Although I love me some election, my political junkieness can only take me so far. And when I look at current seat projections, I am dismayed. My best sources lead me to predict the following come October 15.
131 Conservatives
90 Liberals
47 Bloc Quebecois
38 New Democrats
2 Independents
In case you are wondering, here's how things stood when Stephen Harper dissolved Parliament, some say in direct contravention of the fixed election date law he championed:
127 Conservatives
95 Liberals
48 Bloc Quebecois
30 New Democrats
4 Independents
4 Vacant
The only guys to suffer a real blow due to the election will be the dust bunnies on the vacant chairs. They never even had a chance. Their campaign funding just wasn't on par with the big boys.
This election is going to cost how much money and take up five weeks of time just so a couple of white guys could have a pissing contest, fling puffin poop, and call each other names. Instead of utilizing ad hominem attacks, they should have been in the House, working together, and guiding this country through one of the worst financial crises in a generation.
The lack of consensus based, issues driven governing that occurs in North American politics is appalling and almost makes me want to abandon my self appointed political junkiehood. But it gives me such a fine high, I just can't fathom it further.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Nuclear energy
Below is an article from the Peace River Record Gazette, and below that, my response to the reporter.
Re: German doctor diagnoses-proposed plant deadly
I'm not yet sure how I feel about nuclear power coming to Peace River. When dealing with a contentious issue, emotion is sure to be involved, so having straight facts to consider is certainly helpful. I thought I'd check out the article on Dr. Iskenius's presentation last week. I found what was presented interesting, but I decided to go to the source: the study from the German government cited in the article. Now first let me explain that I believe the studies that are out there warrant concern for residents of both Peace River and Grimshaw (which is closer to the proposed location of the nuclear plant). One study, Childhood Leukemia in the Vicinity of the Geesthacht Nuclear Establishments near Hamburg, Germany, Environ Health Perspect. 2007 June; 115(6): 947–952, showed that the cases of childhood leukemia within 5 km of a nuclear plant in the studied location were 3.5 times more likely. And even though that only represents 11 more cases of childhood leukemia, I would say that is 11 too many. However, because of the obscure mathematics of epidemiological statistics, the true value is likely not 3.5 but lies somewhere between 1.9 and 5.9. So cases could be anywhere from 2 times to 6 times more likely. Another study published in the European Journal of Cancer Care, issue 16, pages 355-363, entitled "Meta-analysis of standardized incidence and mortality rates of childhood leukemia in proximity to nuclear facilities" combined data from all the research that had been done on the issue to date and came up with some conclusions in the same direction as those mentioned by Dr. Iskenius, but less significant. The largest risk increase was in children age 0-9 living less than 16 km from the facility, but it was 1.23, and the lower confidence interval was 1.04, with the upper interval reaching 1.46. This is entirely outside of the confidence interval of the previous study, but it has more weight because it combined results from numerous studies, which allows it to congene somewhere closer to the true value. Having said that, this risk increase was in mortality rates, so it must again be stated that any increase in deaths of children caused by an energy source that may or may not be necessary is certainly alarming. The study did find increases in the incidence of leukemia in children 0-9 living within 16km of the facility, but the result was not statistically significant, meaning we cannot be entirely certain it was not due to chance. So, clearly, there is something to be concerned about.
However, I believe that a couple of the statements attributed to Dr. Iskenius in the Record Gazette article are either false or in the least, misleading.
