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 (23173)	8/7/2006 1:04:46 PM
From: stockalot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Math not wanting to address the question about Brinker lying on his claim that "It is not in my nature to be critical of others" this weekend posed several questions. "Why do you attach so much importance to my beliefs about what another person was thinking?" I like to see you twist and squirm to avoid many easy and the most logical answers. "Do you think Brinker's not trusting his own model is some kind of exoneration?" No, but it also goes to dishonesty in Brinker's case. Let's say you have a bad ticker and you are rich. You hire a personal physician who claims to the world's best cardiologist and tells you exactly what he will do if you have a heart attack. It begins with getting out the lastest "model" difibrilator and shockin that old ticker to life. So for a few hundred grand a year, Dr. know it all follows the rich guy along, every day assuring him about just what he will do should rich guy keel over. Finally while collecting his huge winnings on the superbowl from multiple casinos the strain gets to the rich guy's ticker and he falls to the ground lifeless. Dr. I Knoweverything is right there and you would think he would do exactly what he said he would. First he fumbles with the defibrilator box and then begins to worry if rich guy really had a heart attack and if he knows how to use the difibrilator. He reads the instructions on the difibrilator while rich guy is turning blue and weakly urging his Doctor. "Why don't you do what you said you would do if this happened?" rich guy gurgles. Finally he gets the machine set up, but unsure how to operate it decides to use a weak setting that doesn't stimulate rich guy's heart . Rich guy croaks and the Doctor gives the family some lame excuse for his ineptitude. Soon he is on the phone with another rich guy with a bad ticker telling him he is the greatest cardiologist in the world and he has this fine difibrilator and explains exactly how he will use it should the need arise, for only a few hundred thousand a year, the "new" rich guy can have the same peace of mind that the rich guy resting in peace had. Dr. I Knoweverything who talked a good game just was in over his head, so he talked some more. He's best talking. He's very inept when it comes to walking the walk. Why do you not see that Brinker could have changed his mind? Or do you think that changing one's mind is lying? Changed his mind about trusting his model that he said he always trusted and was responsible for any action he took and if it went bearish he would go to 100% cash? Yeah I'd say he was lying but indeed I think he was lying about the model and his competence all along--just like Dr. I Knoweverything. Are you claiming that the money that initially went into MSFT and VOD came from "all portfolios" too? Totally different deal Math. Indeed with MSFT and VOD, Brinker NEVER gave any amounts to use to buy these stocks or suggested where the funds come from. He simply put them in the regular newsletter as a "buy". With the QQQs Brinker urged people to use a specific % of "CASH RESERVES" which were raised according to the record by selling in January 2000. Indeed a small fraction of the funds could have come from proceeds from selling MSFT and VOD. HOWEVER, Brinker said that he was NOT selling his MSFT, so that likely caused many to NOT sell softie. Brinker claimed his call was NOT ABOUT THE NASDAQ--leading many to believe that he felt confident in his nasdaq stocks and indeed the dummie was pumping TEFQX at the same time he was making his "tactical asset allocation". Beyond that only 4% was supposed to be in an individual stock. So assuming most who followed Brinker's advice had taken his January advice were investing in the model portfolios, their cash reserves were the result of money raised by selling the model portfolios. Brinker then gave precise advice what to do with these "cash reserves". "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." Brinker NEVER closed out this position and now hides it. He claimed he USED THE SAME CASH RESERVES WITHOUT SELLING THE QQQS in March 2003 to buy more Rydex (QQQs) and other funds in the portfolios. Totally DISHONEST and much different than a more nebulous calling a stock a "buy" while being fully invested. If you still believe that the QQQ "trade" had to be in the model portfolios, then why aren't you making the same claim for the initial MSFT and VOD recommendations? See above.