Looked at my 'TQQQ' today and nearly fainted! /s

[-hh]

Time to check the performance of ARNA relative to TQQQ, which Tommy
recommended instead of ARNA...

YTD / ARNA: unch. ($93.2 to $93.2 interday)
YTD / TQQQ: -20% ($170 to $135 interday)

Next up: "catch a falling knife" recommendations!


-hh

[TomS]

Hey Lyin' Asshole, you better check the last 1 year performance.

[-hh]

On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 10:52:59 PM UTC-5, TomS wrote:
> On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 9:11:07 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
> > Time to check the performance of ARNA relative to TQQQ, which Tommy
> > recommended instead of ARNA...
> >
> > YTD / ARNA: unch. ($93.2 to $93.2 interday)
> > YTD / TQQQ: -20% ($170 to $135 interday)
> >
> > Next up: "catch a falling knife" recommendations!
>
>

> Hey Lyin' Asshole, you better check the last 1 year performance.

Oh, you mean where a full third of that paper gain has been wiped out
in just two weeks?

In any event, the past is the past and you've not been making any "buy today!"
or "sell today!" posts to show your prowess. That's why I've noted that you
might try to gamble to catch the current falling knife again.

Of course, NASDAQ's tech sector generally is disfavored in a rising interest
rate environment, so one shouldn't be too surprised if 2022 has less potential
upside (or more losses) than during the 2020/21 era of QE expansions. As
such, is TQQQ currently a "buy"? Likewise, what are your predictions for
someone who's has TQQQ from 2021 from at/hear its high for how long they're
likely have to wait until they're no longer underwater? Days? Weeks? Months?
Longer?

Or are you 'bravely' going to be silent on tangible stuff, so as to not have your
pretend stock trader claims get completely blown up in your face again?


-hh

[TomS]

This is an exercise to see WHO's buy recommendation was better - yours or mine. Clearly, mine was better, and has been better on any reasonable time frame.

[TomS]

Also, I am in a holding pattern right now. With the Fed announcing rate hikes I see more volatility ahead, although I did buy INTC recently.

[-hh]

> > This is an exercise to see WHO's buy recommendation was better - yours
> or mine.

No, that's not what it has been.

You'd tried to brag for years about how you're so savvy and profitable/etc, but
you just never showed that by publicly committing to a trade where you
explicitly telegraphed in advance, to prove that you weren't BS'ing after-the-fact.

> Clearly, mine was better, and has been better on any reasonable time frame.

Oh, you've allegedly done a few short sprints - - never documented, per above,
but let's actually go check the archives to see if there ever was an dick-waiving
contest:

Back to Sep 12, 2019 [8:04:42 PM]

hh>> For example, let’s hear your investment prognosis on another pharma, ARNA.
>
TS> Would not touch ARNA - no products for sale, missed last two
TS> earnings estimates, stock chart looks horrible, and analysts
TS> mostly have SELL ratings on it.

<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.sport.golf/c/yhHlqMZnqVs/m/o_1lm_vmAAAJ>


So what was my comment? Here it is, later in the same thread:

"Oh, you’ve already made it obvious that you don’t hold. I find it interesting
that the stock has such consistent buy recommendations despite what looks
like nothing much, and has a lot of institutionals holding it. The question
seems to be if they go on a tear of product approvals to sell and it pops to
$500. Even so, a +300% (paper) gain over the past three years isn’t too shabby..."

<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.sport.golf/c/yhHlqMZnqVs/m/ZEQ6mj_ZAQAJ>

So revisiting Tom's current claim:

"Clearly, mine was better, and has been better on any reasonable time frame"

Well, at that date it was at $51 and now its at $94, so that's a +84% gain
over ~3.3 years without any fees. But more significantly, the observation
that institutionals were following its potential was spot-on, as illustrated
by PFE's buyout offer.

Now YMMV on what constitutes a "reasonable" time frame, but for investing
and not gambling, that's longer term, so considering the cited buy 3 years
prior, that would have been at ~$16 which goes to ~$100 via PFE and
assuming a stock swap (this AM: $56.50 w/ 2.84% dividend), that means
that on per $10K basis, $01K/$16 = 62.5 shares *$100 = $62,500; divided
$56.5 buys 1106 shares of PFE, whose dividends are $1.60/share-year
for $1,769.60/yr.

So based on an original investment of just $10K, that's an effective +17.696%
dividend rate of return ... and dividends from a blue chip are safe & passive,
as well as have zero monthly expense fees.

> Also, I am in a holding pattern right now. With the Fed announcing rate hikes
> I see more volatility ahead, although I did buy INTC recently.

Tech tends to carry more debt which will be downward pressure on
that sector as interest rates rise; looking at debt ratios can provide
insight too; looks like INTC is a bit better than QCOM (~2.1 vs 1.6)
for example.

My own moves have been to change out some of bond funds to
reduce exposure to higher rates depressing them, as well as shop
for dividend stocks for in a Roth, plus some other things. A higher
risk move was to buy $5K of AT&T (T) short term @ $24.906 for its
presently very high dividend (8%), as the Market's expecting them to
cut their dividend as they've been selling off assets/etc. Others on
the table with a goal of diversification, stability and income generation
currently include: BCE, BBY, CVX, ED, ENB, JNJ, LMT, NVS, VTRS.


-hh

[-hh]

In looking back at INTC, looks like its price took a hit when Apple's
M1 Pro / M1 Max CPUs were announced last October...it has basically
just finally crawled its way back up from that. Since rumors are that
Apple has some new Macs coming out in probably March, if there's
another CPU along with them, that may repeat this sort of reaction
with Intel; could be a buying opportunity that results in a better
dividend yield along with potential capital appreciation (aka 'recovery').