The article states that the research Dr. Iskenius presented (it must be stated that Dr. Iskenius was not involved in the conducting of this research, nor is he listed as a coauthor) even showed increased risks when the effects of each nuclear plant studied were removed one by one. In fact, he is quoted as saying "We found the very same results in all of them". This is not true. The original research article, published in the International Journal of Cancer in 2008, issue 1220, pages 721-726, shows that when the effects of one particular plant are removed the lower confidence interval of the correlation drops down to 0.14, drawing close to 0 which would suggest no impact. However, Krummel itself is cause for concern because there has been a well publicized increase in childhood leukemia cases there since 1990. Finally, Dr. Iskenius, or at least the Record Gazette article about Dr. Iskenius states that "The study also observed children downwind from the plants, up to 50 kilometres, and found similar results." That again is not entirely true. The odds ratio for all leukemias in children living within 5 km of a nuclear plant was found to be 1.76, meaning they had 1.76 times the odds of developing leukemia compared to the control group, children living more than 70 kilometres from a nuclear plant. When you move further away to be 5 to less than 10 km away, the odds ratio is 1.26. For those living 50 to less than 70 km away from the plant, the odds ratio is 1.03 and not significant, meaning there is no statistical proof that they have any higher odds of developing leukemia than those living more than 70km away. As the odds ratio steadily declined the further one got from the nuclear plant, I'm not sure how Dr. Iskenius is justified in stating that the study found similar results in children living downwind from the plants. Peace River falls roughly 40 km from Lac Cardinal, meaning that the figures quoted in the paper (120% more likely to develop leukemia, and 60% more likely to develop other forms of cancer) cannot necessarily be extrapolated to our situation. Grimshaw would be of somewhat greater concern given its proximity to the proposed plant, but it still falls outside of the most dangerous range that has shown up in studies.
Having said all this, I wish not to argue in favor or against nuclear power. I simply do not know enough about the pros and cons to make a reasoned stance (and in case you're wondering, I do have 2 young children). Let us not forget too that Alberta's main means of producing energy, oil sands, is not exactly spic and span on the environmental or health front. A Fort MacMurray physician reported in 2006 that he felt that leukemia, lymphomas, lupus, and autoimmune diseases were abnormally high in Fort Chipewyan, a fact he attributed to oil sands production. The oil sands use more water every year than the entire city of Calgary. They are the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. So maybe we just need to forgot about environmentally damaging and health-risking energy sources and focus on longer term goals, like reducing our energy requirements by using less in the first place, and expanding the use of renewable energy sources.
All I know for sure is that when dealing with as complex an issue as nuclear energy, one needs to have a proper foundation on which to base his/her stance. So don't take things at face value. Take the time to investigate for yourself. Because at the end of the day, if a position is based on false pretenses, it is that much harder to defend.
Sincerely,
Tony Nickonchuk
Peace River, AB
German doctor diagnoses — proposed plant deadly
Posted 1 day ago
| |
By Curtis Haugan
The closer you live to a nuclear power plant, the more likely your children will get cancer.
That at least is what German pediatrician Dr. Ernst Iskenius is saying after the release of a 2007 study by the German government.
Iskenius, a member of the international organization Physicians Against Nuclear War, has traveled from Germany to Regina, Whitecourt and Peace River, speaking on the findings of the study and warning community members of the impending risk a nuclear plant would facilitate.
The report found that during the years of 1980 to 2003, children under the age of five, living close to a nuclear power plant were 120 per cent more likely to develop Leukemia, and 60 per cent more likely to develop other forms of cancer.
“They found there was a significant risk to get cancer,” said Iskenius.
“And the nearer you lived, the higher the risk.”
The report was funded by the German Federal Radiation Protection Agency (BfS) – the government’s main advisor on nuclear health, and was conducted by the German Register of Child Cancer – a branch of the Federal German Health Ministry.
The several doctors involved in administrating the four-year study were a mixture of those against nuclear plants, and those who were proponents according to Iskenius.
Because of that, and the fact 16 nuclear power plants – one in each of the 16 German states – were analysed, Inskenius said the world has never seen a study like this.
“It is an extraordinary study,” he said.
“The results were quite different than (the government) expected.
“They expected no evidence like they did in prior studies, but what they found was they took all 16 plants and found there was a significant risk to get cancer (in children).”
The study also observed children downwind from the plants, up to 50 kilometres, and found similar results.
Despite the findings, there is still uncertainty within Germany.
The emissions, according to BfS, that are emitted from the nuclear plants are far too weak to cause cancer, but other conceivable factors could not explain the heightening of the risk across distance.
German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said he would call for additional research to explain the increased number of child cancer cases in August of 2008.
