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 (24612)	8/29/2006 10:06:44 PM
From: EQ	Respond to of 42834

Math Junkie: "(When he originally recommended RYOCX, he said subscribers could substitute QQQ for it if they preferred.)" I am at a loss as to why Bob would recommend RYOCX over QQQQ. QQQQ has marginally outperformed RYOCX in the past 5 years and has a lower expense ratio. In addition, you have a lot more flexibility in using QQQQ as a trading mechanism (if the mood strikes you.) Perhaps most importantly, you can place hard stops, trailing stops and conditional trades on the QQQQ's, none of which is possible with RYOCX. finance.yahoo.com

To: Math Junkie who wrote (24612)	8/29/2006 11:03:32 PM
From: yaetmo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

>>I think Dija trusts me, so I will save him a trip to the library. Effective at the close on April 11, 2006, he said to sell 2/5 of the RYOCX in P1, 1/3 of the RYOCX in P2, and all of the RYOCX in P3. (When he originally recommended RYOCX, he said subscribers could substitute QQQ for it if they preferred.) Math, then can I assume that you are confirming the April '06 does not say a thing about QQQQ holdings?

To: Math Junkie who wrote (24612)	8/30/2006 1:27:03 PM
From: Kirk ©	Respond to of 42834

Why would anyone think what he recommends for his model portfolios has anything to do with his "off the books" recommendations such as the October 2000 QQQQs, MSFT or VOD? At best, all he has said about these in who is the total holdings should match his listed guidelines (April 2000 newsletter when he recommended those funds for the IRA). Those guidelines (35% equities and 65% cash reserves) went out the window when he kept recommending 20 to 50% of cash reserves go into QQQQ as QQQQ fell from $87 to the mid $40's where he then said "hold for future recovery." Were people to keep readjusting each month he recommended 20 to 50% of cash reserves go into QQQQ such that they had the recommended allocation? If yes, then they would have kept buying all the way down to $46 or so where he said "hold for future recovery." I don't think he's ever been clear on that either. I don't believe he has EVER addressed those shares since they were about $46 and he changed them from BUY to HOLD. I see them now as little different than MSFT or VOD... need to be addressed as off the books advice, just like TEFQX.

To: Math Junkie who wrote (24612)	8/30/2006 7:21:15 PM
From: Honey_Bee	Respond to of 42834

Math, I am rather disturbed at what appears to be an attempt on your part to muddy the BOB BRINKER waters and mix his 2000 and 2001 QQQQ-countertrend rally trades with his March 2003 NEW buy of RYOCX--which he added to his "model portfolios." If this is your intention--it won't work! One issue has NOTHING to do with the other. You know as well as everyone that BOB BRINKER never put his QQQQ "Act Immediately" or any other of his QQQQ-trades into his "model portfolios." So I hope that you are not inferring that because BOB BRINKER said that RYOCX and QQQQ were interchangeable that they were/are the same thing, as far as BOB BRINKER's record is concerned. Please do not destroy all of your credibility by making such an outrageous and easily disproven claim. And please do not pimp for BOB BRINKER by even INFERRING that they were/are the same thing--it is way beneath you. . .