[TomS]

AAPL isn't INTC's main competitor: AMD is, and AMD stock is 5x overpriced compared to INTC.

Furthermore, APPL isn't making inroads into the Wintel market share.
https://www.techradar.com/news/apple-lags-behind-the-us-laptop-market-shares-top-dogs-hp-and-dell

[Alan]

LOL!

[Alan]

On 2022-01-13 2:46 p.m., TomS wrote:

As usual, your own article shows you're wrong:

'Apple netting third place is actually quite impressive, representing
its steady growth in the laptop market.'

So, please:

Explain how steady growth can possibly be achieved without "making inroads"?

:-)

[-hh]

> AAPL isn't INTC's main competitor: AMD is, and AMD stock is 5x overpriced compared to INTC.

Apple doesn’t need to be their _main_ competitor… but that Intel took a hit
when Apple released a new CPU shows that they’re not totally disassociated.

>
> Furthermore, APPL isn't making inroads into the Wintel market share.
> >https://www.techradar.com/news/apple-lags-behind-the-us-laptop-market-shares-top-dogs-hp-and-dell>

Except your own cite notes that Apple is growing, and notes:

“Apple netting third place is actually quite impressive, representing
its steady growth in the laptop market.”

Plus Apple’s sales last quarter set an all time Quarterly Revenue Record
for Macs … and the MBP’s with the new CPUs hadn’t been released yet in
that Q. As such, don’t be surprised if in two weeks they announce a new
Q record..which probably also means more marketshare gains.


-hh

[TomS]

Go find any investor news at the time that cited AAPL as being the cause of the drop - I sure never heard anything of the sort.

[-hh]

> Go find any investor news at the time that cited AAPL as being the
> cause of the drop - I sure never heard anything of the sort.

You missed the industry observations that it would adversely affect
Intel's business prospects; case in point:

"...Apple Beating 'Intel At Its Own Game,' Say Analysts After 'Unleashed' Event"

"Analysts tracking Apple Inc’s (NASDAQ:AAPL) “Unleashed” event are
terming the arrival of M1 Pro and M1 Max chips as a “game changer”
and a signal that the tech giant is giving Intel Corporation (NASDAQ:INTC)
a run for its money."

<https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/m1-pro-max-processor-to-be-a-game-changer-apple-beating-intel-at-its-own-game-say-analysts-after-unleashed-event-1030876554>

"Apple's M1 Pro and M1 Max chips mean new trouble for Intel"

"And they're bad news for Intel, whose chips Apple is ejecting from its
Macs after a 15-year partnership. It's a loss of revenue, prestige and
orders to keep its factories running at full capacity."

<https://www.cnet.com/tech/computing/apples-m1-pro-and-m1-max-chips-mean-new-trouble-for-intel/>

Of course Tommy will demand nothing less than explicit "if Apple, then
Intel stock will drop by 5% the next day" prediction. The problem with
that set of Goalposts is that Tommy's not made such predictions.


-hh

[-hh]

Oh, and let’s not forget what your TechRadar webpage said: Apple has a 24%
marketshare of the laptop segment, which is IIRC ~80% of all PC sales, so for
Intel to lose that as a customer represents roughly a (.80)(24%) = 19% decline
in the market for their PC CPU sales…so far.

-hh

[-hh]

Speak of the devil...

"Intel's Client Computing Group (CCG), the main cash cow, earned $10.1 billion
in Q4 2021, down 7% year-over-year when platform adjacencies are considered,
which is unusual for a world that suffers from an undersupply of chips amid
growing demand for PCs.

Intel's notebook components volumes dropped by 16% YoY (which is more
than what one would expect from Apple's transition to its own SoC and
subsequent drop of Intel's sales because of that), ..."

<https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-q4-2021-financial-results>

TL;DR: my quick swag suggested roughly a 19% decline potential; the
actual reported by Intel for 4Qcy21 was a 16% YoY drop (so far).


-hh

[-hh]

On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 8:28:35 AM UTC-5, -hh wrote:

Well, ARNA trading ended last week with Pfizer's buyout effective 3/11.
Owners should be seeing the Pfizer cash out arrive his week, at "just"
$100/share...roughly a +30% YoY gain.

In the meantime, Tommy's daytrader pick of TQQQ is down YTD and YoY,
to the point where it has wiped out all of its 2021 gains (plus some).

Recalling back to when Tommy claimed that I supposedly was "tricking" him
into buying ARNA, if he had done so & held, he'd now have had a +100% gain.

Oh well.

With TQQQ at $44 (down -40% YTD), wonder if Tommy considers it to be a
"buy" yet, or if there's still more downside pain expected for the NASDAQ?

-hh

[TomS]

Smart investors made A LOT of money in TQQQ last year, nearly doubling there money. It is ALL ABOUT having an exit strategy (who here talked about that?). There WILL be a time to enter the market, but I don't think now is it. Oil prices could go way up from here, which will hammer GDP growth - and Lyin' Biden WANTS prices to go up. Buying a bad stock like ARNA is a BAD IDEA, PERIOD! The Lyin' Asshole was losing on it for a long time and would have been FAR BETTER OFF in TQQQ - as I documented.

[-hh]

> Smart investors made A LOT of money in TQQQ last year, nearly doubling there money.

Only if they cashed out. If they didn't, they're back to square one (flat).

> It is ALL ABOUT having an exit strategy (who here talked about that?).

Oh, you've talked, but you did not actually commit.
As the saying goes, "Talk is cheap."

> There WILL be a time to enter the market, but I don't think now is it.

Gosh, Tommy continues his unwillingness to commitment! /s

> Oil prices could go way up from here, which will hammer GDP growth

> ...and Lyin' Biden WANTS prices to go up....

