I am looking to buy anywhere from 1 to 10 shares of CGM Focus Mutual
Fund. I will pay double of whatever the trading price is. I am
looking to do this because you cannot buy it unless you have atleast
one share. And I will buy up to 10 shares to make it worth it to
someone to seel it to me.
Thank you
I wouldn't buy it because my broker doesn't incorporate it conveniently
into their offerings - nothing new there. Yahoo lists it traded
normally, though I wouldn't rule out it being misrepresented. If
you're saying it's effectively closed, I doesn't sound if what you're
proposing is possible - except in the extreme, as a beneficiary. I can
see why it has a high volatility rating. ...Mixture from grabbag
midcaps - perhaps more aggressively stylized, though can't see its
objective necessarily, either, in this representation (periodic nasty
dips concern me).
stocktimes wrote:
> I am looking to buy anywhere from 1 to 10 shares of CGM Focus Mutual
> Fund. I will pay double of whatever the trading price is. I am
> looking to do this because you cannot buy it unless you have atleast
> one share. And I will buy up to 10 shares to make it worth it to
> someone to seel it to me.
>
> Thank you
You can speak English.
"Flasherly" <> wrote in message
news:
>I wouldn't buy it because my broker doesn't incorporate it conveniently
> into their offerings - nothing new there. Yahoo lists it traded
> normally, though I wouldn't rule out it being misrepresented. If
> you're saying it's effectively closed, I doesn't sound if what you're
> proposing is possible - except in the extreme, as a beneficiary. I can
> see why it has a high volatility rating. ...Mixture from grabbag
> midcaps - perhaps more aggressively stylized, though can't see its
> objective necessarily, either, in this representation (periodic nasty
> dips concern me).
>
>
>
> stocktimes wrote:
>> I am looking to buy anywhere from 1 to 10 shares of CGM Focus Mutual
>> Fund. I will pay double of whatever the trading price is. I am
>> looking to do this because you cannot buy it unless you have atleast
>> one share. And I will buy up to 10 shares to make it worth it to
>> someone to seel it to me.
>>
>> Thank you
>
NoEd wrote:
> You can speak English.
I'd rather have not (it's a messed-up chart with largecaps that have no
business there).
But are not caps important in the rain, esp, large ones. But on the other
hand, is charting without a large cap really possible? Oh my.
"Flasherly" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> NoEd wrote:
>> You can speak English.
>
> I'd rather have not (it's a messed-up chart with largecaps that have no
> business there).
>
You guys are more boring than Brian Cowper and me.
"NoEd" <> wrote in message
news:
> But are not caps important in the rain, esp, large ones. But on the other
> hand, is charting without a large cap really possible? Oh my.
>
>
> "Flasherly" <> wrote in message
> news:
>>
>> NoEd wrote:
>>> You can speak English.
>>
>> I'd rather have not (it's a messed-up chart with largecaps that have no
>> business there).
>>
>
>
Ed wrote:
> You guys are more boring than Brian Cowper and me.
I'm not getting much more, either, between a fat depression left in
pending YE distributions, or for this market's "latency/emotional
resereve" to tone down within underlying rumors of quasi-bullish
sentiments from the past 3 years of gain.
I'm also have a left pending design that serves as a beacon to further
exhort the minions that care to watch. A decade ago my overall inverse,
cross-directional view was radically changed as I saw that reason sometimes
failed when not coordinated with wit.
"Flasherly" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> Ed wrote:
>> You guys are more boring than Brian Cowper and me.
>
> I'm not getting much more, either, between a fat depression left in
> pending YE distributions, or for this market's "latency/emotional
> resereve" to tone down within underlying rumors of quasi-bullish
> sentiments from the past 3 years of gain.
>
NoEd wrote:
> I'm also have a left pending design that serves as a beacon to further
> exhort the minions that care to watch. A decade ago my overall inverse,
> cross-directional view was radically changed as I saw that reason sometimes
> failed when not coordinated with wit.
After having briefly exposed myself to William F. Sharpe's statistical
models, I do most wholeheartedly concur.