about past performance is b/s IMO. It's difficult for me to understand why everyone is always fussing about this issue over here. Since ET rates everything else, why can't Barron add a section to rate the free and fee-based websites? It seems the issues we keep hashing over week after week would be muted. Candles remark about momentumstockplays.com being "snake-oil" is ridiculous. Candle, have you actually looked at the site. Until you acknowledge that you've at least looked at it or took the trial, your statement is 100% wrong. I've tried many other services, and this one without a doubt blows the competition away, IMO. On another note, I don't agree that 1 week isn't enough time to adequately examine any website, particulary if they have an archived section. For instance, every pick momentumstockplays has offered is archived in the daily breakout section, not just the winners but the losers as well. Surely, if someone interested is SERIOUS about finding a decent service, a week is enough time to go through the site. Just my opinions, Alpine
Alpine, YES I agree with you that one week IS enough time IF the service has archived records of their performance. What you said to the little candleman, true. One should first get the facts before they open mouth. ps Thug, i just love your pic. i always fall for that innocent boyish look. yummmmmmmy...;-)
<i>Thug, i just love your pic. i always fall for that innocent boyish look. </i> Stop, you're going to blow my cover I'm still waiting for yours, and hoping you're not a fat, bald old man with a transgender fetish.
I guess I have no chance. http://www.realitytrader.com/calls/members3.htm Thug_life, I withdraw myself from competition, good luck Vad
it's not your cover that i have in mind. ;-) please don't think ill of me, i was just kidding around, i'm not that easy. well, maybe sometimes. lol i'll need time to scan a pic, but i will, i promise. xxxooo's Katrina
Katrina, I am rugged everywhere, yes I mean everywhere... pm me and me can take this further, darling... Candle
Guys, you know its really telling when any and every girl (first it was MarthaNYC and now Kat) on this site is swamped with innuendos and come-ons....maybe you should get out more? In any case, it is imperative that Kat proves she is truly worthy of all this hubub by putting up her pic. Kat, take a look at Martha´s pic to get an idea of what we are looking for..... ps candle: I thought you were partial to asian chicks?
This 'mystery' woman is definitely spicing things up here on ET The writing style is very argumentative and mature for a 22-year-old sex-machine chick from Orlando. But what do I know? I have a question sweetheart. I don't want to beat a dead horse, but there is a website claiming a hefty returns for 2001, but in reality, they actually lost on a percentage basis for 2001. How do you find this to be better than a free trial to a service? In other words, what prevents anyone from posting a bogus record on their website. Now, I'm not accusing the website you are endorsing of wrong doing, but how does a newbie know if the returns a real or not? Check this out: <img src="http://www.tonyoz.com/shortb/z-shortboy1.gif"> the claim made that an account was started with 100K on 1/2/01 on which returns of 30.8% were achieved. Sounds good, doesn't it? <img src="http://www.tonyoz.com/shortb/f-shortboy1.gif"> the above trade record shows transactions in 5 stocks on 4/5/01 for a total dollar amount of $318,875 quite a bit over 100K isn't it. But there is more. <img src="http://www.tonyoz.com/shortb/z-shortboy2.gif"> On Friday, September 7th 2001. A subscriber to the service confirms that xxxx is going to reduce his account size to 100K. This means that up to this point there was more money than 100K. Interesting, isn't it? <img src="http://www.tonyoz.com/shortb/f-shortboy4.gif"> The above screen shot shows the profit as of 9/17 at $42,920. Since we all know that the market was closed from 9/11-9/17 and given the sizeable gains in the trades we can conclude that these trades were entered prior to the account size being reduced to 100K. So 42,920 divided by 500K which was the account size is equal 8.6% or if you annualize it since it was achieved in 257 days it will be 12.21%. Beautiful <img src="http://www.tonyoz.com/shortb/f-shortboy5.gif"> The above screen shot shows the profit for the year. Please note that the profit is down from 42,920 to 30,790. In other words, the account was down 12,130. No a big deal right? WRONG! Since we all know that shortboy reduced his account size to 100K after 9/17, the loss of 12,130 represents a 12.13% loss in 108 days. Now, if you annualize it, you will get 40.1% loss. There isn't anyway that you will weigh these two return numbers together that will not yield in a loss. Yet his website claims 30.8% GAIN. Now why did I go through the trouble to point this out? I did so simply because I strongly believe that unless a trading record represents ALL ACTUAL EXECUTED TRADES (straight out of the brokerage statements) by whomever is behind that website then those returns are nothing more than fiction. After all, they are not real are they? Sincerely, Tony