Depends on the timeline, which you've conveniently left very vague.

> Buying a bad stock like ARNA is a BAD IDEA, PERIOD!

Too late for you, Tommy: its been removed from trading, and
was paid out at $100/share.


> The Lyin' Asshole was losing on it for a long time...

That claim requires knowing my cost basis. So how about you
show us how you know what my cost basis was? Afterall, you've
heard me mention 300% returns back when it was under $50.
Simply put, anyone who bought & held within the past decade
has ended up making money: the only room for you to complain
is rate of return .. but that isn't done outside of risk contexts.

> ...and would have

> been FAR BETTER OFF in TQQQ - as I documented.

Not for 2022 it wouldn't: -40% YTD.

Plus a quality portfolio has investment diversity; since you don't
know my portfolio contents, you have no insight on if TQQQ would
have been a good fit, or if it would have been an unbalancing risk.

In the meantime, the performance of others I previously mentioned;
not quite YTD, but a ~week prior. Note that these weren't growth
prospects, but for a dividend revenue stream (as noted):

BCE (DIV 5.3%) +5%
BBY (DIV 3.5%) +2%
CVX (DIV 3.5%) +37%
ED (DIV 3.5%) +7%
ENB (DIV 6%) +18%
JNJ (DIV 2.4%) +5%
LMT (DIV 2.6%) +24%
NVS (DIV 2.5%) -0%
VTRS (DIV 4.5%) -21%

FYI, for most of these, they're even better than the initial impression,
as the Dividend rate shown is at the current price, not its purchase
price. The DIV vs PURCH is more like (CVX): (3.5%)/(1-.37) = 5.55%


-hh

[TomS]

"Only?" EVERYONE sells sooner or later - you DIDN'T bother to ask me back then. If you had I would have told you to take profits - nothing runs up forever, asshole.

> > It is ALL ABOUT having an exit strategy (who here talked about that?).
> Oh, you've talked, but you did not actually commit.
> As the saying goes, "Talk is cheap."

LOL! You ASKED and I ANSWERED, Lyin' Asshole (this is why I call you that!!!).

> > There WILL be a time to enter the market, but I don't think now is it.
> Gosh, Tommy continues his unwillingness to commitment! /s
> > Oil prices could go way up from here, which will hammer GDP growth
> > ...and Lyin' Biden WANTS prices to go up....
>
> Depends on the timeline, which you've conveniently left very vague.

The "timeline" is VERY definite: 1/20/2021 to NOW, Asshole!

> > Buying a bad stock like ARNA is a BAD IDEA, PERIOD!
> Too late for you, Tommy: its been removed from trading, and
> was paid out at $100/share.

I NEVER invested, and would NEVER invest, so it is immaterial to me.

>
>
> > The Lyin' Asshole was losing on it for a long time...
>
> That claim requires knowing my cost basis. So how about you
> show us how you know what my cost basis was? Afterall, you've
> heard me mention 300% returns back when it was under $50.
> Simply put, anyone who bought & held within the past decade
> has ended up making money: the only room for you to complain
> is rate of return .. but that isn't done outside of risk contexts.

I detailed how you were LOSING money on ARNA vs TQQQ several times: go look it up.

>
> > ...and would have
> > been FAR BETTER OFF in TQQQ - as I documented.
> Not for 2022 it wouldn't: -40% YTD.
>
> Plus a quality portfolio has investment diversity; since you don't
> know my portfolio contents, you have no insight on if TQQQ would
> have been a good fit, or if it would have been an unbalancing risk.

Irrelevant.

>
> In the meantime, the performance of others I previously mentioned;
> not quite YTD, but a ~week prior. Note that these weren't growth
> prospects, but for a dividend revenue stream (as noted):
>
> BCE (DIV 5.3%) +5%
> BBY (DIV 3.5%) +2%
> CVX (DIV 3.5%) +37%
> ED (DIV 3.5%) +7%
> ENB (DIV 6%) +18%
> JNJ (DIV 2.4%) +5%
> LMT (DIV 2.6%) +24%
> NVS (DIV 2.5%) -0%
> VTRS (DIV 4.5%) -21%

Off topic, asshole.

>
> FYI, for most of these, they're even better than the initial impression,
> as the Dividend rate shown is at the current price, not its purchase
> price. The DIV vs PURCH is more like (CVX): (3.5%)/(1-.37) = 5.55%

Ditto.

>
>
> -hh

[-hh]

Nonsense: I've often mocked you for not having prepublished what your exist
criteria is ... don't you remember how mad you got when you finally said +10%
but then missed it by a few dollars?

> If you had I would have told you to take profits - nothing runs up forever, asshole.

But isn't this "run up forever" precisely the point of the TQQQ leveraged fund?

Just like how its evil twin SQQQ is the "short forever"?

> > > It is ALL ABOUT having an exit strategy (who here talked about that?).
> >
> > Oh, you've talked, but you did not actually commit.
> > As the saying goes, "Talk is cheap."
>
> LOL! You ASKED and I ANSWERED, Lyin' Asshole (this is why I call you that!!!).

Sorry, nope: you've never committed to saying "I"m buying TQQQ tomorrow at
$A and my strategy is to hold it for B days or $C, whichever comes first.

The closest you've come to that is the above "10% gain" that you mentioned in
midstream, but then slightly missed.

> > > There WILL be a time to enter the market, but I don't think now is it.
> >
> > Gosh, Tommy continues his unwillingness to commitment! /s
> >

Silence from Tommy!

