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 (16932)	10/23/2002 10:19:07 AM
From: Kirk ©	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42834

Good points. Unfortunately, any or all of those strategies could fail, because NONE of his advice has any track record of calling cyclical trends, as he is now hoping to do. That is not true. He has a track record of calling counter trend rallies, but it is not good. I have a compiled listing of his record in HTML that I can put up over at Suite101 if you request it there. It shows: #1 that he rode the 1987 bear market down then went to 100% cash in 1988 about 10% above the very bottom but maybe 30% below where the market was when he got back to fully invested. #2 that he missed the cyclical gulf war bear #3 that he missed getting out and back in for the 1998 cyclical bear So I felt I have CONCLUSIVE PROOF that his model does not work for calling cyclical bears during a secular bull. What is left? What you find is the longer time you give him, the more things you find his model can't do. About he ONLY thing left is to call cyclical bulls in a secular bear (because we had not had one yet for him to bungle? I have him missing a cyclical bull already that started in Sept 01 and finished in early '02. What he does is pooh-pooh's those "that called a bottom" too early but many of us "who called a bottom" were able to increase our stock positions after the 9/11 induced bottom and then we sold some early this year after a nice run... just what he claims his model can do... take advantage of cyclical bulls during a secular bear. Oh for two in my book if you count his failed QQQ attempt. He called one that wasn't and he didn't call one that was. So.. what he did next was change the time frame for what he is looking for to NOT include cyclical bulls of duration less than one year. Almost anyone without ego invested in the guy being right can see it is more of a circus act akin to mind readers or fortune tellers. Amazing that thinking adults with a college education think otherwise.... simply amazing. Kirk out

To: Math Junkie who wrote (16932)	10/23/2002 4:01:26 PM
From: Tim Bagwell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Here's my opinion. Don't just ignore but reach for the on/off button (or the trash bin) if Brinker recommends a short term trade ever again. He has a 50% chance of being right but if he is wrong, history has shown you'll be hung out to dry 99% of the time. And, only follow his long term call if he can prove himself by calling the first bull cycle. Of course, many believe he has already failed here. Nonetheless, there is no evidence that he can succeed. If you're still uncertain about following Brinker do this. Put Bob's model design in one hand and spit in the other. Now, see which you have more of. Then you'll know how much substance backs up his statements.

To: Math Junkie who wrote (16932)	10/23/2002 9:51:44 PM
From: geode00	Respond to of 42834

In Q1 of 2000 he said something to the effect that he didn't know why anyone would look to him for advice on the NASDAQ, and then proceeded to conclusively prove the wisdom of this statement through his subsequent actions. ROTFLMAO. That's a good one Richard. I do advocate cherry picking if you can figure out how to do it. Then again, if you can cherry pick his advice, you can probably cherry pick when to buy and when to sell and then you don't need him at all (now that's a thought). I don't think he has a public track record for the last major secular bear so he is definitely in unproven territory. He had the five root causes of a bear market, does he have the five root causes of a cyclical bull?