lifeisgood said:
<<Yes, Brinker did have a stop loss on his earlier QQQQ buy which, if memory serves me correctly, was around 84, and was hit, causing Brinker's buyers to sell at a loss. The QQQQ promptly shot up afterwards, thereby causing consternation among the Brinker crowd.
This likely explains the absence of a subsequent stop loss target on Brinker's "act immediately" recommendation>>
--I agree that is "likely" what caused the absence of a stop-loss on the later QQQ trade.
However, you should have told people that the 84 stop-loss was hit in the middle of the day, and only lasted a very short time before the Qs turned around and went back up.
I doubt if many followers of the trade were able to get out, which was a good thing for them. A friend of mine who bought the Qs on the radio recommendation had no idea the 84 target was hit (he was busy at work). By the end of the day they were up quite a bit and he simply held on, cashing out later at around 100.
So, once again, it wasn't the disaster that the bashers would like it to have been. Not to mention that those who may have actually sold at 84 ended up breaking about even.
<< (which wasn't "up to 30% of cash reserves" as posted previously. It was "up to 50%.")>>
--Right. If we are going to "correct" other posters, we should name names and post numbers, imo. Otherwise, no one knows who we are talking about, or whether the original poster was actually wrong, or if maybe you misread the original comment that you are "correcting." |