He, like much of the scientific community is perplexed by the findings, as the radiation levels are regulated rigorously.
“The population’s radiation exposure due to the operation of a nuclear power plants in Germany would have to be at least 1,000 times higher to be able to explain the observed increase in cancer,” he said.
Dr. Iskenius said a common argument is perhaps one or two plants are the ones making the problems.
However, the way the study was conducted – a closed control study where, by process of elimination, all factors are isolated from on another – in all 16 plants individually, the same results were found.
“We found the very same results in all of them,” he said.
“And this is amazing.
“There must be something in nuclear power plants coming out of them, not in one or two or three, but all of them that is causing this.”
Iskenius spoke to Peace Riverites Thursday Oct. 2, hoping to inform members of our community to lobby government to reconsider allowing a proposed nuclear reactor be built near Lac Cardinal, north of Peace River.
“If this nuclear plant is too dangerous and there is a risk for all children then we either accept these things as very dangerous or we higher the standards,” he said.
“On the international level we are fighting to shut down all of these installations because the risk is too great.”
Re: German doctor diagnoses-proposed plant deadly
I'm not yet sure how I feel about nuclear power coming to Peace River. When dealing with a contentious issue, emotion is sure to be involved, so having straight facts to consider is certainly helpful. I thought I'd check out the article on Dr. Iskenius's presentation last week. I found what was presented interesting, but I decided to go to the source: the study from the German government cited in the article. Now first let me explain that I believe the studies that are out there warrant concern for residents of both Peace River and Grimshaw (which is closer to the proposed location of the nuclear plant). One study, Childhood Leukemia in the Vicinity of the Geesthacht Nuclear Establishments near Hamburg, Germany, Environ Health Perspect. 2007 June; 115(6): 947–952, showed that the cases of childhood leukemia within 5 km of a nuclear plant in the studied location were 3.5 times more likely. And even though that only represents 11 more cases of childhood leukemia, I would say that is 11 too many. However, because of the obscure mathematics of epidemiological statistics, the true value is likely not 3.5 but lies somewhere between 1.9 and 5.9. So cases could be anywhere from 2 times to 6 times more likely. Another study published in the European Journal of Cancer Care, issue 16, pages 355-363, entitled "Meta-analysis of standardized incidence and mortality rates of childhood leukemia in proximity to nuclear facilities" combined data from all the research that had been done on the issue to date and came up with some conclusions in the same direction as those mentioned by Dr. Iskenius, but less significant. The largest risk increase was in children age 0-9 living less than 16 km from the facility, but it was 1.23, and the lower confidence interval was 1.04, with the upper interval reaching 1.46. This is entirely outside of the confidence interval of the previous study, but it has more weight because it combined results from numerous studies, which allows it to congene somewhere closer to the true value. Having said that, this risk increase was in mortality rates, so it must again be stated that any increase in deaths of children caused by an energy source that may or may not be necessary is certainly alarming. The study did find increases in the incidence of leukemia in children 0-9 living within 16km of the facility, but the result was not statistically significant, meaning we cannot be entirely certain it was not due to chance. So, clearly, there is something to be concerned about.
However, I believe that a couple of the statements attributed to Dr. Iskenius in the Record Gazette article are either false or in the least, misleading.
