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, Moneytalk and Marketimer -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Boca_PETE who wrote (146)	6/7/2007 5:01:41 PM
From: Honey_Bee	Respond to of 2121

Thanks Pete...I think you and I agree all points, except Bob Brinker. If he had explained his retroactive "secular bear market megatrend" change as eloquently as you did, then we might agree about him also.... :)

To: Boca_PETE who wrote (146)	6/7/2007 5:39:43 PM
From: Kirk ©	Respond to of 2121

Hi Pete. I hope you are enjoying retirement in Fl... Regarding the identification of the end of the so-called "secular bear market megatrend" a year after the fact, there may be some needed confirmation methodology in his thinking processes before he feels sure enough to make such an assertion. How can something that never started end? From Wiki: en.wikipedia.org Secular market trends: A secular market trend is a long-term trend that usually lasts 5 to 25 years, and consists of sequential primary trends. In a secular bull market the bear markets are smaller than the bull markets. Typically, each bear market does not wipe out the gains of the previous bull market, and the next bull market makes up the losses of the bear market. Conversely, in a secular bear market, the bull markets are smaller than the bear markets and do not wipe out the losses of the previous bear market. An example of a secular bull market would be the US Stock market between August 1982 and June 2007. The DJIA, S&P500 and Wilshire 5000 indexes all made new record highs in 2007 with only a single cyclical bear market low in October 2002 after the cyclical bull market high made in March 2000. Note the plural for bull and bear “markets” and the word “sequential.” One thing common in all definitions of a secular bear is there is more than one cycle. If we only had one bear market before making a new all time high, how could that be a secular bear market? The new high is just that, a new high in a very long secular bull market after a cyclical bear market between March 2000 and October 2002. Granted, Brinker has been fully invested and recommending some form of DCA all along, but this definition seemed important to Brinker and many who write me or post here xrl.us

To: Boca_PETE who wrote (146)	6/7/2007 5:47:45 PM
From: stockalot	Respond to of 2121

Pete, Why skip the most obvious possibility when discussing why Brinker would in a bizzare twist end his "secular bear market" marketing ploy? After talking about his claimed "secular bear market" just a couple weeks ago claiming that for it to end that the market would have to exceed 1527 by 10%, he did a 180 in the newsletter just days later and not only said the bear was dead--but it died a year ago. Now what was interesting in the couple weeks from his heated yammering on his infomercial and his total flip flop in the June newsletter???? Well the internet that talks about brinker had several discussions about just how silly Brinker would look with this secular bear call if the market continued it's relentless upward move. We know that Brinker can't predict the market --well most of us do. Same guy that claimed the bear was at the door in 88 and for the only time in his life claimed he was bearish at the time of reducing his market exposure to zero. Same guy that sent this gem to each and every subscriber in Oct. 2000. and Pete, are you sitting down??? Do you know that Brinker who you give all of those alibis for why he might have changed his mind on the secular bear and mentioned it about 12 months after he claims the corner was turned--did with those QQQs making up to 1/3 of an entire portfolio???? Yep he holds them to this day--and HIDES THEM. MARKETIMER is projecting a significant countertrend rally which is expected to be led by the Nasdaq 100 Index. We expect this rally to persist over a period of approximately 2-4 months, and to generate Nasdaq gains in excess of 20% from the vicinity of the recently established Nasdaq closing low point. We view this projected Nasdaq rally as a significant trading opportunity for MARKETIMER subscribers seeking potential short-term capital gains. Our clear vehicle of choice for this opportunity is the Nasdaq 100, which is traded on the American Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol QQQ. We recommend MARKETIMER subscribers with aggressive objectives invest 30% to 50% of existing CASH RESERVES in the QQQ shares in order to exploit this opportunity. Also, we recommend subscribers with conservative investment objectives invest 20% to 30% of CASH RESERVES in the QQQ shares in order to take advantage of this opportunity. "MARKETIMER will provide follow up guidance for this short-term opportunity in regular monthly editions, and, if necessary, in follow up bulletins. We recommend subscribers interested in taking advantage of this recommendation act immediately." You see when Brinker screws up--he lets the subscribers deal with the pain and hides the call that seemed idiotic in hindsight. Isn't that the most likely reason that with the market booming a week ago that Brinker took the "way out" by declaring that there was a "secular bear market" (total BS in the context of such definitions --recall your guru was claiming that such a critter would have many cyclical bull markets he would play--can you name these multiple cyclical bull markets in what only your guru claims is a "secular bear market"? No, although opinions are like noses, you don' t have to go through the gyrations you did to find the most likely reason of Brinker throwing that Bear not just overboard, but overboard 12 months ago--It simply looked like the market was going up and he was looking more and more like the fool who was responsible for that QQQ advice that is now hidden. Best way to hide that secular bear is to say he croaked long long ago. Unfortunately now the market has pelted him with eggs once again. I know and if you are in any way honest know that if the last 3 days in the market would have happened before Brinker sent out that bizzare ending of the secular bear-- you would have never seen such a claim. When one realizes that Brinker is mostly about making himself look like a fortune teller in the stock market and hiding or spinning items that make him look bad--then they understand the game. Or so it seems to me.

To: Boca_PETE who wrote (146)	6/16/2007 12:19:52 AM
From: davidk555	Respond to of 2121

Welcome Boca Pete. Your post had some very insightful comments. I agree that the secular trend is a relevant one. Recall that in Bob Brinker's discussion of secular bear markets, he would often point out that the ultimate low did not always come at the end of the first cyclical bear, but often at the conclusion of other bears during that time frame. There are also other risk factors present in the market today due to the potential disruption to the economy and the stock market based on an international (or domestic) terrorist attack. So far, so good on the homeland front there and we can only do our best to try and prevent that from happening again.