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: davidk555 who wrote (1580)	10/14/2007 1:52:49 PM
From: alleeox	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2121

Of course, the lack of any stop loss also showed a bit of amateurness to the recommendation I don't think announcing your stop loss order in advance to millions of people would have been a very good idea.

To: davidk555 who wrote (1580)	10/14/2007 2:49:26 PM
From: dick_from_chgoo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2121

..."If you have ever seen the bulletin, there were two glaring things wrong with it in the first place. First, it was not dated anywhere! Second, there was no specific buy level on the recommendation." I will agree with you that those two items were necessary pieces of information that most certainly should have been included in the bulletin. "All it said was to Act Immediately."... Well, that's not exactly ALL it said. I find it telling how those with the "Bob Brinker aversion" syndrome fail to mention the last sentence of the bulletin: "We recommend subscribers INTERESTED(my emphasis) in taking advantage of this recommendation act immediately." Of course, the key word being INTERESTED, to me indicated this was an optional trade as are all self directed investment decisions. My guess is the BBAS crowd must have missed that part of the bulletin, and somehow still do.

To: davidk555 who wrote (1580)	10/14/2007 8:07:31 PM
From: octavian	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2121

David K. said: <<I would agree that the QQQQ recommendation made first in October 2000, repeated in November/December 2000, reset and recommended again in January 2001, was not catastrophic to someone following all of Bob Brinker's stock market timing advice to the letter. The reason is that it was recommended for all subscribers (conservative through aggressive) to purchase with the cash reserves they had raised from the January 2000 tactical asset allocation signal. And for someone following all of that advice, their portfolio would have been able to weather the QQQQ recommendation.>> --Thank you. That pretty well sums it up. You would think everyone would agree, but we had some hellacious debates on the Yahoo board a while back with bashers who insisted that it was catastrophic to many subscribers. Retired in Prescott was the poster boy for the "catastrophic" crowd for saying Brinker had "ruined my retirement." The bashers LOVED him! At least until fish and some others came along and poked a bunch of holes in his "story." <<It was a horrible recommendation no doubt, but no advisor is perfect in terms of making recommendations on individual securities, funds or timing.>> --Thanks for that too. That has always been my point. But the bashers aren't usually willing to make that concession (which is why they are called bashers). -:) I do agree with them on one point though: It is hard to imagine an advisor making a worse recommendation, everything considered. <<If you have ever seen the bulletin, there were two glaring things wrong with it in the first place. First, it was not dated anywhere! Second, there was no specific buy level on the recommendation.>> --Yes, I have seen it. There was one in my mailbox! -:) Another thing that was wrong with it, imo, is that it was absurd to recommend that as much as 1/3 of a person's portfolio be put into a short-term trade! Would any real trader do such a thing? (Needless to say, if one would actually risk that much, he would have a quick stop-loss trigger). <<(And there is still confusion among subscribers to Marketimer as to whether he ever recommended selling them).>> --IMO, he never has. Not the "original" ones. << Brinker could have maintained his credibility, even with a bad recommendation, if he simply owned up to his mistakes in a credible manner.>> --I agree, of course. But imo that is no excuse for people to run around the internet dreaming up things to bash him about. << Unfortunately, this behavior has not changed in my opinion, as evidenced even this past weekend as Bob is now trying to spin his way out of the recommendation he made with regard to the DVY now that it has underperformed the market over the last year. Only a close listener might have picked up on that.>> --Are you talking about his telling a caller that DVY cannot be expected to keep up with the S&P in a bull market because it is composed of slow-growers? And that it is designed for people who want income? I don't see any problem with that!