> > > Oil prices could go way up from here, which will hammer GDP growth
> > > ...and Lyin' Biden WANTS prices to go up....
> >
> > Depends on the timeline, which you've conveniently left very vague.
>
> The "timeline" is VERY definite: 1/20/2021 to NOW, Asshole!

Nope, that's in the past: we cannot make investments retroactively.

> > > Buying a bad stock like ARNA is a BAD IDEA, PERIOD!
> >
> > Too late for you, Tommy: its been removed from trading, and
> > was paid out at $100/share.
>
> I NEVER invested, and would NEVER invest, so it is immaterial to me.

Oh, you've been quite heavily invested in ARNA ... but it was emotional, not fiscal.

That's why you were pounding away at your keyboard for this post.

> > > The Lyin' Asshole was losing on it for a long time...
> >
> > That claim requires knowing my cost basis. So how about you
> > show us how you know what my cost basis was? Afterall, you've
> > heard me mention 300% returns back when it was under $50.
> > Simply put, anyone who bought & held within the past decade
> > has ended up making money: the only room for you to complain
> > is rate of return .. but that isn't done outside of risk contexts.
>
> I detailed how you were LOSING money on ARNA vs TQQQ several times: go look it up.

That was your retrospective attempt, and the problem that you have
with it is that in applying the same retrospect for 2021 to date, the opposite
is true.

By the same token I could say "but Tommy, you should have bought AAPL at $7".

> >
> > > ...and would have
> > > been FAR BETTER OFF in TQQQ - as I documented.
> > Not for 2022 it wouldn't: -40% YTD.
> >
> > Plus a quality portfolio has investment diversity; since you don't
> > know my portfolio contents, you have no insight on if TQQQ would
> > have been a good fit, or if it would have been an unbalancing risk.
>
> Irrelevant.

Diversification may be unimportant to gamblers, but I'm talking of investing.

> > In the meantime, the performance of others I previously mentioned;
> > not quite YTD, but a ~week prior. Note that these weren't growth
> > prospects, but for a dividend revenue stream (as noted):
> >
> > BCE (DIV 5.3%) +5%
> > BBY (DIV 3.5%) +2%
> > CVX (DIV 3.5%) +37%
> > ED (DIV 3.5%) +7%
> > ENB (DIV 6%) +18%
> > JNJ (DIV 2.4%) +5%
> > LMT (DIV 2.6%) +24%
> > NVS (DIV 2.5%) -0%
> > VTRS (DIV 4.5%) -21%
>
> Off topic, asshole.

Incorrect, for this list was included way back in January for a reason,
which was to not be afraid to publicly show picks. These aren't on the
block to be traded but are a medium period hold; above is their first
~90 days performance. You're free to check on them quarterly too.

> > FYI, for most of these, they're even better than the initial impression,
> > as the Dividend rate shown is at the current price, not its purchase
> > price. The DIV vs PURCH is more like (CVX): (3.5%)/(1-.37) = 5.55%
>
> Ditto.

Nah, its merely noting the effective yields because this package was
picked based upon dividend yields (in lieu of CDs/Bonds) while also
seeking relative price stability similar to same.

FYI, others in this camp could be AT&T (T), but it has higher instability
risks for a variety of reasons, including debts and because of their
now-announced dividend cut (from 8% to 4%); holding T depends on
how much exposure one wants to the telecom sector and deciding
on who, such as if BCE (above) is a better/worse fit for one's criteria;
ditto VZ (Verizon), etc, etc.


-hh

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> Buying a bad stock like ARNA is a BAD IDEA, PERIOD! The Lyin' Asshole
> was losing on it for a long time and would have been FAR BETTER OFF
> in TQQQ - as I documented.

"...was losing on it for a long time..."

One of those dumb statements which expose lack of knowledge, experience
and comprehension.

Dementia is a mental disability.

--
Bozo bin
Felicity
George R
Irving S
Texasgate
Enjoy!

[-hh]

On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 12:38:59 PM UTC-4, Bigbird wrote:
> TomS wrote:
>
> > Buying a bad stock like ARNA is a BAD IDEA, PERIOD! The Lyin' Asshole
> > was losing on it for a long time and would have been FAR BETTER OFF
> > in TQQQ - as I documented.
>
> "...was losing on it for a long time..."

What Tommy was probably trying to say that he personally lacks the
patience & discipline to wait through a long flat period. Overall, that's
why his behavior is much more of a gambler than of an investor.

>
> One of those dumb statements which expose lack of knowledge,
> experience and comprehension.

Profoundly so, as Tommy was reminded that he didn't know the Cost Basis,
and its just kinda important to know that in order to determine if an investment
ends up being gain, or a loss.

-hh

[Tom Elam]

Time to check my move from ATT to Chevron that you poo-pooed as "oil stocks are too volatile".

July 2, 2000
ATT 30.08
Chevron 88.31

March 18, 2002
ATT 23.22
Chevron 161.73

I'm bought Chevron for the 6% dividend yield that has dropped as the stock price increased. ATT was also yielding about 6% at the time but going nowhere on price or dividends. In a few months the ATT dividend is going to get chopped while Chevron just increased dividends by 6%.

I am certain that the Chevron stock price will drop if oil prices recede, but my dividends are safe and likely to increase. I sold my last few ATT shares on June 2, 2021 and bought Chevron at 106.77. Still feeling good about that but from my 2022 RMD funds recently bought JEPI for added dividend income.

The point? Don't listen to stock advice from people who live in small New Jersey houses. If they were any good at it they would not be in a small house or New Jersey.

I listen to my broker. He lives in a $1~ million 5,000+ square foot home in the Crooked Stick Golf Club addition. That's the Carmel course that has hosted PGA and LPGA events + the Solheim Cup. He manages over a billion in other people's money. How much money do you manage Hugh?

