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: samule who wrote (996)	9/17/2007 12:24:44 PM
From: davidk555	Respond to of 2121

Is that the same reason why Bob Brinker never issued a sell signal on the QQQQ shares he first recommended in October 2000?

To: samule who wrote (996)	9/17/2007 1:05:24 PM
From: Math Junkie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2121

"TEFQX was a high risk fund recommended only for aggressive investors. It was never included in any portfolios and therefore a sell recommendation was not necessary." That doesn't make any sense. The question of whether a sell recommendation is necessary depends only on whether a buy recommendation had been issued (it had), and your future outlook for the fund. Furthermore, since you still have the fund on hold, you should still be covering it in your investment letter, for the benefit of subscribers who are still holding it per your recommendation. I'm not one of those who says you can't do anything right, but as far as I know you have always continued coverage on a security you recommended (even QQQQ) until you issued a sell recommendation, with the sole exception of TEFQX.

To: samule who wrote (996)	9/19/2007 11:55:50 AM
From: joefromspringfield	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2121

Under Samule you said: << TEFQX was a high risk fund recommended only for aggressive investors. It was never included in any portfolios and therefore a sell recommendation was not necessary. >> If that is so why did you give a sell on UTEK? It was never in the portfolios. Seems like you have very selective reasoning. Could it have anything to do with the fact that TEFQX was down about 90% when you simply pretended to have never made the recommendation?

To: samule who wrote (996)	9/19/2007 4:14:22 PM
From: joefromspringfield	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2121

Bob Brinker clearly added TEFQX to his recommended list, then “removed” it after it dropped from $15.99 to $.3.93. Brinker, Feb 8, 2000 MT: TEFQX=$15.99; "Firsthand e-Commerce Fund is the newest addition to the Marketimer No-Load Fund Recommended List on Page four…… We have ALWAYS viewed books, toys and on-line auctions as the tip of the iceberg for electronic business. We believe business-to-business transactions will greatly surpass retail e-commerce including software development tools, database providers, hardware manufacturers and service providers. We are hopeful the fund will be able to add many of the best positioned B2B companies going forward. Many of these companies are not yet publicly owned but will come to market in the future." March 7, 2001 MT:TEFQX=$3.93; "We are removing Firsthand e-Commerce Fund from the Recommended List. We rate the fund a "hold" at these levels… we expect the shares to recover value over time." Brinker clearly recommended buying QQQQ at $83 in October 2000, and again in January 2001, and again in March 2001. Brinker never added QQQQ to his “recommended list” or to his “model portfolios," which made it easy for him to make the disastrous market timing blunders simply disappear. Brinker's three MAJOR cover-ups are: 1)TEFQX 2)QQQQ 3)Secular bear megatrend .