The article states that the research Dr. Iskenius presented (it must be stated that Dr. Iskenius was not involved in the conducting of this research, nor is he listed as a coauthor) even showed increased risks when the effects of each nuclear plant studied were removed one by one. In fact, he is quoted as saying "We found the very same results in all of them". This is not true. The original research article, published in the International Journal of Cancer in 2008, issue 1220, pages 721-726, shows that when the effects of one particular plant are removed the lower confidence interval of the correlation drops down to 0.14, drawing close to 0 which would suggest no impact. However, Krummel itself is cause for concern because there has been a well publicized increase in childhood leukemia cases there since 1990. Finally, Dr. Iskenius, or at least the Record Gazette article about Dr. Iskenius states that "The study also observed children downwind from the plants, up to 50 kilometres, and found similar results." That again is not entirely true. The odds ratio for all leukemias in children living within 5 km of a nuclear plant was found to be 1.76, meaning they had 1.76 times the odds of developing leukemia compared to the control group, children living more than 70 kilometres from a nuclear plant. When you move further away to be 5 to less than 10 km away, the odds ratio is 1.26. For those living 50 to less than 70 km away from the plant, the odds ratio is 1.03 and not significant, meaning there is no statistical proof that they have any higher odds of developing leukemia than those living more than 70km away. As the odds ratio steadily declined the further one got from the nuclear plant, I'm not sure how Dr. Iskenius is justified in stating that the study found similar results in children living downwind from the plants. Peace River falls roughly 40 km from Lac Cardinal, meaning that the figures quoted in the paper (120% more likely to develop leukemia, and 60% more likely to develop other forms of cancer) cannot necessarily be extrapolated to our situation. Grimshaw would be of somewhat greater concern given its proximity to the proposed plant, but it still falls outside of the most dangerous range that has shown up in studies.
Having said all this, I wish not to argue in favor or against nuclear power. I simply do not know enough about the pros and cons to make a reasoned stance (and in case you're wondering, I do have 2 young children). Let us not forget too that Alberta's main means of producing energy, oil sands, is not exactly spic and span on the environmental or health front. A Fort MacMurray physician reported in 2006 that he felt that leukemia, lymphomas, lupus, and autoimmune diseases were abnormally high in Fort Chipewyan, a fact he attributed to oil sands production. The oil sands use more water every year than the entire city of Calgary. They are the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. So maybe we just need to forgot about environmentally damaging and health-risking energy sources and focus on longer term goals, like reducing our energy requirements by using less in the first place, and expanding the use of renewable energy sources.
All I know for sure is that when dealing with as complex an issue as nuclear energy, one needs to have a proper foundation on which to base his/her stance. So don't take things at face value. Take the time to investigate for yourself. Because at the end of the day, if a position is based on false pretenses, it is that much harder to defend.
Sincerely,
Tony Nickonchuk
Peace River, AB
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
We actually agree on something
Stephen Harper and I actually agree on something: the current turmoil in the stock market really only presents some great buying opportunities for those of us who have the time to ride out the volatility. I said previously that when stocks are low is when you should load up on bargains, but I also said that for those who were close to retirement or in retirement, that this would not be a great situation because much of their nest egg has been destroyed.
But never would I go on national television during a federal election in which I was quickly losing ground to my opponents and say the following to Peter Mansbridge, one of Canada's most respected newsanchors:
Harper: "The market will sort itself out. I suspect some good buying opportunities are opening up with some of the panic we've seen in the stock market in the last few days."
Mansbridge: "Do you really want to be heard saying that? Are you suggesting people should be buying?"
Harper: "I..I...I....just happened to attend a business luncheon where a number of businessmen said exactly the same to me. We always know that when stock markets go up people end up buying things that are overpriced and then when the stock markets go down people end up passing on a lot of things that are underpriced."
Brilliant, Steve-O! Your main opponents have been pounding away on you that you are out of touch with average Canadians, that you lack empathy and an ability to connect with the average voter, and you pull out that show stopper. Terrific. I mean, it is not that there was anything factually incorrect with what you said. In fact, for once, you were telling the truth. But, ouch, what a bad time to pull that one out.
The Liberals and NDP leaped all over that one. Stephane Dion said "Rather than acknowledging the fear and hurt being felt by Canadians, Stephen Harper said yesterday that he saw buying opportunities in the stock market. He is completely out of touch with the impact the current economic turmoil is having on the lives of everyday Canadians."
Way to dish it up on a silver platter buddy. Keep it coming! I love this stuff.
(The above quotes were taken from the audio podcast version of Politics with Don Newman on CBC. Yes, I am a nerd. I listen to this on podcast every evening.)
But never would I go on national television during a federal election in which I was quickly losing ground to my opponents and say the following to Peter Mansbridge, one of Canada's most respected newsanchors:
Harper: "The market will sort itself out. I suspect some good buying opportunities are opening up with some of the panic we've seen in the stock market in the last few days."
