Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Pastimes : The Justa & Lars Honors Bob Brinker Investment Club -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gary D who wrote (11132)	1/13/2000 9:35:00 PM
From: Justa Werkenstiff	Respond to of 15132

Gary: Re: "Simply that he said he cannot distinguish between a Bear and an intermediate term correction until the fall is underway. Did anyone else hear him say that, or should I be in a rubber room?<G>" Yes, I believe you heard him say that. But for this very reason, Brinker has said that he would go to cash immediately because most intermediate term corrections turn into bear markets. Also, his model is designed to predict bear markets when the markets are rising mode (retest of the highs) and he considers it a direct hit if were to make a bear market call within 5% of the top. Re "Did anyone else hear him say that, or should I be in a rubber room?<G>" We only use the finest quality rubber here <g>. You should know that by now.

To: Gary D who wrote (11132)	1/13/2000 9:58:00 PM
From: Math Junkie	Respond to of 15132

OK, I understand what you are saying. Just for the heck of it, I think I will post a prediction: I think we will see a correction, followed by a rally to the areas of the old highs, and Bob will go to 100% cash when that rally occurs. Warning: I have no track record or expertise in calling market movements!

To: Gary D who wrote (11132)	1/17/2000 8:16:00 PM
From: Gary D	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15132

I don't understand why Bob thinks it was such a terrible mistake to reappoint Greenspan before his term was up. I think Bob is right about why Clinton reappointed him now. But why is this such a bad thing? Why would it have been better to keep the Green Man guessing about reappointment? Is the thinking that 1) with that uncertainty of reappointment, he would have been more reluctant to tighten, so as to increase his chances of reappointment, and that 2) a Greenspan tightening less than he believes he should is a "better" Greenspan. I don't buy all this. There must be a better arguement than this. Anyone? I didn't hear an explanation from Bob.