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: BigShoulders who wrote (13834)	4/18/2001 10:09:12 PM
From: Kirk ©	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 42834

For someone who bought at 83 (or higher as some have said) I think they should take responsibility for the losses down to 75 1/8. Brinker can be blamed for the rest, and that's a lot. The people that called his office and got "comfortable with $86" will not be pleased with your ruling. Rememer CT#1 when he said to "wait for mid $70's to buy" and it never came back but we heard of many that bought ANYWAY at about $82 and then he helped them with his stop at $84 to make sure they went out on top? I think since so many including Brinker used the $82 price in the First CT rally... then $83 is fair in the 2nd. but that is just my opinion. Heck, he called for a CT rally of "up to 50% or more" in Jan 2001 and it only went 25% before going down to $34... I think people are so tired of it now that they don't even calculate that failed CT rally...

To: BigShoulders who wrote (13834)	4/19/2001 11:58:12 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

>>I do think that the appropriate benchmark for Brinker's CTR 2 call is 75 1/8. The 20% + potential move was clearly referenced against the "recent closing low" which was the 75 1/8 price.<< bs, the reason bob reference 75 1/8 as a recent low is because he knew the price wasn't that low anymore. therefore, his buy immediately call presumed a price above the 75 1/8. for you to say he meant 75 1/8 when he clearly said act immediately and showed he knew the price was already above that price is absurd. it is another what is the definition of "is" deal and it is pathetic. the point was to buy immediately. there is no question that was articulated. to do so meant $83. what could one expect? 20% from the low. a target price of a bit over $90. bob's call was clearly to by immediately and expect a run to $90 over the next few months. >>I would not have bought at 83 when my opportunity was less than a 9% gain with increased risk.<< you, bs, DID NOT FOLLOW BOB'S INSTRUCTIONS. >>For someone who bought at 83 (or higher as some have said) I think they should take responsibility for the losses down to 75 1/8. Brinker can be blamed for the rest, and that's a lot.<< as clearly stated above, bob knew that $75 1/8 was below the current price and said buy immediately anyway. you want to rewrite history b/c it is ugly. not logical nor rational. bob's words were clear and plain. there were NO caveats except that $90 was the target (the clear inference is one shouldn't buy buy above $90 based on this call!) bob blundered and now is trying to hide it. he excludes it from his performance. this behavior is manipulative and dishonest, imho, but i can't disagree that it works - look at you.