash). Early in 1987,
his model began moving toward 90% bonds, 5% stocks and 5% cash, the
breakdown in early October. Few people listened in the time leading up to
October 19th. The model didn't expect every investor to shuffle their
portfolio completely to match his numbers, but it would've been a great
idea to do something rather than nothing.


What would this model suggest now, with stocks doing nothing much and
bonds already bid down, interest rates low and little or no upward
pressure?

Today's investing climate reminds me of that that old Chinese curse: "May
you live in interesting times."


Last time things were like this, the model was something like 60 stocks, 20
bonds, 20 cash.



I was still studying for the series 7 exam in that time period. On
October 19th, mid-morning, the branch manager literally ran to my desk,
said "You passed your test- I can't talk now - go hang out with Jack
so-and-so & see if he can use any help talking to clients", and flew back
to his office. Around 5:00 PM, he handed me a bunch of cash, and asked if
I'd mind going out for a couple of bottles of scotch. :-) Learning about
margin and risky options trading in a book is one thing. Seeing real
people's accounts turn to crap (or even negative crap) in 4 hours is much
different.

Haven't had an account turn to crap, but I have had a professionally
managed "low risk" investment account lose 40% and got no intelligent
explanation. At the same time, my account of stocks chosen by my dropped
only a few percent and I had a gain overall for the year (no thanks to
them). Where is Mr Kerschner working now?

Looks like here, unless they haven't updated the page and he's gone.
http://www.smithbarney.com/products_...oup/asset.html


2 were outright crooks.

That's why my manager eventually threw in the towel and went back to just
being a broker. The oversight responsibilities were extremely stressful, and
he was the most ethical guy imaginable.


Sometimes I wonder if if I went into the wrong business. Engineering is
for chumps!

Nah...engineering's far better than running investment seminars where 100
old people show up just for the free coffee, and you end up with a few more
people like the guy who used to call me every day, twice a day, and ask "So
how's big MO doin'?" (MO was Philip Morris, now Altria Group) He thought
MO was the perfect barometer for everything, including how much he'd enjoy
his next visit to the bathroom.

Gasoline prices - another record high
 

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 08:24:59 -0400, DSK wrote:

Sometimes I wonder if if I went into the wrong business.
Engineering is for chumps!

Reminds me of the old joke about a guy who needed a plumber.

The plumber arrives, fixes the problem in 20 minutes and presents a
bill for $125.

The guy exclaims that not even his lawyer charges that much for 20
minutes work.

The plumber replies that he had the same problem when he was
practicing law.

Gasoline prices - another record high
 

snip

Yeah, all that BS about the Hubbert peak is just libby-rull psycho-babble,
huh? The Earth has enough oil to last forever, no matter how much we use!

snip

DSK


Mentioning "peak oil" around here will likely fall on deaf ears. Anyone who
is open minded and hasn't already read about it should google "peak oil" and
see what it's all about.

Scary stuff.

Gasoline prices - another record high
 

"ACP" wrote in message
...
snip

Yeah, all that BS about the Hubbert peak is just libby-rull
psycho-babble, huh? The Earth has enough oil to last forever, no matter
how much we use!

snip

DSK


Mentioning "peak oil" around here will likely fall on deaf ears. Anyone
who is open minded and hasn't already read about it should google "peak
oil" and see what it's all about.

Scary stuff.


The literal peak (whether the oil's actually there or not) may end up not
being as much an issue as whether sane people are prepared to see more and
more places put at risk in order to obtain that oil.

Gasoline prices - another record high
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"ACP" wrote in message
...
snip

Yeah, all that BS about the Hubbert peak is just libby-rull
psycho-babble, huh? The Earth has enough oil to last forever, no matter
how much we use!

snip

DSK


Mentioning "peak oil" around here will likely fall on deaf ears. Anyone
who is open minded and hasn't already read about it should google "peak
oil" and see what it's all about.

Scary stuff.


The literal peak (whether the oil's actually there or not) may end up not
being as much an issue as whether sane people are prepared to see more and
more places put at risk in order to obtain that oil.

"[T]here is a different and more fundamental cost that is independent of the
monetary price. That is the energy cost of exploration and production. So
long as oil is used as a source of energy, when the energy cost of
recovering a barrel of oil becomes greater than the energy content of the
oil, production will cease no matter what the monetary price may be."

That was Dr. M. King Hubert in response to David Nissen of Exxon.

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/

Gasoline prices - another record high
 

"ACP" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"ACP" wrote in message
...
snip

Yeah, all that BS about the Hubbert peak is just libby-rull
psycho-babble, huh? The Earth has enough oil to last forever, no matter
how much we use!

snip

DSK


Mentioning "peak oil" around here will likely fall on deaf ears. Anyone
who is open minded and hasn't already read about it should google "peak
oil" and see what it's all about.

Scary stuff.


The literal peak (whether the oil's actually there or not) may end up not
being as much an issue as whether sane people are prepared to see more
and more places put at risk in order to obtain that oil.

"[T]here is a different and more fundamental cost that is independent of
the monetary price. That is the energy cost of exploration and production.
So long as oil is used as a source of energy, when the energy cost of
recovering a barrel of oil becomes greater than the energy content of the
oil, production will cease no matter what the monetary price may be."

That was Dr. M. King Hubert in response to David Nissen of Exxon.

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/


Yeah, that's a factor, too. But, I was referring more to the idea that some
of us would like to be able to take our grandkids scuba diving, and actually
be able to see more (rather than less) of the animals the kids read about in
books published 10 years earlier.

Gasoline prices - another record high
 

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 12:11:40 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

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

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.


Why? Did you lie about your work experience?



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.

Weird. After all, it's their money and investments, and you would get
a cut whether or not it was your pick.


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".


You missed the point. Did you have anyone that didn't take your
advice, but were smart, and made their own picks successfully? It
sound like you didn't, because you were "unable to work with people
who operate that way".