>Why is $56 good now when it wasn't back when you sold half? <
Easy, because my risk in the stock is zero. And I have the discipline that most "investors" lack. You see, risk and discipline are traits speculators don't understand or have. Do you not know what your target price is when you enter a trade? Do you get greedy after a quick run up and keep holding like the so called investors did in the late 90's? The only thing that had changed about JOE when I sold my first 50% was the people that are always late to the game that come in after my shares run up and buy the shares I sell. I've made my money on them by being ahead of the curve and spotting opportunities before they happen like I did with JOE. I showed the post as proof.
Let's just use 1000 shares for round numbers. Cost was $28,000. Now, I sold 500 shares @ $56 netting $28,000 or my original investment. And now have another 500 shares worth approximately another $28,000. If it go's to zero how much money did I lose? Right! Nothing! That is a risk I am willing to take since I was buying back when Whitman owned less than 10% of the company, and many, many players that are much, much smarter than me have accumulated quite large positions as well. And if it doubles again and I sell another 50%, how much did I make? And how much will still own?
Ask Baby Crib Pillager if he can calculate that out. Due to the new screen names today I must have really struck a nerve of his. He, or whoever made those posts obviously has a lot of emotion about this stock and investing. A character trait that only people that lose in the market have.
This might not be the best investment strategy in the world, but it has allows me to live in a fashion that 20 years ago I could have never dreamed of. Understanding risk and having a plan and sticking to it. Very hard for most.
Happy Investing! You too Baby Crib. And pillage from me? Never happen son, but thanks for the thought anyway.
>>>And now have another 500 shares worth approximately another $28,000. If it go's to zero how much money did I lose? Right! Nothing!<<<
Well, first of all, you didn't explain why $56 now is better than the old $56 when you sold. Instead, you explained how money you didn't "earn" is not at risk.
To answer your question above...you'd lose $28,000 if the pps went to zero. I'm not trying to criticize your investment style -- to each his own. But, I'm usually upset if I give something back if I didn't have to and I'd never act like my investment gains were "house money." But, again, it's your way of doing things.
So, any thoughts on why JOE is more valuable coming out of a unique "bubble" situation over 2003-05 than it was going into it? What gives you comfort that the pps doesn't fall over the next year?