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: sweetsue who wrote (1185)	9/24/2007 5:39:48 PM
From: Math Junkie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2121

"I have to take your (and Pete's) word for what Brinker did before 1987." Actually that Pete's and Mr. Greenjeans' word. We all have to take SOMEBODY'S word for anything that happened before each of us started following Brinker. In my case, I have to take people's word for what happened before 1996. As another example, sometimes we take Hulbert's word for things, and sometimes we don't. "Oops, Math...sorry but that is incorrect. Brinker sent that bulletin AFTER the market was above 1380 and it did not return to (close to) that level until AFTER Brinker gave a NEW buy signal in the 'mid-1400s' range." What's incorrect about what I said? I did NOT say that he sent the bulletin before the market was at 1380. In fact I clearly implied otherwise when I said the buy didn't execute. "Brinker evidently thinks that the distance between 1380 and 1450 on the S&P is important or he wouldn't have bothered to issue a new buy signal--would he?" In my opinion, the importance was whether the buy level would execute or not, NOT that he was "wrong" to rate that level as attractive for purchase. Even with the market returning to 1380, it did so so briefly that very few people would have been able to take advantage of it, and people who were buying murual funds would have been excluded altogether, because the market never did get back down to that level on a closing basis. 1380 was, in fact, an attractive price, and the market's not returning to that level does not alter that fact. So he was right to say it was an attractive price even though the market did offer another opportunity at that price. The statement that a given price is attractive for purchase does not become wrong merely because that price does not become available. "So Math, you are saying that the fact that the market immediately started to drop after he gave the last signal and actually dropped back very close to the PREVIOUS signal (1380) does not make the last signal irrelevant? I heartily disagree." Why would it make the last buy level irrelevant? People who were waiting for the last buy level and acted on it when it materialized could not buy any more shares when it subsequently hit 1380, so it's the 1380 level that was irrelevant. "1) In March 2007, Bob Brinker gave a buy signal at '1380 or lower' and the stock market stayed above that level, so the advice to dollar-cost-average would have trumped that buy signal." That's right, and anyone in that position would have presumably continued their dollar-cost averaging program until the next announced buy level was hit. So what? "2) August 3, 2007, Bob Brinker gave another buy signal in the 'mid-1400' range and the stock market almost immediately began to drop below that, reaching 1380 intraday, closing at a low of 1406 on August 15, 2007." Right, and notice that 1450 is only 3.1% above 1406. More importantly, anyone who had new money to invest at that time would have been able to lump sum into the market between August 9th and August 14th, and unless the market goes below the mid-1400s and stays there, their purchase will be profitable. "It was a sizable miss if you bought at 1450 or above; and '1380 or lower' was never hit (on a closing basis)." I don't agree that buying 3% above the closing bottom is a "sizable miss." However, your and my opinions on what constitutes a "sizable miss" are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether the purchase in the mid-1400s turns out to be profitable, and that remains to be seen.