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: Honey_Bee who wrote (24382)	8/27/2006 11:42:00 AM
From: 249443	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

I receive Bob Brinker's newsletter. The Q's were never in the Port 1, 2, or 3. Why is it honetres or others don't focus upon the $$$$ Brinker saved for subscribers/clients by getting out of the market January 2000 and getting back in March 2003? :)

To: Honey_Bee who wrote (24382)	8/27/2006 11:48:33 AM
From: Kirk ©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

There you go... all those folks who claim Brinker should get credit for MSFT are wrong. He doesn't list MSFT in ANY of his portfolios and he scolded this lady for having something he recommended "off the books." BTW, she was still accumulating assets, not retired, thus was not in a "balanced portfolio." Proof was she was only putting 50% down for the real estate investment (2nd home). It looks like she wanted some diversification that would also improve their lifestyle... otherwise, I'd recommend an REIT fund as I do in my "core" portfolios.

To: Honey_Bee who wrote (24382)	8/27/2006 12:28:43 PM
From: shres	Respond to of 42834

Hey, poor Mary has a net worth of about $3 million bucks and is buying a nice little vacation home for retirement for about $800 thousand. And yet her total investment in the QQQQ is only about a hundred thousand bucks. What happened here? According to Kirk, Hon and Stocky, she should be up to her yoo-hoo in QQQQs and total devastated. No retirement, no nothing. Cat Food City. What did Mary do...did she act prudently and follow her own guidance knowing that retirement was nearing and they wanted a nice vacation home? No, I think Mary was a plant to make Brinker look good. She is really destitute and will never recover from the QQQQ trade. [And BTW, how did Mary get those Qubes at 55 bucks? Kirk/Hon/Stocky all say EVERYBODY paid 80 bucks+ or so...LOL]

To: Honey_Bee who wrote (24382)	8/27/2006 1:44:32 PM
From: queenleah	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 42834

How can it be a "verbatim" transcript when it includes phrases like "BB, raising voice to talk Mary down" (X2), "BB raising voice--shouting Mary down", " BB, loudly interrupting Mary", and "Mary, loudly trying to say something". Sorry, that's not verbatim. That's someone's personal summary. IMO, if you're going to write a verbatim transcript, make it verbatim and leave out the personal judgments. I'm not saying the rest of it is not verbatim, I don't know. Aside from that, Brinker is not as clear as he might be, and I can understand why Mary might be frustrated. Reading it and studying it, it's much easier to see what he's saying than it would be on the telephone. But it seems clear to me that he's saying several things: (1) QQQQ should not be in a balanced portfolio (if I was Mary, I'd ask myself, what's the solution, if I have Qs where they should not be, according to Brinker?); (2) the couple can make their own decision about what they want to sell at this point. He's not comfortable with $38, but that's up to them; (3) there's no reason why it has to be all one thing--if they need 400K, they're not going to get it all from selling their Qs anyway. If I was Mary, I would hang up and say "Get rid of those !#$%^ Qs!". She's right about the capital gains thing. Sounds like she's already 90% on the idea. Bob's saying pretty strongly that they don't need to be in a balanced portfolio. If they watch the market and the world news at all, they know that Qs are not going back up to $55 anytime soon, certainly not before they need to raise the $400K. Brinker's gun-shy about the Qs, no doubt about that. That's why he won't give her a clear "sell" or "don't sell", though he doesn't like to do that anyway. If he said "sell" or don't sell" and then they went the opposite direction, you bashers would see to it that he never lived it down and you'd holler for another ten or twenty years about the "devastating" advice he gave to poor Mary with the $3 Million and the $800K vacation home. But the statement "Should this kind of deceptive practice be illegal? Obviously, it's immoral, dishonest and contemptible"-- is patently ridiculous.