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 (23168)	8/6/2006 4:42:07 PM
From: Math Junkie	Respond to of 42834

Sorry, edit window has timed out: "...gotten to the point of being willing to admit that it was bullish" should have been "...gotten to the point of being willing to admit that it was bearish."

To: Math Junkie who wrote (23168)	8/6/2006 8:08:34 PM
From: dijaexyahoo	Respond to of 42834

math said to stockalot: <<That is the explanation that seems the most plausible to me, but when it comes to speculations, yours is as good as mine.>> --I disagree. When it comes to brinker, stockalot is incapable of objectivity. Therefore, your speculations are much more likely to be correct than his are.

To: Math Junkie who wrote (23168)	8/6/2006 9:40:17 PM
From: stockalot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Math, I guess you just can't bring yourself to admit Brinker is quite a fibber. Ok today Bob Brinker said when talking to a caller who was expressing distaste for the fed I believe while agreeing with the caller said, Brinker got that pious tone and said: "It's not in my nature to be critical of others". Is he a liar, Math? A yes or no for a change would be nice but go ahead and give me the reasons why you would back up Brinker on this claim. And we'll then look at the history you are very familiar with.

To: Math Junkie who wrote (23168)	8/6/2006 9:52:02 PM
From: stockalot	Respond to of 42834

Indeed though you can't bring yourself to find Brinker guilty of dishonesty in his conflicting claims and his conflicting actions compared to what he said he would do, your post illustrates just how silly one would be to follow this goober. Your premise is that you believe he had a model and it was bearish and he was afraid to go to cash because he didn't trust the model so he said he was NOT BEARISH for several months and then in Aug said he was "bearish" but still was afraid to go to 100% cash as he had claimed he would. So if one is to accept your hypothesis, Brinker flies by the seat of his pants and may or may not make a call based on what his model says. In addition other Brinker supporters have given various reasons for his "experimenting" with up to 1/3 of a portfolio in the QQQs. So in Jan 2000 this guy that has been on the radio and schlepping a newsletter and claiming lots of experience in teh 'canyons of wallstreet' --but no one has any record of exactly what fund he ran or what his performance was-- 1) Doesn't trust the model he has been talking about for 20 years and fudges his "interpretation" which he claimed he never would do. 2) This person with supposedly 40 yrs of experience in financial markets and financial radio, "experiments" with a trade in the highest flying component of the technology sector--throws significant amounts at the idea and rides it all the way down, and holds but hides this idea to this very day, a 6 yr old holding. So he doesn't trust his model. He fudges and hems and haws, not doing what he claimed he would and then he experiments with his subscribers, but urges them to ACT IMMEDIATELY with up to half the money they took out of their portfolios. Yeah BABY that is a ringing endorsement of a mature, confident advisor that is rock solid honest and has the integrity and temperment you would want in a financial advisor........on some planet in some solar system perhaps.