Well, "peanut butter," are you saying that the lucky ones are the ones who didn't actually follow Bob Brinker's instructions? Sure sounds that way.
Honeytres, I don't think it's a matter of "luck". I think it's a matter of using one's head and retirees, most of all, should be cautious and not go overboard. Most of us know that. And when we do make a mistake as we all do, we take our knocks even if it hurts and move on and don't spend six years blaming someone else, even if that someone else is all too easy to blame.
You seem to ignore the point that who did or did not take the 2000-QQQQ buy recommendation is totally irrelevant! The revelant point is that Brinker EXPECTED and ADVISED them to do.
How could you say I've "ignored" it. I have said many times that it was a sorry mistake on Brinker's part, bad call, badly handled, I think people have said. I agree. Yes, Brinker sent out the bulletin, that would indicate that he believed and expected that some people would follow the advice. I think the way he put it was "those interested". I don't believe any goon squads were sent out to enforce it as an act of law. I think he expected and believed that people should follow the guidelines. Sounds like he might have been mistaken about that too. And I don't think for a minute who did or didn't "take the 2000_QQQ buy recommendation" is "irrelevant." But I think what's more relevant is who followed the guidelines and who overextended themselves and misjudged their own tolerance levels, as Prescott apparently did.
How arrogant of you to assume that you have a clue how much prescott's retirement was ruined. I'd bet an ice tea and yogurt that it didn't "ruin" yours.
How arrogant of you to assume so. But you're entitled to your opinion, as long as you acknowledge it's just an opinion.
This is the fifth of the five posts I'm allowed for today, so have a nice evening!
|
