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: Kirk © who wrote (22517)	7/25/2006 10:19:46 AM
From: shres	Respond to of 42834

Wow Kirk, are you going to drag up that old TEFQX story again to "prove" how Brinker followers suffered? That was a high risk gamble for those interested in such gambles. You recommend those gambles all the time. Here's what the old Kirk we've all come to love says... "...I know you think this is not "proof" but someone I know with a web presense told me they LITERALLY have hundreds of emails from people who did just that, put the recommended 33% in...." Now Kirk, why on earth wouldn't somebody be willing to accept second or third hand Brinker bashing comments as incontrovertible proof? Kirk, you, Willy and Hunny continue to "prove" just how badly the whole world has suffered by following Brinker's advice and you just can't do it. Nobody can quantify who took what advice and to what extent. Save your anecdotal stories and third-hand hearsay "evidence" for your fantasy basher threads.

To: Kirk © who wrote (22517)	7/25/2006 8:00:11 PM
From: dijaexyahoo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

kirk said: <<To me, it looked like Brinker was encouraging retired people to take more risk. If they bought the TEFQX fund, why would they not also put 50% of cash reserves into QQQQ?>> --I find it really ironic that in your last post (22516) you claimed to be objective. How can you make such a claim, and post the above paragraph just ONE POST LATER!!?? That is NOT an objective statement. <<Myself, I've had lunch with someone in the 60 age bucket who went to 100% cash since he thought he was very conservative and wanted to preserve his critical mass. Then when he got the bulletin, he put 20% of his total portfolio (100% cash reserves) into QQQQ per Brinker SPECIFIC instructions in both the bulletin and in newsletters that followed.>> --If this is true, it's objective. But in later posts today you claimed that "many" retired people had gone to 100% cash and then put 20% into the QQQs. That statement is completely and totally absurd. One person I can swallow. But the ONLY reason most retired people would go to 100% cash is because they did not want to risk any loss whatsoever. They were willing to MISS A MAJOR RUNUP in order to eliminate risk! It makes no sense to think that these people would then TURN COMPLETELY AROUND and put 20% of their total portfolios into the QQQs in a falling market. It boggles my mind to think that you actually might believe otherwise.

To: Kirk © who wrote (22517)	7/25/2006 9:08:59 PM
From: queen90700	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42834

kirk said Myself, I've had lunch with someone in the 60 age bucket [sic] who went to 100% cash since he thought he was very conservative and wanted to preserve his critical mass. Then when he got the bulletin, he put 20% of his total portfolio (100% cash reserves) into QQQQ per Brinker SPECIFIC instructions in both the bulletin and in newsletters that followed. People in retirement have no business seeing 20% of their portfolio drop 75% in a Las Vegas type trade. The flaw in that logic is that 20% of total portfolio in cash is NEVER what was advised "per Brinker SPECIFIC instructions". Even so, 75% (IF sold out at the bottom) of 20% of a portfolio does not ruin a portfolio. It hurts, to be sure. It's a blow, to be sure. But "ruin" is a just a misleading exaggeration, as it always has been. To me, it looked like Brinker was encouraging retired people to take more risk. If they bought the TEFQX fund, why would they not also put 50% of cash reserves into QQQQ? That is not only speculation, but an unwarranted and unsupportable leap of logic. It doesn't automatically follow that those who bought one fund also bought QQQ. "most of those posting on his message board bought TEFQX...including the retired folks." If you don't want the "speculation" point belabored, I might suggest you stop throwing out unsupported and seemingly unsupportable claims. How would anyone KNOW what number "most who posted on his board" means? Again with the "most" unquantifiable figure. And when did Brinker ever encourage retirees to take more risk, realistically speaking? I've heard him encourage them to spend what they can afford and enjoy their money instead of scrimping and saving it and amassing it for their heirs, but I've never seen or heard him encourage retirees or those on fixed incomes to take more risk in investments.