Did I tell you that just I traded the 2019 Insight for a new Accord Hybrid Touring? Paid cash. :)

[-hh]

On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 10:56:39 AM UTC-4, thomas...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 12:11:07 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > Time to check the performance of ARNA relative to TQQQ, which Tommy
> > recommended instead of ARNA...
> >
> > YTD / ARNA: unch. ($93.2 to $93.2 interday)
> > YTD / TQQQ: -20% ($170 to $135 interday)
> >
> > Next up: "catch a falling knife" recommendations!
>

> Time to check my move from ATT to Chevron that you poo-pooed as "oil stocks are too volatile".

At times it has been, because ya know ... market conditions do change.
Especially over a 20 year period.

So just when was that comment made? Got cite?


Meantime, the recommendation for portfolio adjustments for a higher inflation
period have been trending towards energy, commodities, etc: here's just one
such SME calling this out from an interview last week, which literally was just
first aired yesterday (i.e., later than this thread):

<https://wealthtrack.com/how-to-reposition-your-portfolio-for-a-new-higher-inflation-era-with-top-strategist-rich-bernstein/>

FYI, the person calling for this is Richard Bernstein ... perhaps you've heard of him?

> July 2, 2000
> ATT 30.08
> Chevron 88.31
>
> March 18, 2002
> ATT 23.22
> Chevron 161.73

Think you probably mean 2020 & 2022, not 2000 & 2002.

>
> I'm bought Chevron for the 6% dividend yield that has dropped as the stock price increased.

Got cite? Because the relevant prior mention of CVX was from Sep 15, 2019, when
you claimed you were buying it at $124 because the attack on Saudi. It failed to pan out
as you had hoped .. which you were reminded of. No mentions of "CVX" in 2020 by anyone.

> The point? Don't listen to stock advice from people who live in small New Jersey houses.
> If they were any good at it they would not be in a small house or New Jersey.

Because Tommy can only 'pick on' the one property that he's aware of that we own?

> I listen to my broker. He lives in a $1~ million 5,000+ square foot home...

Paid for by the fees he charges you ... too bad you don't live in a $1M 5K house yourself.

> Did I tell you that just I traded the 2019 Insight for a new Accord Hybrid Touring? Paid cash. :)

Is that supposed to be more impressive than claiming that all of one's Porsche purchases
were done as cash, and also also without any trade-in to reduce the outlay? /s


-hh

[-hh]

On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 11:30:53 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
> On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 10:56:39 AM UTC-4, thomas...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 12:11:07 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > > Time to check the performance of ARNA relative to TQQQ, which Tommy
> > > recommended instead of ARNA...
> > >
> > > YTD / ARNA: unch. ($93.2 to $93.2 interday)
> > > YTD / TQQQ: -20% ($170 to $135 interday)
> > >
> > > Next up: "catch a falling knife" recommendations!
> >
> > Time to check my move from ATT to Chevron that you poo-pooed as "oil stocks are too volatile".
>
> At times it has been, because ya know ... market conditions do change.
> Especially over a 20 year period.
>
> So just when was that comment made? Got cite?

Gosh, golly ... no response from old Tom.

BTW, even checking on 'hh' and 'oil', there were only three hits, one of which
was barely relevant at all, which noted that with the onset of CoVid and lockdowns
that oil dropped.

> Meantime, the recommendation for portfolio adjustments for a higher inflation
> period have been trending towards energy, commodities, etc: here's just one
> such SME calling this out from an interview last week, which literally was just
> first aired yesterday (i.e., later than this thread):
>
> <https://wealthtrack.com/how-to-reposition-your-portfolio-for-a-new-higher-inflation-era-with-top-strategist-rich-bernstein/>
>
> FYI, the person calling for this is Richard Bernstein ... perhaps you've heard of him?

Maybe Tom would be more interested in hearing about his FL hero, DeSantis: his reported
net worth in 2018 was $283,604 and then $291,449 at the end of 2019, and then $348,832
at the end of 2020 ... but has suddenly zoomed to be reportedly worth $52M today, just 15
months later: his official 2021 EoY filing should be quite interesting...stay tuned.

<https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-ne-nsf-desantis-net-worth-20210621-xxqfzxbt5zeufkluweusvgwuny-story.html>

> > July 2, 2000
> > ATT 30.08
> > Chevron 88.31
> >
> > March 18, 2002
> > ATT 23.22
> > Chevron 161.73
>
> Think you probably mean 2020 & 2022, not 2000 & 2002.
>
> > I'm bought Chevron for the 6% dividend yield that has dropped as the stock price increased.
>
> Got cite? Because the relevant prior mention of CVX was from Sep 15, 2019, when
> you claimed you were buying it at $124 because the attack on Saudi. It failed to pan out
> as you had hoped .. which you were reminded of. No mentions of "CVX" in 2020 by anyone.

Even a very broad search on just 'Chevron' instead of 'CVX' doesn't show any posts prior to this
one since in 2021 or 2020. Next most recent one was from August 2015, and was about a
shooting of a police officer at a Chevron gas station:

<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.sport.golf/search?q=Chevron>

[Tom Elam]

Your search failed. From July 26, 2020:

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/c/Skn3VVQ2Hoc/m/BTj676jcDQAJ

Me:

That's pretty much my plan. We have about 12 months of cash in the bank.
> I have a dividend account with AT&T and Chevron, yield about 6.5% of cost.
> Chevron not especially for current yield but a solid record of dividend increases.

