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: Tim Bagwell who wrote (21751)	10/18/2004 3:20:03 PM
From: Kirk ©	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42834

In fairness, his longer term timing of over 1 year has been pretty good for most of the 1990's and most of the 2000's. I don't think Brinker has every done short term market timing with any success (under 1 year). My guess is he has given up and now sticks to what works or another 10 years have passed and people forget his past mistakes like most forgot about his troubles in 1988 through 1991: I think Hulbert gives him credit for "Half a good Call" to go to 60:40 before the worst bear market since the great depression then putting half back into QQQ and full credit to go back to fully invested in 2003 after the market bottomed in 2002. I like an asset allocation model where you ALWAYS have some cash to buy dips. You make up for not being fully invested by increasing your portfolio beta. For example, you might have a 70:30 equities:cash allocation but with a portfolio beta of 1.5. Then when the market dips, you can add some cash to the higher beta equities then take profits in these same equities when the market recovers. I think it is much better than people using options as your shares in high beta stocks don't expire. If you pick good companies for trading this way (for example: Intel, Lam Research or even UTEK under $15) then they don't go bankrupt if you are wrong on timing and you just hold through a cycle. Brinker likes to add beta with QQQ but I think that strategy is dangerously flawed. QQQ puts stocks in when they are the 100 largest in the Nasdaq and takes them out when they decline. My favorite trading/investment stock is LRCX. It goes in and out of the QQQ every few years depending on the cycle. If you own QQQ, then you by default have to SELL LRCX when it has declined (fallen out of the 100 largest NASDAQ stock list) and you buy it when it is high (back in the top 100) This is exactly the opposite of what you want to do! OTOH, for this very reason, I think QQQ wouild be a perfect vehicle to short. For example:. ON 10/17/00 I bought LRCX at $15.875 when Brinker was buying QQQ in the $80's. LRCX had a huge counter trend rally so I sold for a 64% gain in early 2001, but even if I had to hold on as Brinker did with QQQ, LRCX today is at $22.14, up about 33% or so... IF you were to market time... it would make sense to make a list of the stocks that go in and out of the QQQs like LRCX and perhaps assemble a basket of those to buy when Brinker says to buy QQQ... or just buy the stocks I like. Another I bought in Dec 2000 was CACS at $7.03. Today it is $7.78. The problems with QQQ are huge... I have a hard time considering them an "index" because of this very effect of buying high and selling low that occurs for the high flyers that are placed into it. Kirk Summary of QQQ Mess: suite101.com Richard Palm’s Brinker Allocation History suite101.com

To: Tim Bagwell who wrote (21751)	10/20/2004 4:50:28 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

He's kidding right? The talk about electioneering being over and the market going higher is exactly the QQQ counter trend rally all over again. I guess he didn't learn. No one knows what will go on November 2nd. There are 40,000 lawyers out there milling around poll sites having their briefs in hand....that can't be good. They could just start a fight just to get paid for goodness sakes! The market has been going sideways for months and months and months now. He has to have something to talk about.