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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Bob Brinker: Market Savant & Radio Host -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kirk © who wrote (12353)	2/23/2001 10:14:04 PM
From: geode00	Respond to of 42834

What I find interesting is how the S&P500 has stayed pretty much between Bob's +5/-20% window. It would be VERY impressive if it were not for his recomendation to buy TEFQX in Jan. & Feb. 2000 and QQQ in Oct 2000. Yep, if he had just left well enough alone he woulda looked like a genius. Was it really for the subscriptions, was it for the fun, was it just for kicks? Will anyone ever know what those market internals did that failed so miserably? I would also add the holds on everything and the sell on UTEK. Especially in light of the general picture of the market and the specific picture on UTEK. It's a pretty amazing argument for being consistent through and through.

To: Kirk © who wrote (12353)	2/24/2001 12:54:13 PM
From: Investor2	Respond to of 42834

Thanks for the update. RE: "It would be VERY impressive if it were not for his recomendation to buy TEFQX in Jan. & Feb. 2000 and QQQ in Oct 2000." Agreed. Best wishes, I2

To: Kirk © who wrote (12353)	2/24/2001 1:34:21 PM
From: Mr. BSL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Kirk Re: What I find interesting is how the S&P500 has stayed pretty much between Bob's +5/-20% window. It would be VERY impressive if it were not for his recommendation to buy TEFQX in Jan. & Feb. 2000 and QQQ in Oct 2000. If it wasn't for the 60/40 foolishness, and the other foolishness that you cited, you could give me credit for trying. After all, his publication is called Market-Timer and he always advocated going to cash (or totally hedging) if his model ever went bearish. Bottom line is that he couldn't follow his own model and sit in cash without getting an itchy buy finger. Not that he has a great model (he may), or that he even has a model (who knows). Marty Zweig says that the biggest mistake he ever made was not following his own indicators once. Elaine G says the same thing concerning the mutual fund she ran in 1988 and 1989. Models are suppose to be soulless barometers that take the emotion out of investing. Why have them if you don't use them? You are much too kind to Brinker Kirk. <g> Dick

To: Kirk © who wrote (12353)	2/24/2001 2:13:25 PM
From: Boca_PETE	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42834

Kirk RE: "Interesting how the S&P500 has stayed pretty much between Bob's +5/-20% window" When you describe "Bob's window", why do you leave out the words "or more" from after the "-20%" ? As I remember, he said +5% / -20% or more" (as in Bear Market Definition - "20% or more", maybe - 25%, -30%, -35%, -45%...). Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seams to me something major is left out of the meaning when you omit "or more". Also, basis prior programs and newsletters, I do not think he believes MOABO will arrive until sometime within the time frame of 4Q-2001 and 4Q-2002. While there may be an interlude of "maybe it's over", that sounds like the third leg down of this bear market is still ahead. From the descriptions of the "capitulation stage" (third leg down), that experience could be worse than what we've been experiencing since mid September. So when you say you find it interesting that the S&P500 has not declined over 20%, maybe it will have declined much more than that during the "capitulation stage" to come. P