Mansbridge: "Do you really want to be heard saying that? Are you suggesting people should be buying?"
Harper: "I..I...I....just happened to attend a business luncheon where a number of businessmen said exactly the same to me. We always know that when stock markets go up people end up buying things that are overpriced and then when the stock markets go down people end up passing on a lot of things that are underpriced."
Brilliant, Steve-O! Your main opponents have been pounding away on you that you are out of touch with average Canadians, that you lack empathy and an ability to connect with the average voter, and you pull out that show stopper. Terrific. I mean, it is not that there was anything factually incorrect with what you said. In fact, for once, you were telling the truth. But, ouch, what a bad time to pull that one out.
The Liberals and NDP leaped all over that one. Stephane Dion said "Rather than acknowledging the fear and hurt being felt by Canadians, Stephen Harper said yesterday that he saw buying opportunities in the stock market. He is completely out of touch with the impact the current economic turmoil is having on the lives of everyday Canadians."
Way to dish it up on a silver platter buddy. Keep it coming! I love this stuff.
(The above quotes were taken from the audio podcast version of Politics with Don Newman on CBC. Yes, I am a nerd. I listen to this on podcast every evening.)
It really is that sad
I always heard the stories from parents about how impossible it is to get through Robert Munsch's classic book "I'll Love You Forever". I thought, "Can it really be that bad?"
Oh.....it's.......that.......bad.
I was sitting in the quiet room with Sacha during church last Sunday. He likes to go in there and stretch his legs a bit and play with the toys. He wanted me to read aforementioned book to him, which he shortly became bored with. I continued to read it though.
I didn't make it to the third page and already my eyes were welling up. When the kid got older, my vision started to get a little fuzzy due to the tear monsoon filling my eyes. And then they show the kid packing up his stuff into a moving van. Are you kidding me? That's like torture for a softy parent. I totally lost it. I was done, finito, kaput. A complete mess. Couldn't finish it.
Now I understand what my mother always said about that book. It makes you cry so readily, but yet, you feel drawn to read it, just to experience again and again the intangible joy of raising children. Have you had a similar experience with that book? Feel free to tell your story.
Oh.....it's.......that.......bad.
I was sitting in the quiet room with Sacha during church last Sunday. He likes to go in there and stretch his legs a bit and play with the toys. He wanted me to read aforementioned book to him, which he shortly became bored with. I continued to read it though.
I didn't make it to the third page and already my eyes were welling up. When the kid got older, my vision started to get a little fuzzy due to the tear monsoon filling my eyes. And then they show the kid packing up his stuff into a moving van. Are you kidding me? That's like torture for a softy parent. I totally lost it. I was done, finito, kaput. A complete mess. Couldn't finish it.
Now I understand what my mother always said about that book. It makes you cry so readily, but yet, you feel drawn to read it, just to experience again and again the intangible joy of raising children. Have you had a similar experience with that book? Feel free to tell your story.
Party platforms
I always find it helpful to get a point form comparison of the various party platforms in any election. You can find a good one here.
Hope it helps you make up your mind.
(I must say this is the first time since I turned 18 that I'm truly uncertain of how I will vote.)
Hope it helps you make up your mind.
(I must say this is the first time since I turned 18 that I'm truly uncertain of how I will vote.)
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
What to watch?
Oh what shall I watch tomorrow? Sarah Palin do a face plant on national television or a debate among leaders that will actually impact my vote on October 14? Although I cannot vote in the American election I do think it impacts me and watching Sarah Palin speak is funnier than a night at Yuk-Yuks. She is really clueless. Her only response when asked how her experience as governor of Alaska gave her an appreciation for foreign diplomacy was that you can see Russia from some points of Alaska. Brilliant.
I think though I'll settle for the debate. Oh wait, it's on during bedtime. Fanfreakintastic. No political junkie fix for me. Just toddler stall tactics.
