To: american spirit
Here's another piece of bad advice in the article:
"If you bought a tech stock at $100.00 per share and its now at $4.00, youre tempted to wait it out. Dont. Youve made a mistake. Get over it. Take a loss, pick up your marbles and move on to another game."
Now, unless you actually need the loss for your taxes, and few of us do right now, why would you sell something that's lost 96 percent of its value? It's practically worthless. The logical thing to do would be to hold onto it until it either goes up or goes bust.
Why would this writer be giving such poor advice?
116 posted on
03/11/2003 7:48:54 PM PST by
Auntie Mame
(Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry.--Mark Twain)
To: Auntie Mame
Why? No accountability. He is a mouth mover, a sock puppet. He doesn't have to deal with the real world.
123 posted on
03/11/2003 8:06:57 PM PST by
narses
(Christe Eleison)
To: Auntie Mame
If you owned Cisco in March and took this advice, what would it have cost you?
209 posted on
12/03/2003 6:00:37 PM PST by
narses
("The do-it-yourself Mass is ended. Go in peace" Francis Cardinal Arinze of Nigeria)
To: Auntie Mame
Because it's (1) real money, even that pauper's $4 is still real (2) therefore it shows you respect reality (3) when you respect reality you can make money in rough and downing markets. Sell it. It costs bigtime to hold it in the emotional baggage it recalls to mind every time it shows up on the account statement.
Same as the good old advice one hears on Bob Brinker's show -- "Sell anything you're losing sleep over."
The best model, imo, for selling holdings is when that holding no longer meets the criterion for which you bought it. Say you buy a stock for a 2% dividend. Well, if they stop paying that near that level, sell it. Of course, I'm an antique for saying to buy for a dividend, ain't I?
219 posted on
12/03/2003 6:26:31 PM PST by
bvw
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson