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 (23115)	8/5/2006 7:18:07 PM
From: stockalot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

I don't place any credence on your interpretation when we have Brinker's very own words. I asked you. "Now Math, is it your position that Brinker was LYING about his model being bullish or bearish and if it was ever bearish he would go to 100% cash?" and you replied "Nope. I think he really believed it when he said he would go to 100% cash when the time came." Ok so again Math in January Feb and early March at least Brinker claimed nearly every week on the radio program that "I AM NOT BEARISH" "I DID NOT ISSUE A SELL SIGNAL". so we had this exchange "Math do you believe that Brinker was LYING in January and February and early March 2000 when he would claim weekly that he was NOT BEARISH and had NOT ISSUED A SELL SIGNAL?" Math replied "Nope. I think his model was bearish, but he was not. When it came time to pull the trigger, I think he discovered that he wasn't as sure of his model as he thought he was." Then he was lying Math. He claimed his model was NOT BEARISH. Can't have it both ways sport. I agree if you are claiming there is no model and Brinker is just using that jive to sell newsletters and he bases his calls on what sells newsletters, makes him most likely to appear prescient and be able to spin. I've said for a long time that model stuff was simply marketing. You claim that he didn't trust his model so he lied about the results. Ok--I say he doesn't have one, you say he lied about it. We disagree, I lean toward total incompetence and expediency. You claim he is dishonest and didn't tell the subscribers and listeners the truth. We might both be right. :) Btw Math, Brinker made the comment for ending the first QQQ trade right after they came down from 100 and right before they went back over 100 "The most important thing in a bear market is capital preservation"---that was about a counter trend rally trade. Now was he lying then or was he lying about his feelings of being in a bear market? As we know he took a huge chunck of all portfolios and threw them at the QQQs and held all the way from 80 to 19. Sure didn't have "preservation of capital in a bear market" on his mind there. Again you can select incompetent or dishonest. But there is nothing about his holdings all the way down that make sense for a guy who claimed he had a model that would predict a bear market and be in 100% cash.

To: Math Junkie who wrote (23115)	8/5/2006 7:58:49 PM
From: yaetmo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

"Nope. I think his model was bearish, but he was not. When it came time to pull the trigger, I think he discovered that he wasn't as sure of his model as he thought he was." I think that's a far stretch of imagination. He repeatedly talked about 10% - 20% downside risk. So when the Q's had declined 35%, it must have looked like a good buying opportunity. Good enough to try twice. I won't use the term gift horse, but I'll bet many saw it that way, especially when fueled by "bulletin" notice. A great example of the psychology of snake oil salesmanship in a herd ready to stampede.

To: Math Junkie who wrote (23115)	8/5/2006 8:27:27 PM
From: dijaexyahoo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42834

<<"Math do you believe that Brinker was LYING in January and February and early March 2000 when he would claim weekly that he was NOT BEARISH and had NOT ISSUED A SELL SIGNAL?">> math replied; "Nope. I think his model was bearish, but he was not. When it came time to pull the trigger, I think he discovered that he wasn't as sure of his model as he thought he was." --I agree with you. Any objective person will look at it the right way: We were in a bubble. Brinker obviously knew that. No one knows how long a bubble in anything might last. When brinker's model went bearish, he knew that if he issued a 100% sell signal he and his subscribers could get left in the dust. He made the RIGHT decision to go to 60-40. Nobody ever claimed that the model was infallible and could even predict with complete accuracy the end of a bubble. The fact it came as close as it did is quite remarkable.