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 (23075)	8/5/2006 1:50:49 AM
From: Math Junkie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Two attempted trades in ten years is not much of a pattern. In regard to QQQQ, he claimed that it will never happen again, and it's been over five years since the last attempt. Of course, it's purely a subjective decision as to whether one wants to believe him when he says that, and I don't blame anyone for distrusting him. UTEK doesn't really fit with what he was trying to do with QQQQ, because the market was going strong when the former showed up in his newsletter, the anticipated time frame was over a year compared to two to four months initially for QQQQ, it was limited to 4% of equity allocation as against up to 32.5% for QQQQ, and his model was bullish, whereas it was bearish (according to the August 2000 Marketimer) when the October 2000 countertrend rally was predicted. Seems like apples and oranges to me.

To: Kirk © who wrote (23075)	8/5/2006 10:45:20 AM
From: shres	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

I think...I guess....I suppose... "I think if subscriptions fall off again, he might very well try it again since Hulbert and his faithful run around helping him cover it up when not successful." "When he recommended UTEK, I am fairly certain he was under performing the benchmarks by quite a bit." "If you tell someone you are in a 20 year bear market, then why not just sell out of equities and be safe?" "I think past history shows people should make MORE of an effort to warn others of Brinker's off the books tricks..." One thing IS for certain Kirk, is that YOUR continued effort to "WARN" people about Brinker will always be accompanied by a not so thinly disguised effort to pump your own newsletter.

To: Kirk © who wrote (23075)	8/5/2006 7:49:51 PM
From: dijaexyahoo	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 42834

kirk said: <<Some here have said he's learned not to try short term timing and I think that is not a valid conclusion.>> --I thought you agreed with me when I said that I believed the QQQ call was a TA experiment that failed. <<I think if subscriptions fall off again, he might very well try it again since Hulbert and his faithful run around helping him cover it up when not successful.>> --Who are these "faithful?" Are you saying that queen, math and I are helping him cover up the QQQ call? <<When he recommended UTEK, I am fairly certain he was under performing the benchmarks by quite a bit. He could point to MSFT but he needed another "trade" to keep people subscribing so they'd know when to end the trade that he eventually closed in 2001 I think.>> --Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best. You are weaving a tangled web. The more likely reason, imo,is that he was convinced by UTEK management that the stock was a good buy. The best way to increase subscriptions is to give people a winner. <<I think past history shows people should make MORE of an effort to warn others of Brinker's off the books tricks to keep people interested in his newsletter to the detriment of his current subscribers.>> --I don't see how anyone could make MORE of an effort at discrediting brinker than you, stockalot and honey are doing. <<If you tell someone you are in a 20 year bear market, then why not just sell out of equities and be safe?>> --I don't know. But it's a very good thing that he didn't do that. << Well, Brinker's trick is to play "counter trend rallies" to keep people paying him.>> --This is, obviously, pure nonsense. He experimented with ONE (1) counter-trend rally and it failed miserably. He's done. This post of yours is a good example of why no one except the sycophants believes you when you say you are telling the "truth" about brinker on 101. Personally, I think you would be better off actually sticking to the truth. When you stray away from it so often, it makes intelligent people think you KNOW that your case is weak, and that you have to exaggerate and spin in order to convince the gullible.