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 (13866)	4/19/2001 7:09:03 PM
From: Rillinois	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Richard Palm, What are you and PETE from STAMFORD, CT smoking??? Re: Too bad you waited until QQQ trade was already seriously underwater. The first time you posted here about it was November 11th. It was down 14% at that time, but you did not warn against buying, choosing instead to complain about him moving the benchmark. I don't regard exposing a shark as "complaining". Read the post again. I new exactly what Bob was up to as soon as I read the November issue. Message 14787849 Re: Your next post on the subject was on November 22nd, when you called the trade a "debacle." Unfortunately it was already down 20% at that time. Seems like you have no clue as to what I regard as the danger in following Bob's advice. Bob's interest are not in giving sound trading advice to his subscribers, it is in perpetuating the image of being a successful market timer. Read the post again. "I believe this debacle of a trade once again shows how Bob is more concerned with PR than sound trading advice." Message 14863969 Richard, I have never given the "FALSE IMPRESSION" that I know what the market is going to do in 2 to 4 months or 4 to 6 months. You and PETE from STAMFORD, CT seem to want to bait me to make a market related prediction so that you can prove I can't time the market either. Why would I do that when I have openly said that this is an impossible task to do consistently over time? Re: Unfortunately it was already down 20% at that time. I don't know what kind of math you're using, but in the old math down 20% is better off than down 50%. Besides my point was that the trade did not work the way Bob originally intended so he should have cut his losses. Instead, as I predicted, he kept on lowering his benchmark low and extending the time frame as usual in an unsuccessful attempt to save face. BTW, it is your reasoning (...it was already down 20% at that time...) that converts traders into investors. This is a dangerous attitude to have. Have you ever heard the saying bulls and bears make money, pigs get slaughtered? Best Regards. Rillinois