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 (12650)	3/2/2001 1:15:50 AM
From: Kirk ©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

35M shares of QQQ traded on AUgust 3, 2000 lets use the price of $84 where Bob stopped out. That is $35M x $84 = $2,940M or 2.94B Lets say Bob had 60,000 subscribers at that time and they accounted for the total QQQ volume... $2.94B / 60,000 = $49,000 That number is pretty big. I bet the participation was more like 1000 people with maybe one to ten thousand bucks as the average play. A drop in the buck compared to total dollars traded that day. When he says "I move the markets", he is joking and some take it too seriously. Now if you talk about a microcap like UTEK, I think the evidence is VERY strong that his buy signal held that stock up while the rest of the sector was crashing and pros were shorting shares and cleaning up on unsuspecting subscribers. I remember Don Lane going on and on about a "short squeeze" and how the shorts "would wish they'd never been born" and they laughed all the way to the bank (some of my money was in that take until I tax loss sold UTEK I paid $28 for). THAT was a good learning experience for me and the tuition was small.

To: Kirk © who wrote (12650)	3/2/2001 1:34:23 AM
From: Tim Bagwell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Kirk, You're right it was Thursday 8/3 and not Monday. But you would have to look at an intraday chart to see what I'm talking about. That much I do remember because I had a limit order to buy at 84+ at the open which executed immediately that day. I do occasionally think for myself. <g> If memory serves, the dip to 84 was off an open in the high 80's and was quickly launched upward from there. So the volume traded at 84 was nowhere near the daily volume. I don't think the drop to the high 80's in the preceding days had anything to do with Brinker. It was just that early morning activity on 8/3 as the stop-loss price was within grasp. That's just my read on it.