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 (22859)	8/1/2006 7:19:48 AM
From: stockalot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

" Others may consider it important to know how his long-term recommendations have done, especially considering that he has gotten out of the short-term trading business." When did he sell the QQQs he urged people to buy in Oct. 2000? Are they not held to this day? How effin long does one have to hold 1/3 of a portfolio to make it "long term"? How do you know what flakey move Brinker will make next or what business he will get in?? " First, I'm sure you know this and just forgot, but Brinker never placed the October 2000 QQQQ buy in Portfolio 1" Ok Math. In Jan he had people sell equities in all model portfolios down to 40%. Later 35%. He called the cash raised in this exercise "cash reserves" to be used for re-investing in equities. In October 2000 he sent the bulletin below. As you can see it urges those with aggressive investment objectives to use up to 50% of cash reserves to buy QQQs. . There is NO mention that this will not be included in portfolios. It is the money taken out of portfolios he is using. To this very day he is holding the QQQs purchased with the cash reserves. Only in November when the newsletter arrived did anyone know that Brinker CHOSE arbitrarily to not put the QQQs in each portfolio. Hulbert according to Brimelow sold the QQQs for a small loss. However to do that a subscriber would have to go against Brinker's advice that was that the QQQs were a great idea still. There is no more damning evidence of dishonesty than Brinker's handling of the QQQs. I'm surprised you want to be part of the alibi. NOTHING is anymore important than knowing what the guy's advice IN TOTAL did for an investor. Hiding the truth by omitting his largest LONG TERM HOLDING the QQQs and pretending that he bought the Wilshire 5000 instead of his underperforming bunch of mutual funds and then using the resultant information to claim without explanation that he is "the number one rated timer"....is like talking about how successful the enron executives were in acquiring personal wealth, without mentioning where it came from. " SUBSCRIBER BULLETIN FROM MARKETIMER MARKETIMER is projecting a significant countertrend rally which is expected to be led by the Nasdaq 100 Index. We expect this rally to persist over a period of approximately 2-4 months, and to generate Nasdaq gains in excess of 20% from the vicinity of the recently established Nasdaq closing low point. We view this projected Nasdaq rally as a significant trading opportunity for MARKETIMER subscribers seeking potential short-term capital gains. Our clear vehicle of choice for this opportunity is the Nasdaq 100, which is traded on the American Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol QQQ. We recommend MARKETIMER subscribers with aggressive objectives invest 30% to 50% of existing CASH RESERVES in the QQQ shares in order to exploit this opportunity. Also, we recommend subscribers with conservative investment objectives invest 20% to 30% of CASH RESERVES in the QQQ shares in order to take advantage of this opportunity. MARKETIMER will provide follow up guidance for this short-term opportunity in regular monthly editions, and, if necessary, in follow up bulletins. We recommend subscribers interested in taking advantage of this recommendation act immediately.

To: Math Junkie who wrote (22859)	8/1/2006 8:56:55 AM
From: fahrenheit451	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 42834

Math >>>> Second, he billed it as a two to four month rally, i.e., short term. It only became a long term holding after the fact. Thanks for pointing that out. It supports my suspicions about what this man actually did for those 25 years on Wall Street. All we know is the name of his two employers. Turning a short term trade into a long term holding is an amateur mistake. "3. Failure to Accept and Limit Losses Another major contributing reason to day trading failure, is the reluctance of many traders to exit from a losing position. Many traders hold on to losing positions for far too long, in the hope that the share price will recover. Even worse is the practice of adding to a losing position so as to "average down". This is a recipe for disaster. It is essential to limit (and accept) losses in advance, in accordance with your trading plan, by pre-determining your exit point if the stock price moves against you. Stop-loss orders provide a convenient method of doing this." daytrading.about.com None of you Brinker supporters has presented any evidence that he has ever actually managed money on Wall Street. If he has, and this is the way he handles trading, then I can see why he makes his living in radio.

To: Math Junkie who wrote (22859)	8/1/2006 10:40:52 AM
From: stockalot	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 42834

As to the use of the term "shill" it is probably not nearly as overused as the term "liar" that Dija repeatedly threw my way because I did not believe him when he claimed that Brinker's portfolios outperformed using the Wilshire 5000 when Brinker's timing moves were applied to both. Someone with so much hate and determination to make Brinker appear better than he is would seem to be a "shill". But you are correct it is a term out of frustration, because there is another explanation. "Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence" Dija may indeed just not be bright enough to look beyond Brinker's self supporting claims in his newsletter and advertising to find the truth. Thus "shill" would not be appropriate. Nevertheless we do have it on record that indeed according to Hulbert when you examine Brinker's "long term record" (that he is current bragging about with no clarification in his newsletter), using the Wilshire 5000 applied to Brinker's timing calls gives you substantially better results than using BRinker's fund picks. This is very important and Dija should know it and not call someone a liar for pointing it out. If he did not know this, he's not a shill, but simply someone who didn't do his homework and lashed out from ignorance.