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: Kirk © who wrote (24532)	8/29/2006 10:49:27 AM
From: shres	Respond to of 42834

Nobody missed it Kirk. You are just taking yet another opportunity to throw up one of those invitations to spyware self-serving links. Did you get all that new stuff finally installed over there? But anyway, Mary: “Well, we had the right allocation according to, you know, what your guidelines you have set down.” It is clear that Mary was referring to her asset allocation because the discussion was about a balanced portfolio. But they can't fool you Kirk, because you KNOW what Mary is talking about...God whispered it to you "I think it is obvious what "guidelines" Mary was referring to... and any speculation she bought these QQQQs in 1999 is lunacy." Sheer lunacy shouts Kirk who also said it was quite possible that Mary was a child bride and is 20 years younger than her husband. Maybe she shouldn't even have a second house muses Kirk...maybe a nice REIT like he recommends in his newsletter[link]. It could happen....according to Kirk.

To: Kirk © who wrote (24532)	8/29/2006 8:42:58 PM
From: dijaexyahoo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42834

<<Mary: "Well, we had the right allocation according to, you know, what your guidelines you have set down." kirk, incredibly, responded: <<I think it is obvious what "guidelines" Mary was referring to... and any speculation she bought these QQQQs in 1999 is lunacy.>> --You're "right," it was VERY obvious. Mary was referring to Bob's 50-50 guidelines for people approaching retirement. The real LUNACY is speculation that she bought them because of Bob's Oct. 2000 bulletin. I have actually listened to the call a couple of MORE times, and there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in there to indicate she bought them because of Bob. In fact, I am almost certain she didn't, not that it matters one whit. <<Mary was simply asking if it was OK to sell QQQQ for a loss to offset gains in VTSMX to raise funds to make a 50% down payment on a vacation home.>> --Exactly. << Brinker pulled the old "answer a different question and try to make her look stupid" to discredit her call.>> --He was NOT trying to make her look stupid. No chance. That only happened in your imagination. Sometimes, he DOES try to make callers look stupid, in my opinion, but not this time. << Of course, he probed until he found an area she was not prepared to answer so he could divert the question to that area.>> --The above is pure gibberish. <<He knows full well that asking people their net worth on national radio puts them in a really defensive position too...>> --Poppycock! He needed to know the percentage of QQQs in her total portfolio. When you people listen to brinker, you are LOOKING for things to criticize. In your twisted minds, you are twisting and turning everything that is said to make it come out the way you want. I imagine you don't even realize you are doing it. You are not living in the real world! Look in the damn mirror instead of hitting "reply" and typing a bunch of insults aimed at me. I'm telling it like it is and you need to think about what I said. You don't want to go through the rest of your life thinking "black" is "white," do you? Listen to that call again, if you have it, and try to be objective. Geez, it's like you and stockalot and honey heard a different call than elan quatro and I heard. I can 100% guarantee that ANY person not involved with brinker in any way would agree with me and EQ about this call.