Bob Brinker, Moneytalk and Marketimer Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Bob Brinker, Moneytalk and Marketimer

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

From: InvesTing	10/15/2007 1:59:57 PM
	Read Replies (1) of 2121

It is beyond funny to watch such gymnastics as the Brinker shills use to make his handling of the QQQ debacle look less dishonest than it was and continues to be. They would have you believe it was simply a bad call and says nothing about the character of the man making it at all. To hear them tell it should have no impact on following the guy who gave the initial bulletin and then had a bizzare 'reset' of the recommendation in early 2001 only to morph the trade in with another group of QQQs put in each portfolio in 2003. He never closed out the 80$$ qqqs for up to 1/3 of a portfolio but yet he pretends to never have made the call in his advertising and his weekly self promoting claims on his infomercial. Now some of these people who alibi for Brinker and claim that he is a great advisor who simply had a bad day--claim that they knew so much more than Brinker does about trading that any simpleton should have closed out the trade and not lost any significant money. Isn't it odd that these brilliant people who knew just what to do and are light years above Bob Brinker in trading acumen, tout the guy and reading their posts it seems clearly they would rather cover up anything negative concerning the guy. The only reason I can see for such a whitewash from a very few of these individuals is that they would hope that what they say would help Brinker sell a few subscriptions. Some things to remember. 1) This call was for up to 1/3 of a portfolio SEVEN YEARS AGO and is STILL OPEN. 2) This call has NEVER BEEN CLOSED OUT--but IS NOT DISCUSSED. How honest is an advisor who would do such a thing? How honest is a poster who would gloss this over and pretend it does not go to the heart of the character of the advisor? 3) As Kirk noted Brinker claimed to be a trader. He indeed stated the way you make money in a bear market is to play the countertrend rallies. He touted his "formula trades" and he touted his "Intel trading stock" jive. 4) During the summer of 2000 on the radio and on Bob Brinker's website he took listeners and subscribers into a new "church of trading" where he was the minister of trading. He claimed to be able to spot 20% moves in 2-4 months and give the info out to his followers. All at the same time he was claiming to be a B2B expert. On his website, you had long retired folks BETTING ALONG WITH BOB, almost a daytrader mania rather than a sober bearish stance that Bob Brinker would have you believe these days. The old folks on his site were busy typing about their trading and their B2B buys that day. What is similar and most telling is the way Bob Brinker handled his B2B fiasco is very similar to his handling of the QQQs. He touted the TEFQX fund in his newsletter and then after it fell about 80% dropped it from discussion and never mentioned it again. Similarly after clouding the newsletter with 25.00 QQQs you never heard about the ACT IMMEDIATELY trade again. As an advisor in a bear market, Brinker seemed about as focused as a kid in a candy store with ADD. He simply hid the stuff that didn't work and today would have you believe he was in cash waiting for the next bull market. Why would that not bother anyone? Why would that not be important in determining whether to follow his advice? 5) Brinker held the QQQs all the way down to 19 bucks and change. If someone alibing for this guy took his advice and got out with a small loss why would they not think that Bob Brinker is the dumbest trader the world has ever seen rather than trying to absolve him of blame and hide the topic? Yet all of these smart traders (unaudited and I have caught one of these telling several different stories about what he did with the QQQs on the boards while posting such to absolve Bob Brinker of blame) who were much better than Bob Brinker, want you to "move on" and not even think about the deception. They call it a single "mistake". 6) Perhaps the most laughable of all was the alibi from someone who said that the Act Immediately Bulletin was only "For those interested". LOL, now that is funny I don't care who you are--let's examine that. a) Brinker has been touting his trading acumen on the radio and in the newsletter for months. He blamed his lack of success in the summer radio trade on trying to handle the trade on the radio. On his site many of the goobers believed that and were begging him to give them another trade just for subscribers (CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR). Now remember the posters at Brinker's site were in large measure older people-many retired who thought themselves smart conservative investors but in many instances were simply mind numbed robots waiting for Bob Brinker to tell them what to think and what to do to get rich. They along with Brinker and all the day traders had ridden the bull market and they were ready to follow Bob in "this here trading deal". So "those interested" would only include those who wanted to make "20% OR MORE GAINS IN TWO TO FOUR MONTHS". Notice in that bulletin that there was no discussion at all of suitability? There was as discussed no price. There was no date. There was no mention of RISK at all. There was a clear insinuation that the trade was for all types of subscribers. Do you know of any category of subscribers beyond Aggressive and Conservative? He gave specific ranges of an entire portfolio to use on this trade for both conservative and aggressive investors. Now Brinker had to know because he ran the website where they were posting, that in many cases these were old people and had absolutely no experience trading and should have known they had no business trading. Yet here he was sending a very shoddily written piece of advice lacking clear prices or dates, risk discussion, suitability discussion or stops, yet urging subscribers to"ACT IMMEDIATELY" with 12-33% of an entire stock market portfolio monies. It's amusing to hear the same person who thought the bulletin was absolved of blame because in one line it read "For those interested" (like writing "For those interested here are the lotto numbers of today's Megabucks Act Immediately") seems to be claiming this whole deal made sense and what really would have screwed it up was a stop loss in that bulletin. LOL now that's funny, I don't care who you are. Perhaps someone has a copy of the text from 7 years ago that will show just how silly it is to absolve Brinker of any blame with the "for those interested" after reading the wording. How much worse would any stop loss have made this biggest trade ever of Brinkers? He held the damn things down to 19? Wouldn't ANY STOP have been wiser than following Babblin Bob's QQQs ALL THE WAY DOWN? Btw the avg daily volume of the QQQQs in this certainly not heavy trading period is 105 million shares. Keep in mind that the underlying stocks have huge capitization and are also traded in millions of shares daily. Do you really think Brinker's stop loss to subscribers would be even a fart in the wind of the trading of this index? How silly. ' And of course to not have been harmed badly by this call would have required one to sell the recommended amount in Jan 2000 and to have bought the recommended amount (ODDLY ENOUGH ONE OF HIS LARGEST ADDITIONS WERE QQQQS) in March 2003. I notice a poster claimed that they would have had great faith in Brinker in October after his January call--what faith would they have had in the bozo telling them to buy more QQQQs in 2003 at 25 bucks when they were still holding on his advice those they bought at 80 something. Now this may be the way you all like to invest and spin the shoddy and incompetent work to a "no problem mon, just buy a newsletter and hang on" mantra, but I think most people want honesty first and foremost in a financial advisor. Btw Math--don't you find it worthy of noting how "odd" Queen finds this stuff?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next