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 (28249)	1/28/2007 10:00:31 PM
From: Math Junkie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Nice try, math, but you are forgetting that he in no way said that the Individual List "hold" recommendation included the QQQ "positions" that his subscribers were holding as per his countertrend rally buys--EVER! Why would it be necessary to say that? It's not normal for a newsletter writer to have different ratings for different lots of a security depending on when they were purchased. If a newsletter writer says a given security is on "hold," the normal meaning is that it applies to whatever shares of that security the subscriber holds. MOF: He went to great lengths to show the difference. He repeated this EVERY MONTH from November 2000-June 2001: "All of the individual issues on our list are currently rated "hold" except the Nasdaq 100 Shares (QQQ), which are recommended within the guidelines listed on page one of this newsletter. He wasn't showing a difference. His taking QQQ off of hold made the list consistent with his buy recommendation. If the list ratings didn't apply, then the above quoted sentence would have served no purpose. Why can't you see that? But, he still continued to differentiate between those holding "positions" and the "List" by offering follow up advice in the heart of his newsletter--each month until March of 2003. Advice such as this: "For subscribers with a position in Nasdaq 100 Index (QQQ)shares, we recommend holding these shares for future recovery within our earlier percentage guidelines." That's not differentiation, because it was the same advice in both places: QQQ was on hold starting in June of 2001. For him to have continued to point out that there was a difference would have been redundant, because by this time, the poor "guru" was not offering anything new about the Qs on "Page One, or Page Two." What "difference"? A hold rating is a hold rating is a hold rating.