But for now I can have fun with seat predictions! In the last few elections, Election Prediction Project has creamed other prediction methods and all the pollsters. In 2006, he only got 12 seats wrong! Sick. Another great one is the UBC Election Stock Market where people actually buy stocks in different party parameters and the activity in each parameter determines the prediction. They were a close second in 2006, getting only 14 seats wrong. DemocraticSpace was also excellent at only 18 seats wrong. They have a very detailed riding-by-riding projection that totally rocks. They all creamed all the pollsters, so pay no heed to the talking heads. It will be interesting to watch how the predictions unfold over the next two weeks. I will be watching the above three sites closely. I know you won't, but I can dream.
Just for funsies, here is a comparison of current predictions.
Numbers will be provided for each in following order: Election Prediction Project, UBC ESM, Democratic Space
CPC=142, 142, 142
LPC=90, 78, 82
BQ=46, 41, 47
NDP=28, 43, 35
IND=2, 4, 2
Very interesting. I will provide updates once in awhile and especially the last day before polls close. Cool. Good clean fun.
I think though I'll settle for the debate. Oh wait, it's on during bedtime. Fanfreakintastic. No political junkie fix for me. Just toddler stall tactics.
But for now I can have fun with seat predictions! In the last few elections, Election Prediction Project has creamed other prediction methods and all the pollsters. In 2006, he only got 12 seats wrong! Sick. Another great one is the UBC Election Stock Market where people actually buy stocks in different party parameters and the activity in each parameter determines the prediction. They were a close second in 2006, getting only 14 seats wrong. DemocraticSpace was also excellent at only 18 seats wrong. They have a very detailed riding-by-riding projection that totally rocks. They all creamed all the pollsters, so pay no heed to the talking heads. It will be interesting to watch how the predictions unfold over the next two weeks. I will be watching the above three sites closely. I know you won't, but I can dream.
Just for funsies, here is a comparison of current predictions.
Numbers will be provided for each in following order: Election Prediction Project, UBC ESM, Democratic Space
CPC=142, 142, 142
LPC=90, 78, 82
BQ=46, 41, 47
NDP=28, 43, 35
IND=2, 4, 2
Very interesting. I will provide updates once in awhile and especially the last day before polls close. Cool. Good clean fun.
Emotions in investing
The current volatile market has a lot of investors running scared, particularly those who are going to be needing their retirement investments soon. This article is not for those people, but for those who have the luxury of time, that being 10 years or more, before they will have to access their funds.
Right now a lot of investors are selling all their stock holdings and buying cash and bonds, "safe" investments. But let's look at a previous downturn in the stock market and see what would happen if you did the opposite: when times get rough, load up on cheap stocks and watch them climb.
As a disclaimer, I'm no expert in financial advice, I only read a lot on the subject. But if you look at the data, buying high and selling low is a surefire way to lose money. If you continue to make your regular contributions to your retirement portfolio, rebalancing your asset allocation slightly if it helps you sleep at night, you will benefit from something called dollar-cost averaging. That is if you bought 1000 shares of a stock once when it was $10 and it rose to $12 a year later, you would have made $2000. However, if you bought 500 shares once when it was $10, 500 more 6 months later when it had plummeted to $5, and then watched it rise again to $12 you would have made $4500. So even though you bought during a rough period, you benefitted. Basically if you continuously contribute to your RRSP, sometimes you'll buy high, sometimes low, but overtime you'll average out in the middle.
So let us say you bought $10000 worth of the S&P/TSX 60 Index in Mar 2001. (This index basically buys stocks in the 60 top companies in Canada by market capitalization [number of shares X cost per share]). It was selling for roughly $10 a share so you would have purchased roughly 1000 shares. September 11 rolls along and a year later it is sitting somewhere in the realm of $8 a share. You panic and sell all your shares. Congratulations, you just lost $2000.
If you did not panic and simply let your investment sit, you would be sitting with 1000 shares worth $17.97 each, a tidy gain of $7970, or a percentage increase of 79.7%. Pretty nice.
