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: Tim Bagwell who wrote (12450)	2/27/2001 4:14:36 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

How in the world does Brinker's failure become his subscribers fault? How does one continue to excuse his problems by saying that others were stupid to believe him? In retrospect, I agree that his subscribers were idiots to believe in Bob's trading ability. He had virtually no record and what there was is not good. That is now unquestioned. However, how does that give Bob a free pass on HIS bad calls? Isn't the most logical conclusion that Bob Brinker has no better handle on this market (and much less than others) than anyone else? If you are a good trader, and only the good ones should have participated in the first place I agree with that. Unfortunately Bob doesn't. He recommended this trade for his conservative investors as well. You should take that point up with Bob because it is an arguable point. Bob's call on the long term bear market was correct. That was the single-most important call of all because it gave you the opportunity to cash out at a good price. Actually it was early and by quite a sizeable % for the NAS but it was in the right direction and he had good company on that call. I suspect that those who heard all the laudatory comments on the radio and who subscribed just in time for the October bulletin may be feeling quite differently. I still don't see what a fundamental call like that has to do with a short term trade. If you believe in Bob's short term calls, why not make an argument about it based on the facts and not just on faith? Calling other posters crybabies doesn't move this discussion forward at all.

To: Tim Bagwell who wrote (12450)	2/27/2001 4:37:36 PM
From: sat2000	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

After all the problems Bob has had over the past year I have come to realize something. Brinker followers have a great deal in common with smokers. Everyone knows it is bad for you but still there are naive people out there that just can't help themselves:)

To: Tim Bagwell who wrote (12450)	2/27/2001 7:50:03 PM
From: Diamond Jim	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

"This site has become a favorite wailing wall for crybabies who can't accept their own failure." Nobody forces you to come here. Seems like you are having a hard time accepting reality. Did you ever stop to think that maybe this is a place one can come to and not be censored? "immediately" = 83, <50, should people be allowed to be unhappy about it? When bob makes good calls...are the posts praising him censored? are the callers sucking up to him screened out? do you tire of that behavior or do you just get in line and pucker up too? jim

To: Tim Bagwell who wrote (12450)	2/28/2001 1:05:10 AM
From: lightwave51	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42834

<< I believe, that is the primary reason that he decided to change the format of the program and to never discuss short term trades on the air.>> It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact the QQQ is not in the 90's but is now 49.

To: Tim Bagwell who wrote (12450)	2/28/2001 5:21:55 AM
From: J. W. Schneider	Respond to of 42834

WRITE ON< TIM JWS

To: Tim Bagwell who wrote (12450)	2/28/2001 5:47:25 PM
From: Math Junkie	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42834

*Re: "accept your failure and move on."* Good advice. In January of 2000, I made sure I understood and agreed with the reasoning before taking action. That decision worked out well. In October I didn't do that. I had a bad feeling about it, but I went ahead anyway. Why? Because I let my greed get the better of me. It's a good illustration of that old Wall Street adage: "Bulls make money, and bears make money, but pigs get slaughtered." Actually, I am far from having been slaughtered, although I would obviously be better off if I hadn't followed the October recommendation. Last Friday I built a spreadsheet to make it easy to update my results since January of 2000. The result is that, based on today's closing prices, the half of my portfolio allocated to equities is about 14% better off than it would have been with buy-and-hold. And that's AFTER taxes. Furthermore, I have a nice chunk of cash to scoop up bargains when the time comes. So that may explain something about why I am not as willing as some to say that Bob Brinker is The Devil Incarnate. As for why Brinker stumbled, I suspect that the experience of picking a major top within three months and 5%, as well as the experience of getting in so near a bottom in May, may have made him overconfident. It's also true that he has made reference in past years to using various stocks as "trading stocks," so we know that he has done trading in the past, presumably successfully. It would not take a great leap of faith to believe that the techniques he used for short term trading worked well during the bull market, but not in the bear market. The lesson I draw from all of this is that I need to make sure that I understand and agree with the reasoning behind anyone's recommendation before acting on it. It also underscores the need to remain clear about the strengths and weaknesses of any advisor I might follow.

To: Tim Bagwell who wrote (12450)	3/1/2001 7:21:35 PM
From: Rillinois	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 42834

Tim Bagwell, Re: If you are a good trader, and only the good ones should have participated in the first place,... If you are good trader, why do you need Bob Brinker to tell you when to buy QQQ's???? Besides, Bob recommended this trade in his newsletter to aggressive and conservative investors, and the last time I checked Marketimer's target market is not sophisticated traders. Re: The second CTR has been a disaster but you must consider the exogenous events which did have an effect whether you want to admit it or not. More reason why you should check your ego at the door when you are trading. Exogenous events occur all the time. It's these unexpected events and how people react to them that make markets move up and down. Why didn't Bob recognize the exogenous events and cut his losses? Ego. And because he didn't cut his losses, now he has bigger losses and less credibility. Best Regards. Rillinois

To: Tim Bagwell who wrote (12450)	3/1/2001 9:41:23 PM
From: Rillinois	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Tim Bagwell and all, Re: Bob's call on the long term bear market was correct.........The second CTR has been a disaster but you must consider the exogenous events which did have an effect.... Can you, or anyone else, please explain to me how Bob can get credit for exogenous events taking the market down, but not be held responsible for exogenous events screwing up his QQQ trade? And to Tim, Re: Granted, he got whipsawed at 84 but this was not completely his fault... Why not? Talk about crybabies... Re: ...the marketmakers took advantage of his call. So now he's the victim of the mean marketmakers.... Best Regards. Rillinois