You:

Energy stocks are vulnerable to a lot of the Market uncertainty risk, although
much of that should be passed. I've been debating utilities as a "sufficiently boring"
flight to safety. Overall, I'm looking more towards those who have low corporate
debt, as the Fed's Unlimited Quanitative Easing is good to be holding prices up
today, but they don't have a viable exit plan on how to "unwind" it, and the last
two times they tried, the market tanked. This weekend's "Wealthtrack" was
interesting in that they had a Bond Fund guy who basically recommended against
his product; said a 30yr mortgage seems about the best investment to make
right now - - but I'm afraid that this assumes no collapse in housing market
prices because of evictions, over-leveraged landlords, etc. I suspect that
commercial real estate (e.g., office buildings, malls) are an even higher risk.

[Tom Elam]

On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 11:30:53 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:

I was floundering on my own until I hooked up with him. He has taken us from well under a million to well over 3. We have spent most of the RMD money that was not profits put back in the 401k. Just this year I started investing some of the surplus. I do not begrudge a penny he has earned from my accounts. The fact that he has done well says he has been successful for others over the last 40 years or so. You have a problem listening to people who are good at their professions?

I could easily afford a larger house, but there is just two of us. 3000+ square feet is plenty.

[Tom Elam]

Got a cite for that supposed 2019 post? I have purchased 3 lots of CVX: 7/21/20, 6/2/21 and 8/27/21. None in 2019 and all 3 well below $124. One was $92 and another $99, the third $107.

[-hh]

> Your search failed. From July 26, 2020:
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/c/Skn3VVQ2Hoc/m/BTj676jcDQAJ

Not really: I thought I was still replying to Tom Seim, not you, and as such,
was searching rec.sport.golf thusly:

<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.sport.golf/search?q=hh%20CVX>

>
> Me:
>
> That's pretty much my plan. We have about 12 months of cash in the bank.
> > I have a dividend account with AT&T and Chevron, yield about 6.5% of cost.
> > Chevron not especially for current yield but a solid record of dividend increases.
>
> You:
>
> Energy stocks are vulnerable to a lot of the Market uncertainty risk, although
> much of that should be passed. I've been debating utilities as a "sufficiently boring"

> flight to safety....

Sure, and that was from July 2020, when oil was at ~$40/barrel. Likewise, my
previous post noted:

"IMO, the current concerns are:
a. "Double Dip" recession
b. High Inflation
c. Stagflation"

So then, how do you want to call it? Nailed (b) a good six months before
it became news, and likewise (c) with similar leadtime as well? Likewise,
the "R" word has been bandied about too as an ongoing risk, so a case
can be made that this went "3 for 3" in contemporary risks identification,
although I'd not really put the 2022 recession risk as still due to the same
factors and delayed enough it shouldn't be considered to be a double-dip,
so I'll settle for just a 2/3 = .667 batting average.


-hh

[-hh]

> Got a cite for that supposed 2019 post? I have purchased 3 lots of CVX: 7/21/20,
> 6/2/21 and 8/27/21. None in 2019 and all 3 well below $124. One was $92 and
>another $99, the third $107.

Sure:
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.sport.golf/c/XQeZj9VNUoU/m/iPQ93xXWAwAJ>

and as mentioned in my immediately prior post, it was talking to Tom Seim here in
rsg, not you in csma.


-hh

[TomS]

It's pretty funny how you libtards excuse not taking my advice - at YOUR LOSS!

[-hh]

On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 10:41:22 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 4:04:05 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:

Hmm; almost a week. Guess Tommy thinks that readers have
already forgotten how much he's screwed up on this ...

> > On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 12:30:25 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> > > On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 1:41:10 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 11:29:15 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 6:00:43 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 8:28:35 AM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 12:10:32 AM UTC-5, TomS wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 9:07:43 PM UTC-8, TomS wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 8:42:02 PM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 10:52:59 PM UTC-5, TomS wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 9:11:07 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Time to check the performance of ARNA relative to TQQQ, which Tommy
> > > > > > > > > > > > recommended instead of ARNA...
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > YTD / ARNA: unch. ($93.2 to $93.2 interday)
> > > > > > > > > > > > YTD / TQQQ: -20% ($170 to $135 interday)
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Next up: "catch a falling knife" recommendations!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hey Lyin' Asshole, you better check the last 1 year performance.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Oh, you mean where a full third of that paper gain has been wiped out
> > > > > > > > > > in just two weeks?

TQQQ:
10 Jan 2022: $72.30
24 March 2022: $57.02

Hmmm...even worse now, vs when Tommy was arguing this 'YoY' back in January, for
TQQQ's price at that point (to 8 Jan 21, as 10 was a Sunday) was $47.57: with TQQQ
having cratered this past month to $40 on 14 March 22 (underwater vs 8 Jan 21), it is
little wonder why Tommy disappeared. Similarly for 20 Jan 21 when it was $49.49
Of course, now that TQQQ's leveraging has it bouncing back up in a recovery, Tommy
has crawled out from under his gambler's rock, even as he forgets that its YTD is still
quite a bit down (more than 30%) from 1/3/22's $85.57/share.

> > > > > Smart investors made A LOT of money in TQQQ last year, nearly doubling there money.
> > > >
> > > > Only if they cashed out. If they didn't, they're back to square one (flat).
> > >
> > > "Only?" EVERYONE sells sooner or later - you DIDN'T bother to ask me back then.
> >
> > Nonsense: I've often mocked you for not having prepublished what your exist
> > criteria is ... don't you remember how mad you got when you finally said +10%
> > but then missed it by a few dollars?

