Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Cameco Corporation Message Board

  • goshawk51855 goshawk51855 Jun 15, 2007 11:33 PM Flag

    Where Dines let you down

    Dines was seduced by his own intellectual conceit after
    huge initial successes in the U stocks. He was totally
    WRONG to blatantly ignore current and near term producers
    in favour of speculative GARBAGE, save one or two possible
    producers he still has on his list. It was speculation of
    the most RANCID flavour on his part to overwhelmingly lard
    his lists with wannabes which may never produce, or if
    they do so, it will be 7 or more years later, when the U
    shortage will not be there, and prices may well collapse,
    so that these tiny pimple stocks on the arse of
    the Uranium universe may well be worthless!!! Dines should
    have heavily leaned towards CCJ, DNN, ERA, EMU,and other
    soon to be producers, even BHP etc would have done better.
    People now risk a wipe out of capital if they stay with
    the garbage he has dumped on them. Of course...he has other
    reasons for picking these garbage penny stocks...where
    else could he load up on a $ 1 stock, pump it, see it go
    to $ 3, and get a 200% return in 3 days??????? Can't do
    that with the big stocks. Really quite troubling.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Good post. Mind you Dines has fierce legion of lemmings on this message board who will be angry on what you pontificate. I did research discovering the self-proclaimed original gold, internet & uranium guru is not even in the top 5 of all newsletters except for finishing 4th in one category according to Hulbert Financial Digest. Maybe that is why like you say he loads up on penny stocks then does the 'pump & dump' netting himself some cash. He is not ethical. Here is link to the post detailing researched findings that Dines is a grossly exaggerating newsletter publisher.

      http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Business_%26_Finance/Investments/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_C/threadview?bn=3208&tid=27074&mid=27074

      • 2 Replies to ncgentlemanm
      • Dines authors Investment Letter of The Year 2006
        Peter Brimelow, MarketWatch
        Last Update: 7:22 PM ET Jan 1, 2007


        NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- James Dines' The Dines Letter is our Investment Letter of the Year 2006.
        Dines is probably the most arrogant, egotistical, aggressive and abrasive of all the investment letter editors monitored by the Hulbert Financial Digest.
        I have been writing nice things about Dines' work -- and he's been responding with nasty notes -- for some thirty years. (The Dines Letter started much earlier, in 1960, although I can't find a mention in his official bio of his, well, AGE).
        We select the Investment Letter of The Year according to a strict scientific principle: we ignore the Hulbert Financial Digest data and pick whoever we feel like.
        Generally, however, the letters we pick have done well. This year, Dines is fourth among the HFD top-performers, up 48% vs. the dividend-reinvested Dow Jones Wilshire 5000's 16.54%. See earlier column.
        Even more impressive, over the last ten years Dines is up 17.16% annualized, vs. 8.16% for the total-return DJ Wilshire 5000.
        Dines became famous as a successful goldbug in the 1970s. Recently, it's been looking like the conditions that originally made his reputation are returning. See November 13 column.
        But Dines held on to gold until June 1982, when it retreated from above $800 to below $300. His rationale: the stock market was going to do better. And he was right, although gold did rebound to above $500. Dines' impressive reinvention of himself included a greater focus on the short term, including a mid-1980s flirtation with intensive options trading that earned him triple-digit returns...for a while. He had some bad years before his current renaissance began around 1998.
        Those bad years took a toll. Dines' average portfolio appreciation since the HFD began monitoring him in 1980 is only 8.5% annualized, vs. 12.8% for the total-return Wilshire 5000. Dines has reportedly says that his long-run record would be better if the glory days of the 1960s and 70s were taken into account. But some observers dispute even that.
        Dines current subscribers probably don't care. Something is working right now, that's all they need to know.
        Dines is now working on his annual forecast issue, which will be mailed in mid-January. (He says it's too big to email). Much of his January issue is devoted to the uranium sector, which has done very well for him this year. He expects it to continue and writes:
        "A uranium leap of this magnitude, up 92% in only nine months, we thought would surely attract the attention of the world to this phenomenal bull market, but we are again amazed that it has yet to appear in America's headlines! As we have been reporting to you all the way up from $8/lb, according to the rules of Mass Psychology, this bull market's figurative 'invisibility' means that we are still early in the move! We wonder to ourselves, how high does this suggest uranium might go eventually? At $8/lb our "initial target" was an admittedly unlikely-looking $50/lb (US), but when that was achieved we posited our final target of $70/lb to $100/lb...."
        Although uranium has now reached $70/lb, Dines says:
        "The very fact that uranium has not had a single Pullback -- or even a flat Consolidation -- all the way up is astonishing for any commodity, and adds credence to our expectation at rock bottom that uranium's was to be one of the biggest bull markets in history."
        Dines also says a strong January would be a good sign for stocks -- but that the Dow Jones Industrial Average is "overbought" and that a decline could come "out of the blue." He is bullish on bullion for the short and intermediate term.

      • As a new comer let me say this.....

        First of all I looked at Dines because somebody on this message board suggested it. That doesnt mean I will follow what he says. I have gotton some questions answered on this board, but I dont go by what you say. You do send me in the right direction to do my own research.

        In the end, and please correct me if im wrong, the best money is a diversified portfolio of "funhds" or "etf's" because I have to assume the fund manager knows more than me.

        A purchase of a specific stock has to be wither (a) a proven winner; or (b) a fun gamble, and I am ok with both.

        Comments?

    • You must have some wierd fetish for Dines. I will have you know that he has made me just about a mil on the U stocks (started with 50k), so don't say he let us down.

      You oughta write your own letter since you think you are so fing smart.

      BTW, we are not daytraders, but would rather wailt a few years.

      If you are making money on ccj, good for you! However, your bashing of a newsletter writer is getting old. It would be nice if you could get a life.

    • As Yogi Berra may have said, "it ain't over 'til its over".
      It remains to be seen whether or not JD was/is correct for emphasizing "penny" stocks over established or soon to be established producers.
      In the late 70's, during the last stages of the PM boom and mania he introduced a basket of penny gold and silver stocks with the claim that even "cats and dogs" soar at the end of bull markets; and they did! Only to later crash and burn; didn't sell at the right time. The big stocks, the established producers, crashed and burned too.
      So far these drops in share prices do look like similar recent corrections in the specs, as per the technical analysis (visual) in the most recent TDL, but I would be lying if I said I've been sleeping like a baby through this "consolidation".
      Good luck to all,
      Ron

    • shut the heck up u ungrateful bastard.

 
CCJ
11.93-0.10(-0.83%)May 4 4:02 PMEDT