RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Portfolio killer "Lifeboat and I have been responding on this thread to this assertion: "Long-term, it has proven a portfolio destroyer rather than the 'cash cow' it has consistently been touted to become". Had EdinColorado said that the stock had been a short term bummer, probably neither of us would have bothered responding, but we did because "Long-term" was used.
I know these days anything longer than a few seconds can seem long term, and I also know there is no precise definition of long term, but something in the order of 5 years or longer seems most appropriate to me."
------
REALITY CHECK: Long-term of one year is the formally accepted separator of short term and long term, not "a few seconds" and not "5 years or longer." We do not need to create our own definitions or accept weird ones. This stock has lost half its value in the recent one year. Bring up the chart yourself for the recent year. That is REALITY. That performance surely qualifies as disappointing to me. Why try to use sophistry to pressure anyone that they should state or feel otherwise?
That doesn't mean that it might not be a good investment buy now, but for the past year it indeed has been "a portfolio destroyer." Only if your portfolio consisted mainly of worse performers than RHT could this not be true. Just be real.