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

To: queenleah who wrote (1701)	10/22/2007 11:53:43 PM
From: InvesTing	Read Replies (1) of 2121

"Yes, we can agree to disagree that the QQQ call and how people followed it or did not follow it constituted a "disaster" percentage-wise for anyone who followed the guidelines, even those who followed to the maximum, considering themselves the "most aggressive" and risk-tolerant of investors. As long as the guidelines were followed, I fail to understand how roughly 15% of portfolio is a "disaster". No one has explained that. Painful, to be sure, we agree. But "disaster"? And if I had to guess, I'd guess that those who honestly considered themselves among the most aggressive and risk-tolerant of investors are probably those who got over it the fastest." Well we can disagree on what constitues a "disaster". I would say that if your guru told folks to put 1/3 of their portfolio accumulated over a lifetime of investing into the qQQs (then rather dishonestly handled it even by Math and Dija's reckoning) it would be a disaster. If your "15% of a porfolio" is recognizing that Brinker told people 7 years ago to put 32% of their money into QQQs and today they are about half what they were at the time, I guess we just have to agree to disagree as to whether that is a disaster or not. I say it is. We know also that people went out of their way to buy the QQQs like you did and never reduced equity allocations as he had recommended. That resulted in the worst of all worlds didn't it? Now here you go trying to muddy the waters again. The following discussion was about your attempt to give Brinker credit for you making "many times the losses you incurred by not following his advice to lighten up and by following his disasterous QQQ advice(my belief is that you were just blabbering and got caught with claims that didn't add up--but it could be something else). " But you used the term "insinuation" in reference to another issue, that being my statement that I had made up my original portfolio losses many times over. I said THAT was not an "insinuation" on my part, it was a declarative statement. Now it seems you desire to apply that statement to the issue of the QQQ call and confuse the two different issues." You took issue with my very clear and accurate call that paying for Bob Brinker's newsletter was of no financial benefit to you. You took his bad advice and ignored his good advice. There is NO WAY that following anything Brinker recommended would have made up those losses as you claim "many times over". That was the "insuation" you were making and not coming clean. No one reading this forum should think that Brinker since 2003 has recommended anything that would cause you to make "many times" your losses as a subscriber of Brinker's from 2000-2003 who did what you claimed to do. Brinker has been a 'market performer" in the bull market. The market is about a double. Brinker is as well. That would mean if you were a buy and holder who bought the dumb QQQ fiasco that the best you could do is break even--not have made "many times the losses". Holding you to an honest account seems as difficult as Brinker coming clean on his QQQs. But now we know there is no way subscribing to Brinker's newsletter caused you to make "many times" your losses that you incurred while subscribing to that same letter between 2000 - 2003. I trust you are not going to deny the obvious.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next