RE: Good Posts on iii22 Oct 2015 22:46
Hey Shag,
I couldn't help myself. I went back to iii for the first time in ages and looked up my old posts. Without going into the archive I could only go back to 2011. Here is the oldest post I could find. It is very appropriate for this discussion. at least it is from my perspective:
Full Of It: Do you actually mean to tell us that you are standing by your earlier post of purchasing 240,000 shares at 22 pence on 5 June, 2007? It appears so. Dude, you are so full of $hit it is amazing. The low of that day was 48.5 pence. PERIOD.
As we say in the States (you know, that country full if stupid people that can’t do anything properly): "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."
You truly are a head case.
OK, the above was basically a repost from last March. The below are answers to your questions of today, where you further rationalize after getting caught in a lie.
Regarding this comment:
"As for your statement, there is a difference between averaging prices and actual prices. If I sell shares at a profit and then roll that money into another what actual price do I pay? If I buy 100 shares for £1 and they go to £2 and I sell; I then buy 400 shares for 50p how much have those shares actually cost me? 25p in actual money, of course. Even a beancounter can work that one out."
The actual price you paid is 50 pence, as any "numbskull" or "beancounter" knows.
Also, from your below post:
“On the basis of their "cloud computing" statement, I bought into Autonomy at £17.50 because I knew they had entered another dimension of scale. last week I sold all my Autonomy at £25 and rolled the lot into Hewlett Packard at around $25. So what "actual" price did those HP shares cost me? If you have problems working that one out, tell me, and I will help you.”
In this case you paid $25 for HP, as any rational person knows. Or are you really that dim? Too clever by half is more like it.