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 (23139)	8/6/2006 6:02:20 AM
From: stockalot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Math is quite willing to speculate on Brinker's state of mind (though gives others grief for doing so) rather than go by exactly what Brinker said and admit that he was lying one time or the other. Brinker no longer talks about the market or his model on the radio. Indeed it seems that you only hear it half a dozen times a program during that tired pitch for buying marketimer . Otherwise you wouldn't guess the guy knows anything at all about the stock market. (probably some would make a good case that is true-Jack Bogle being one, Warren Buffet another). But it was not always so. Indeed before and for a while after Jan. 2000 Brinker's timing model was a huge topic on the show. Math knows or ought to know that Brinker ALWAYS claimed that he would do EXACTLY what his model said to do. He said ad nauseum and I use the quotation marks accurately. "My model is either bullish or bearish. If our model turns bearish we will exit the market and go to 100% cash. A bear market is like a raid on a house of ill repute. They even take the piano player. So if our model turns bearish we will go to 100% cash." Time after time he would tell a caller who asked about a "sell signal". "We can only go by our stock market timing model. If it becomes bearish we will issue a sell signal." Thus there was total assurance given by Brinker that A) He responded only to what he claimed was a "timing model" said and never made allowances for his "feelins". That was indeed a huge selling part of the propaganda. Made Brinker's approach sound sooooo scientific and not seat of the pants. Anyway with that as background there was this exchange with Math. I said: "He claimed his model was NOT BEARISH." I don't recall hearing him say that. If he did say that, then either it was a lie, or the statement in the August Marketimer was a lie. "Can't have it both ways sport." Well, "sport," he and his model are two different entities. His model could be bearish without HIM being bearish if he didn't trust the model" Now here we have a guy Math who had to hear Brinker claim just as I did that: 1) His model was based on different indicators and the sum result was either bullish or bearish 2) If it was bearish he would go to 100% cash 3) He simply took the readings from the model and did not apply his "feelings" to the process Now after years of propaganda by Brinker that Math knows is factual that Brinker would go to 100% cash if the cumulative result of his model's calculations were bearish there are only two possibilies in January 2000. 1) Brinker is a liar 2) Brinker's model was not bearish. It seems Math's desperate attempt to claim that Brinker's model was bearish but Brinker was not in early 2000 and that 8 months later Brinker accepted his model's take is made to reconcile totally conflicting statements. Math's tortured logic has one other problem. As he describes Brinker's claims that he and his model are bearish in the August marketimer, Math also describes that the market was in about the same place it was in January though the dotcoms had floundered. So what does Brinker do? Takes 5% off the table. Now Math here your guy that you helped create an alibi to explain why he said he was clearly "NOT BEARISH" in Jan Feb and March and used that to explain why he left 40% in the market has now said he is bearish and has been bearish. The market is still higher than it was when he sent that January 2000 call. Does he go to cash? Nope. So again was he lying when he said he would go to cash if his model ever became bearish or was he lying about the model being bearish? Additionally within two months this same guy you now claim you have to guess what his model is saying because he won't honestly tell you and lied to you about what he would do if it became bearish---sends that ACT IMMEDIATELY bulletin. In a bear market with more than a third of his money left in the market he does what? Yes sanctions committing another third and holds and holds and holds--for 6 yrs. When you try to alibi for the guy he looks worse doesn't he? ::)

To: Math Junkie who wrote (23139)	8/6/2006 6:22:16 AM
From: stockalot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

I said: "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." Math trying to provide another alibi and being coy said: "Nope. He didn't use model portfolio money for that. Anyone who particpated in the "trade" either wasn't following a model portfolio in the first place, or stopped following a model portfolio when they bought QQQ. (Are you claiming that the money that initially went into MSFT and VOD came from "all portfolios" too?)" Ok, we've been down this path before and I believe you to your credit have never tried to pull this silliness previously. 1) Brinker sold 65% of equity positions in Jan and Aug 2000. That included and indeed for most following Brinker's advice to the letter included the mutual funds in his model portfolios. 2) Brinker called the monies raised by selling the equities in and out of the model portfolios "cash reserves" . Those were money market funds awaiting Brinker's word to put the money back into equities. 3) Brinker sent this very unique one time only special bulletin to each and every subscriber sitting there with cash reserves from their model portfolios urging them to ACT IMMEDIATELY "IF" they wanted to exploit an opportunity to make 20% or more in 2-4 months. There was NO mention of a date, a price, a risk or any impact on model portfolios. Just use your cash reserves to take advantage of this opportunity. 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." So your alibi is clearly just that. Indeed those cash reserves were raised in selling the model portfolios. That is where the cash reserves came from. Brinker recommended for both aggressive and conservative (thus all model portfolio investors) significant sums of cash reserves be used. QQQubbling about the semantics of this advice is beneath you. Even Hulbert invested according to the advice among the model porfolios and sold the position in November after Brinker "chose" not to put them in the model portofolios..according to CBS marketwatch.