Plus isn't it interesting how Tommy's not posted his TQQQ buys/sells here in (quasi)
real time for others to watch for themselves? Case in point:

> > > > > It is ALL ABOUT having an exit strategy (who here talked about that?).
> > > >
> > > > Oh, you've talked, but you did not actually commit.
> > > > As the saying goes, "Talk is cheap."
> > >
> > > LOL! You ASKED and I ANSWERED, Lyin' Asshole (this is why I call you that!!!).
> >
> > Sorry, nope: you've never committed to saying "I"m buying TQQQ tomorrow at
> > $A and my strategy is to hold it for B days or $C, whichever comes first.
> >
> > The closest you've come to that is the above "10% gain" that you mentioned in
> > midstream, but then slightly missed.

IIRC, think this was on Chevron (CVX)

> > > > > There WILL be a time to enter the market, but I don't think now is it.
> > > >
> > > > Gosh, Tommy continues his unwillingness to commitment! /s
> >
> > Silence from Tommy!

Gosh, wonder if I could 'Do a Tommy' to twist what was written two weeks ago
to imply that Tommy should have bought TQQQ then ... because the Monday
Morning Quarterback would now be claiming a $47 --> $57 = +20% gain!

> > Nope, that's in the past: we cannot make investments retroactively.

Drat! /s

> > > > > ...and would have
> > > > > been FAR BETTER OFF in TQQQ - as I documented.
> > > >
> > > > Not for 2022 it wouldn't: -40% YTD.

Now improving to roughly -30% YTD.

> > > >
> > > > Plus a quality portfolio has investment diversity; since you don't
> > > > know my portfolio contents, you have no insight on if TQQQ would
> > > > have been a good fit, or if it would have been an unbalancing risk.
> > >
> > > Irrelevant.
> >
> > Diversification may be unimportant to gamblers, but I'm talking of investing.
> >
> > > > In the meantime, the performance of others I previously mentioned;
> > > > not quite YTD, but a ~week prior. Note that these weren't growth
> > > > prospects, but for a dividend revenue stream (as noted):
> > > >
> > > > BCE (DIV 5.3%) +5%
> > > > BBY (DIV 3.5%) +2%
> > > > CVX (DIV 3.5%) +37%
> > > > ED (DIV 3.5%) +7%
> > > > ENB (DIV 6%) +18%
> > > > JNJ (DIV 2.4%) +5%
> > > > LMT (DIV 2.6%) +24%
> > > > NVS (DIV 2.5%) -0%
> > > > VTRS (DIV 4.5%) -21%
> > >
> > > Off topic, asshole.
> >
> > Incorrect, for this list was included way back in January for a reason,
> > which was to not be afraid to publicly show picks. These aren't on the
> > block to be traded but are a medium period hold; above is their first
> > ~90 days performance. You're free to check on them quarterly too.

[...]
> > ...[plus consider] the effective yields because this package was

> > picked based upon dividend yields (in lieu of CDs/Bonds) while also
> > seeking relative price stability similar to same.
> >
> > FYI, others in this camp could be AT&T (T), but it has higher instability
> > risks for a variety of reasons, including debts and because of their
> > now-announced dividend cut (from 8% to 4%); holding T depends on
> > how much exposure one wants to the telecom sector and deciding
> > on who, such as if BCE (above) is a better/worse fit for one's criteria;
> > ditto VZ (Verizon), etc, etc.
>

> It's pretty funny how you libtards excuse not taking my advice - at YOUR LOSS!

Quite humorous indeed to be able to sleep easy from a portfolio slice that
despite being 100% Stocks is steady & doing fine during a high volatility period.
Kinda says something nice about investment diversification vs gambling! /s

-hh

[Tom Elam]

And as I pointed out I bought Chevron for the dividends. The company has a solid record of increasing them, AT&T not so much. I also pointed out (which you ignored above) that oil prices will recede and along with that Chevron stock price. I score you a .000 for and honest reply admitting that my thought process is sound given my financial goals.

[-hh]

On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 10:39:04 AM UTC-4, thomas...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 3:15:11 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:

> > …

>
> And as I pointed out I bought Chevron for the dividends.

Not here in RSG you didn’t.

Even before noting that this conversation had been with the other Tom.

-hh

[TomS]

Forget what these assholes have to say; if you tell them to buy XYZ they reply with "you didn't say the day, hour and minute you bought it and what you paid for it." These assholes could have made HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS off of my recommendations, but they are TOO STUPID to act on them! They know it, which is why they claim it is MY FAULT that my recommendation wasn't specific enough. Go figure...

[-hh]

On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 10:04:43 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 8:19:26 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 10:39:04 AM UTC-4, thomas...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 3:15:11 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
> > > > …
> > >
> > > And as I pointed out I bought Chevron for the dividends.
> > Not here in RSG you didn’t.
> >
> > Even before noting that this conversation had been with the other Tom.
> >
> > -hh
>
> Forget what these assholes have to say; if you tell them to buy XYZ they
> reply with "you didn't say the day, hour and minute you bought it and what
> you paid for it."

That statement makes no sense because of how you’ve gotten it so scrambled:
the history was that you typically only claimed a successful trade “win” only after
it was complete….and likewise, you didn’t even know that your own brokerage
does provide buy/sell records which have date w/time recorded within.

> These assholes could have made HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
> off of my recommendations, but they are TOO STUPID to act on them!

In the meantime, we’ve made millions by not listening to your drivel /s

> They know it, which is why they claim it is MY FAULT that my recommendation
> wasn't specific enough. Go figure...

When said “recommendations” are along the lines of buying AAPL ten years
prior … they’re downright useless.

Likewise, much of your stuff has been merely trying to brag about your own
market gambles… and were cherry-picked almost all the time, which enables
you to hide your failures. Gosh that’s convenient! /s

-hh

[Tom Elam]

I pointed it out TO YOU in CSMA.

[-hh]

> I pointed it out TO YOU in CSMA.

This isn't CSMA, but is RSG & why I was replying to Tom S, not Tom E.