Consider the alternative. You buy $5000 worth in Mar 2001, giving you 500 shares. When it dips to its lowest point, you double your investment and buy $5000 more, giving you 625 more shares. So now, present day, you have 1125 shares at $17.97 each, for a total of $20216.25, a gain of $10 216.25, $2246.25 more than if you bought it all at the start, and a total gain of 102%! So you see, a little risk taking pays off.
Think of it this way. You normally go through 1kg of coffee every 2 weeks, so if you buy extra it's not like it will go bad on you. You regularly pay $7 for one can. Along comes a sale at your favorite local store and it is selling for $4.96. What do you do? Well, the way the economy is headed, I'd take my current can to my neighbor, sell it to him for $4.96, even though I paid $7 for it, and suffer through the epic caffeine withdrawal, waiting for it to crawl back up to $7 so I can buy another can.
Come again?
If you were a raving caffeine addict like me you'd go out and buy two cans, because you know darn well next week it will be on for $7 again. And considering you would have to purchase the coffee soon anyway, you just saved yourself $4.08.
Now of course, if I don't purchase that coffee it's not like my next 30 years of retirement are ruined, so of course the analogy is not perfect. But like I've said, if you've got time on your hands, turn the contrarian side of your cerebrum on and start loading up on the cheap stuff.
Right now a lot of investors are selling all their stock holdings and buying cash and bonds, "safe" investments. But let's look at a previous downturn in the stock market and see what would happen if you did the opposite: when times get rough, load up on cheap stocks and watch them climb.
As a disclaimer, I'm no expert in financial advice, I only read a lot on the subject. But if you look at the data, buying high and selling low is a surefire way to lose money. If you continue to make your regular contributions to your retirement portfolio, rebalancing your asset allocation slightly if it helps you sleep at night, you will benefit from something called dollar-cost averaging. That is if you bought 1000 shares of a stock once when it was $10 and it rose to $12 a year later, you would have made $2000. However, if you bought 500 shares once when it was $10, 500 more 6 months later when it had plummeted to $5, and then watched it rise again to $12 you would have made $4500. So even though you bought during a rough period, you benefitted. Basically if you continuously contribute to your RRSP, sometimes you'll buy high, sometimes low, but overtime you'll average out in the middle.
So let us say you bought $10000 worth of the S&P/TSX 60 Index in Mar 2001. (This index basically buys stocks in the 60 top companies in Canada by market capitalization [number of shares X cost per share]). It was selling for roughly $10 a share so you would have purchased roughly 1000 shares. September 11 rolls along and a year later it is sitting somewhere in the realm of $8 a share. You panic and sell all your shares. Congratulations, you just lost $2000.
If you did not panic and simply let your investment sit, you would be sitting with 1000 shares worth $17.97 each, a tidy gain of $7970, or a percentage increase of 79.7%. Pretty nice.
Consider the alternative. You buy $5000 worth in Mar 2001, giving you 500 shares. When it dips to its lowest point, you double your investment and buy $5000 more, giving you 625 more shares. So now, present day, you have 1125 shares at $17.97 each, for a total of $20216.25, a gain of $10 216.25, $2246.25 more than if you bought it all at the start, and a total gain of 102%! So you see, a little risk taking pays off.
Think of it this way. You normally go through 1kg of coffee every 2 weeks, so if you buy extra it's not like it will go bad on you. You regularly pay $7 for one can. Along comes a sale at your favorite local store and it is selling for $4.96. What do you do? Well, the way the economy is headed, I'd take my current can to my neighbor, sell it to him for $4.96, even though I paid $7 for it, and suffer through the epic caffeine withdrawal, waiting for it to crawl back up to $7 so I can buy another can.
Come again?
If you were a raving caffeine addict like me you'd go out and buy two cans, because you know darn well next week it will be on for $7 again. And considering you would have to purchase the coffee soon anyway, you just saved yourself $4.08.
Now of course, if I don't purchase that coffee it's not like my next 30 years of retirement are ruined, so of course the analogy is not perfect. But like I've said, if you've got time on your hands, turn the contrarian side of your cerebrum on and start loading up on the cheap stuff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)