On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Ray Evans Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Interesting. What I hear you saying is the same thing as Bush. That
>the fundamentals are OK, that it isn't a Casino and that it was just a
>bunch of bad guys cheating. Am I reading you right?
Hmmm. I was answering in terms of considering those who had chosen
to participate in the market. Whether the market itself should
exist, in its present form, is another question, and I don't know
what I think about that. The market will seem like a casino to
those who aren't careful. And by its nature, the market attracts
the venal and deceitful, just like anywhere else where large
amounts of money are flowing. So it is reasonable to assume that
it is rife with scams, and needs a sharp and aggressive oversight
organization to keep ahead of the weasels and their latest schemes to
bilk the unwary. Here in Vancouver, we have, or had, until very
recently, a market which specialized in penny mines, which are
notorious for their high risk and big payoffs. This was the north
american centre for raising mining capital, and was more like a
casino than any other market, with a constant litany of little
scams and scandals. But as long as you understood that, and didn't
regard the VSE as sensible place to invest your retirement fund,
you could play the Vancouver market the way you might play the
horses (quite a few stock promoters at the VSE seemed to also
be found at the racetrack). It was common wisdom that though the
ordinary peasant could pull off a market coup, the promoters and
their friends always seemed to do much better, despite the insider
trading laws. So, as the Vancouver market was the first one I knew
and played with, I have this basic understanding that equities
are a risky business, by their nature, and playing the "blue chips"
for a relatively solid income is sort of a bonus.
I guess I'm not really answering your question exactly, but this
ought to give you some idea of how I look at it.
-Pete Vincent
