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: Math Junkie who wrote (12699)	3/2/2001 7:32:57 PM
From: davidk555	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 42834

The e-commerce fund Bob recommended (Ticker: TEFQX) closed at $3.91 today. Does anyone on this board (other than yours truly) still own the fund? Does anyone follow it closely and have an opinion on its future? Thanks

To: Math Junkie who wrote (12699)	3/5/2001 12:31:16 PM
From: Rillinois	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Richard Palm, Re: On January 10th you listed AMAT as an example of Bob not changing his mind in the face of changing market conditions. I then pointed out that AMAT was an example of Brinker realizing the value of large-cap members of the sector, since he recommended dollar-cost-averaging into them in the summer of 1998, and advised people against getting into them near the highs. I hardly think that this observation is an example of an erroneous fact. The challenge to find anything that I have posted as a fact that is erroneous is still out there. However, I can see where you might have been confused and I hope that this clears up any confusion. When I referenced AMAT as an example of how Bob did not change his mind in the face of changing market conditions, I was referring to the period where he rode down the chip equipment stocks in the face of the Asian crisis and the time Bob recommended AMAT on NBR. Both of these instances were examples of Bob not changing his mind in the face of changing market conditions. Your observation that Bob recommended DCAing into them in the summer of 1998 is true, but this only came after he was riding them all the way down. He did not change his mind in the face of changing market conditions, he continued to recommend them after being wrong all the way down. To give Bob credit for the DCA call in the summer of 1998, would be like giving Bob credit for DCAing into the QQQ's at this point in time after he has been riding them down from 83. Re: Because no one is infallible. If people accept statements from people they believe to be credible without thinking for themselves and comparing the asserted facts to what they have been able to learn elsewhere, then they run the risk that this could be the time that their "credible" source turns out to be wrong. "Credible" does not equal "infallible." Well, we might just have a fundamental difference of opinion on this one. Are you saying that no one has solid credibility because no one is infallible? Of course credible doesn't mean infallible, but it does mean they offer reasonable grounds for being believed. Do you trust no one? Do you trust the airplane mechanic that inspects the plane before you take off? Do you trust the mechanic that inspects your brakes? Sometimes you have to place your trust in people you believe to be credible. Once, people start showing that their arguments/statements are based on misinformation they begin to lose credibility. Best Regards. Rillinois