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: stockalot who wrote (23620)	8/14/2006 5:08:58 PM
From: Math Junkie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

"His latest is to claim that people didn't have to have any money in the model portfolios so the cash reserves didn't come from model portfolio money." You're ignoring the fact that I said people in a model portfolio had a choice to make. I guess I have to spell this out in detail in order for you to get it. I see three categories of subscribers who acted on the October 2000 bulletin: 1. The cash reserves came from model portfolio money if the subscriber was in a model portfolio and decided to deviate from it. In this case, the subscriber stopped following a model portfolio, and made that choice knowingly. 2. The cash reserves came from model portfolio money if the subscriber was in a model portfolio and hadn't noticed Brinker's past practice regarding model portfolios. In that case, the subscriber stopped following a model portfolio, but did so unknowingly. 3. For subscribers not in either of those two categories, the money did not come from a model portfolio. No one knows how many people were in each of those categories, so let's save time by skipping that argument, shall we? People who meant to follow a model portfolio and were not aware of Brinker's past practice (category 2) had a difficult choice to make in November when he made it clear the model portfolios were not involved. QQQ was in the low 80s when he wrote that issue, but it dropped into the 70s already by the time most or all subscribers received it. That is one reason why I continue to believe that the honest thing to do would be to publish an additional portfolio with the maximum QQQ commitment included. Another reason is that a call that could go as high as 32.5% of a person's portfolio is a major call, and it is wrong to hide major calls. Hulbert has been quoted as saying that when he got the November issue, he sold the QQQs. (I assume he was talking about paper portfolios, since I doubt he puts actual money in all 180 of the investment letters he tracks.) It sounds like he includes the loss from the time of receipt of the bulletin until receipt of the November issue in Brinker's performance figures. Does anyone know if this is what he actually did? If so, I think that is also a reasonable way to do it. "Now isn't that about as dishonest as it gets?" Same to you buddy. People who exaggerate what others say as relentlessly as you do shouldn't preach about honesty. "I suppose that Math would have people believe that Bob Brinker sent the bulletin having in mind that only those who did not use the model portfolios would invest their cash reserves in the QQQs and those that were in possession of cash reserves obtained from sales within model portfolios would know that they were not to ACT IMMEDIATELY." Guess again, Mr. mind-reader. I don't see any evidence that Brinker gave that issue any thought whatever when he sent the bulletin. "Bob Brinker still has that QQQ idea now a long term holding that has grown to QQQQ but is dishonestly trying to hide it." Are you saying it had already turned into a long-term holding by November of 2000? That doesn't make any sense. "I wonder if Math would like to take a shot at alibing for Bob Brinker in claiming 'the ideal accumulation price range is in the low to mid 70s' ?(dishonestly lowering the buy point in November rag)." I don't see anything dishonest about giving lower buy points as the price went down. I do see something dishonest about hiding the earlier higher buy points. (Did you forget our STII discussion again?) "They are trading at 36 something today Math. Parse and spin that claim and entertain us with how Brinker was right and the goobers and geezers listening to him were wrong." You expect me to defend positions I don't hold? No thanks.