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: Boca_PETE who wrote (13655)	4/12/2001 11:48:08 AM
From: Kirk ©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Pete, the fact that another viewer question was posed between mine and Kangas asking Brinker to clarify a recommendation from his last appearance to buy UTEK at $29.... You seem to be related to Clinton so I won't waste any more time on you trying to extract a retraction. Your credibility is gone. My opinion of you has not improved either. You have the transcript and there was no mention of UTEK anywhere near my name.

To: Boca_PETE who wrote (13655)	4/13/2001 12:12:26 AM
From: Math Junkie	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 42834

As uncomfortable as this discussion obviously has been for the participants, I am glad to see some of the true facts out in the open. It is easy to let our suspicions of each other lead us to jump to conclusions, just as people let their suspicions of Brinker lead them to jump to conclusions. I think we can assume that when the BJ Group was setting up the UTEK 401(k) program, company management must have talked about what a great company they had, what great new products they had coming along, and why these products had a great future. The UTEK recommendation came out in the July, 1997 newsletter, in the midst of a decade of unprecedented expansion for the sector. Perhaps Brinker was impressed enough with their enthusiasm and the fundamental story in the sector that he neglected to consider the appearance of a conflict of interest. Now, is that the better explanation, or was there a quid pro quo? We'll probably never know, but it is just way too cynical in my book to just assume the worst in the absence of actual evidence. BTW, thanks for pointing out that DOW forecast. The S&P went up another 13% in the following eight months, but considering that this was pretty much in line with the performance of the preceding years, I don't think it would qualify as the market "skyrocketing." It would seem that Brinker's prognostications relative to the Dow and the S&P have been profitable from 1991 to the present, and he only got in trouble when he started dabbling in timing the NASDAQ.