-hh

[-hh]

Well, after yesterday's correction, seems about right to pull on Tommy's chain
again on how well his 'TQQQ' is doing.

Meantime...

BCE (DIV 5.3%) +2.3%
BBY (DIV 3.5%) -23%
CVX (DIV 3.5%) +40%
ED (DIV 3.5%) +12%
ENB (DIV 6%) +16%
JNJ (DIV 2.4%) +3.3%
LMT (DIV 2.6%) +22%
NVS (DIV 2.5%) +1.8%
VTRS (DIV 4.5%) -14%
--------------------------------------

Total portfolio slice is still net positive 'YTD', by +6.1%, which contrasts ever
so slightly to the likes of Tommy's TQQQ being down by a mere -66%.


-hh

[TomS]

The Lyin' Asshole doesn't even follow his own advice and have an exit strategy - so sad!

[-hh]

On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 10:37:56 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 8:17:20 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > Well, after yesterday's correction, seems about right to pull on Tommy's chain
> > again on how well his 'TQQQ' is doing.
> >
> > Meantime...
> >
> > BCE (DIV 5.3%) +2.3%
> > BBY (DIV 3.5%) -23%
> > CVX (DIV 3.5%) +40%
> > ED (DIV 3.5%) +12%
> > ENB (DIV 6%) +16%
> > JNJ (DIV 2.4%) +3.3%
> > LMT (DIV 2.6%) +22%
> > NVS (DIV 2.5%) +1.8%
> > VTRS (DIV 4.5%) -14%
> > --------------------------------------
> >
> > Total portfolio slice is still net positive 'YTD', by +6.1%, which contrasts ever
> > so slightly to the likes of Tommy's TQQQ being down by a mere -66%.
>

> The Lyin' Asshole doesn't even follow his own advice and have an exit strategy - so sad!

You never asked.

In actuality, this slice isn’t my money: POA fiduciary for a senior family member who’s
in assisted living. Sold their house last year, probably top of the market in retrospect.
Goals are mid-term income with capital preservation, to be liquidated after their LTC
insurance runs out, which means LTCG tax rates if any (could go into Estate).

So far, It’s say that the capital preservation is doing quite well compared to the Market,
would you not agree? Likewise, the returns are much better than CDs or similar. I did
contemplate I-Bonds, but they’re limited to just $10K/yr and this slice is more than a
full order of magnitude larger.

So…how’s your TQQQ doing again? /s

-hh

[-hh]

On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 8:27:03 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 10:37:56 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 8:17:20 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > > Well, after yesterday's correction, seems about right to pull on Tommy's
> > > chain again on how well his 'TQQQ' is doing.
> > >
> > > Meantime...

Probably time to check these again; midday 22 Aug 22
> > > [YTD's were as of 19 May 2022]
> > > BCE (DIV 5.3%) +2.3% Aug --> -2.81%
> > > BBY (DIV 3.5%) -23% Aug --> -20.43%
> > > CVX (DIV 3.5%) +40% Aug --> +33.69%
> > > ED (DIV 3.5%) +12% Aug --> +18.11%
> > > ENB (DIV 6%) +16% Aug --> +13.26%
> > > JNJ (DIV 2.4%) +3.3% Aug --> -0.32%
> > > LMT (DIV 2.6%) +22% Aug --> +25.64%
> > > NVS (DIV 2.5%) +1.8% Aug --> -2.74%
> > > VTRS (DIV 4.5%) -14% Aug --> -22.55%

> > > --------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Total portfolio slice is still net positive 'YTD', by +6.1%, which contrasts ever
> > > so slightly to the likes of Tommy's TQQQ being down by a mere -66%.

8/22/22 Update:
YTD is still positive, at +4.65% whereas TQQQ at $32.4 is in the red at -62% ... although
to be fair, that is a four point recovery since May. Of course, this +4.65% is before
dividends (roughly +2.5%), so one could say that it is effectively at +7% YTD.


-hh

[-hh]

Been way too long since reporting back on this...

BCE (DIV 5.3%) -14%
BBY (DIV 3.5%) -18%
CVX (DIV 3.5%) +44%
ED (DIV 3.5%) +13%
ENB (DIV 6%) +1%
JNJ (DIV 2.4%) +5%
LMT (DIV 2.6%) +39%
NVS (DIV 2.5%) +4%
VTRS (DIV 4.5%) -18%

Total portfolio slice is still net positive 'YTD', by +5.54% on Equities values...plus, of
course, the dividends spun off...roughly another +3.77%, so approx. +9% paper return.


-hh

[-hh]

Apologies, forgot to include the comparison back to TQQQ for Tommy.

TQQQ (close yesterday) at $18.27 ... down -17% since Tommy's claimed purchase of it
at $22.00, executed back on 5 Dec 2022:

<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.sport.golf/c/ooGucHaSsFI/m/DpkT6VenAwAJ>

...but who (besides Tommy) is counting? /s

-hh

[-hh]

30 Jan update:

+7.34% appreciation, plus the dividends, so roughly a 10%-11% YoY return.

> Apologies, forgot to include the comparison back to TQQQ for Tommy.
>
> TQQQ (close yesterday) at $18.27 ... down -17% since Tommy's claimed purchase of it
> at $22.00, executed back on 5 Dec 2022:
>
> <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.sport.golf/c/ooGucHaSsFI/m/DpkT6VenAwAJ>
>

Tommy's silent, of course, as TQQQ's back under $22/share.

-hh

[Tommy]

Well, let's look at how Lyin' Asshole's strategy played out. The Fed announced today a 0.25% rate hike and indicated they were close to the end of rate hikes. This is what I was anticipating, and the market responded accordingly. TQQQ