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: dijaexyahoo who wrote (23015)	8/3/2006 8:24:37 PM
From: pigstuff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Mr FakeDija proudly says: >>since I (unlike the bashers) believe in answering all legitimate questions. Who decides what is legitimate and what is not? He continued to say: >>OK. I hope I have laid to rest the ridiculous charge that I am a shill. Could you direct me to that post? ;---) He also said: >>Obviously, he should have sold out at some point. But he chose to just issue a "hold for future recovery" and hope for the best. Now I have a legitimate question. You say "Bob Brinker should have sold out". Yet, I have read numerous times how stupid people were that did not sell out on their own after it was "apparent" that Brinker was wrong. How dumb and ignorant those people were that held on, all the way to 18 or 19. How anyone with a brain should have know that it was a busted trade, and they are responsible for losing money. After hearing all of that stuff for years, do you really think you can get away with ONLY saying he should have sold? Why isn't he as stupid, dumb and brainless as the people that followed his advice or lack of advice?

To: dijaexyahoo who wrote (23015)	8/3/2006 8:27:22 PM
From: Kirk ©	Respond to of 42834

Surprise, surprise, but I agree with your summary. What gets me is how Brinker could ignore how some parts of the NASDAQ, such as LRCX and other stocks of quality, had very good counter trend rallies. I made some 65% off LRCX shares that I purchased in late 2000 then sold in 2001. I believe his MSFT also had a nice CT rally. Lets see if I can get a chart to show it here. I see MSFT had a 30% rally when he predicted 20% or more for QQQQ while LRCX acted like QQQQ. Then we see LRCX more than made up for not participating in the first CT rally so any shares added really got some octane when they had a beautiful CT rall in Jan 2001. You can see QQQQ continued to fall like a rock and did not rally while LRCX and MSFT not only had CT rallies, they went higher and higher than their Oct 17th values! It is funny because his TA was dead-on correct but his execution was dead-wrong. I've tried to make the case today there are problems with index investing... especially with small indexs like the QQQQ. The garbage in QQQQ in 2000 was like a lead weight... and messed up any decent application of TA. I don't think Brinker has ever addressed this failure of execution but perfect prediction of his short term model.

To: dijaexyahoo who wrote (23015)	8/3/2006 8:54:03 PM
From: queenleah	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42834

dija, thanks again. I didn't answer the "question" to which you refer because I didn't and still don't see it as a legitimate question; in fact, it is not a question at all, but just captious carping as usual. Also, I only have five posts a day and this is my last for today, unless I respond to something after midnight. I see you are well past the five-a-day limit, congratulations on your articulate and consistent efforts at bringing some logic to the premises. But I'm glad you chose to respond and I agree with your speculation on Brinker's motives and with your comments 100%: IMO, when the QQQs continued to fall, brinker realized that his experiment with short-term timing (predicting 'counter-trend' rallies) had failed. It WAS, in my opinion, an experiment on his part. Based on things he said on the radio and in the newsletter at that time, I believe he spent a lot of time researching past bear markets in an attempt to figure out how to predict these things, using TA. Anyway, once it failed, he then simply realized he had no clue when a counter-trend rally might start. IMO, this was all COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from his long-term timing model. So, bottom line, he realized his methodology had failed,and he realized he could not predict CTRs. So, he could not issue a sell signal, because he could not know or have any idea at all when a CTR might start. I'm sure, in my own mind, that he feared a CTR would start as soon as he issued a sell signal. Obviously, he should have sold out at some point. But he chose to just issue a "hold for future recovery" and hope for the best. OK. I hope I have laid to rest the ridiculous charge that I am a shill. But I know I haven't, because on this board, anyone who doesn't bash brinker constantly is called a shill.