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: davidk555 who wrote (23021)	8/4/2006 8:23:03 PM
From: dijaexyahoo	Respond to of 42834

davidk said: <<I am happy, however, to offer some guesses.>> --Thank you. I in no way expected anything more than guesses. << Before I do though, it seems you have completely missed the point of my post which was really was to point out and address the lack of what I perceive as guidance Brinker has given on this issue -- particularly as it related to the caller on Moneytalk.>> --I did not miss the point, and I agree with you 100%. Your post simply raised some other questions in my mind. <<Your question and the others about the number of my subscribers seems to avoid that issue.>> --I did not ask you about the number of your subscribers. I simply questioned your statement that you knew "hundreds and hundreds" of people who were still holding the QQQs. <<First, for the most part I think people who followed Bob's advice on the QQQQ followed it pretty close to the letter.>> --This is VERY (I wish I could make BIGGER CAPS on WebTV) surprising to me. I have known maybe 10 people who followed brinker at that time. I would say maybe six of them bought some QQQs, but exactly ZERO bought even as much as 10% of cash reserves. It just boggles my mind that anyone could even put 10% into this recommendation in the middle of what at the best appeared, at the time, to be a very scary correction. <<...there were many people that had faith in Bob's timing ability and so decided the QQQQ was the right move.>> --I too had "faith" in his abilities, but not nearly enough to put 20% or more into the QQQs in an effort to make a lousy 20% or so. My only decision was whether to do nothing, or invest a small amount. <<As for how many blame Brinker for their losses, I think people who follow Bob's recommendation should give him credit if a recommendation he made that is followed to the letter is profitable, but certainly are right to criticize him if a recommendation he makes doesn't pan out. Bob shouldn't be given a free pass for his bad recommendation, and only celebrated for his good recommendations, despite how he might like that to appear on the radio. Sure, its up to everyone to make their own investment decisions, but this is a message board that is supposed to be devoted toward Bob Brinker so I would think examination of his good and bad calls, and how he handles each are relevant.>> --Absolutely. Everything you said in the above paragraph is true and I agree. But it didn't answer my question. <<Trying to figure out exactly how many people did what with respect to the QQQQ recommendation doesn't make the advice better or worse. The advice stands on its own, as does the follow up guidance.>> --Again, I agree. MY point, which you seem to have missed, is that many people seem to blame brinker for their QQQ losses, but fail to give him credit for the Jan. 2000 call which probably saved them more money than the QQQs cost them. <<One final thing I would like to say to you personally. You don't need to make snide comments to me like "I will be shocked if you answer.">> --It wasn't actually a snide comment. It was a prediction. <<You have e-mailed me several times privately in the past and I have always accommodated your requests for information. ->> --This is 100% true. It is also true that when someone asked about you on the Yahoo board a year or so ago I gave them my honest opinion (good AND bad) and, bottom line, recommended your newsletter. I have not recommended brinker's newsletter to anyone in the past 5 years.

To: davidk555 who wrote (23021)	8/4/2006 10:56:36 PM
From: Math Junkie	Respond to of 42834

Great post. "Something important to recognize is that there was a lot of pent up demand for another QQQQ trade that was for "subscribers only" of Marketimer, following the first QQQQ trade that was given to the radio audience. I had printed out most of the posts from bobbrinker.com during that time frame (because unfortunately a lot of them on one thread were about me) and you might recall how much excitement there was about this trade at the time it was given." When I made a similar observation a few years ago, I was accused of claiming it was his subscribers' fault. Hopefully you won't receive the same treatment. "Trying to figure out exactly how many people did what with respect to the QQQQ recommendation doesn't make the advice better or worse. The advice stands on its own, as does the follow up guidance." Amen!