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 (24565)	8/29/2006 1:41:47 PM
From: shres	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Perhaps you could check with Brimelow and see if he still has the email and if he transcribed it properly... You gotta be kidding! That's right and then you could check with Elliot Spitzer to see if he is going to prosecute and then you might write to ABC to see why they aren't cancelling the show. A long letter to Mark Hulbert is in order too asking why he thinks Brinker is the best market timer around. And you might ask Mark if he ever plans to cover Kirk. You might have to spell that one out for him.

To: stockalot who wrote (24565)	8/29/2006 1:56:32 PM
From: Math Junkie	Respond to of 42834

So in your mind, a Brinker detractor couldn't possibly be dishonest about it? "I agree that this guy was not supposed to be in the aggressive group, but we have Dija who has claimed that right at retirement he was 100% equities which would be very aggressive. I assume if Brinker would have made this recommendation when Dija was in his go for broke aggressive stance he would have quite possibly took the aggressive recommendation Brinker gave them." Dija has said many times that he didn't, and doesn't, follow Brinker in lock-step. I thought we were supposed to be evaluating Brinker's advice. When his subscribers deviate from his advice, that reflects on them, not him, except in cases where he is unclear. Brinker has been very clear, on multiple occasions, that people in or near retirement should invest conservatively, and should be about half in bonds. "As Brimelow points out regardless how dumb the audience getting the advice may be there is hardly a reason to have the recommendation NEVER CLOSED OUT now SIX YEARS LATER." The time to close out the advice would have been before it bottomed. Having missed that opportunity, if Brinker is right that we are still in a bull market, that certainly could be considered a reason for not closing it out for the past several years. "It's Bob Brinker's dishonesty in this matter that seems totally bizzare to try to pull off in the age of the internet that interests me. Perhaps you could check with Brimelow and see if he still has the email and if he transcribed it properly." Since you're the one who's speculating that he transcribed it wrong, I'll leave that futile exercise to you.

To: stockalot who wrote (24565)	8/29/2006 9:07:15 PM
From: dijaexyahoo	Respond to of 42834

stockalot said: <<I agree that this guy was not supposed to be in the aggressive group, but we have Dija who has claimed that right at retirement he was 100% equities which would be very aggressive.>> --The POINT is, if this "Ernest" guy was at 100% equities, then he had NO BUSINESS for blaming brinker for his problems! Just for the record, I was never at 100% equities. I was maybe 90% tops. 80% or so by 1998. In mid-late 1999, after the market had rallied back from the brief bear, I started to pare back more. I was down to maybe 60% by Jan. 2000. After brinker's call, I sold some more. Then I sold a tech fund in Aug. or Sept. that put me at about 25%. Then in Oct. I bought the QQQs and went to around 30%. I didn't retire until Oct. 2001. I did push the envelope a little bit. But I was always mostly in conservative mutual funds. I underperformed badly in 1999 because I had mostly value mutual funds. And some of those are the ones I kept through the bear. << I assume if Brinker would have made this recommendation when Dija was in his go for broke aggressive stance he would have quite possibly took the aggressive recommendation Brinker gave them.>> --I don't think so. As I indicated, I never got into the internet stocks and never had more than a small percentage in technology, other than the tech held by my non-aggressive funds. I was always aware that the market was going to crash at some point,and that tech would be hit the hardest. I was aggressive but also kind of risk-averse. -:)