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: Kirk © who wrote (1589)	10/14/2007 4:39:24 PM
From: Honey_Bee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2121

Ding, ding, ding! I notice that both Kirk and David give Brinker a mulligan on his THIRD call for a stock market "countertrend" rally that never materialized: In March 2001 Marketimer, Bob Brinker admits that he was "wrong" in October 2000 and January 2001, but amazingly, predicts a THIRD "bear market rally" for QQQQ in March 2001--to "begin shortly" and lasting "three to six months." . March 7, 2001, Marketimer: begins with Bob Brinker admitting that "we were wrong in our earlier expectations that a countertrend rally would develop late last year...." He then admits that even his call for a new bear market rally beginning on January 3 "was unable to sustain upward progress in February." In spite of these admissions of being "wrong," in the same issue of Marketimer, Bob Brinker again made the following recommendation to subscribers: "In our view, the probabilities favor a three to six month bear market rally phase beginning shortly. Such a rally has the potential to carry the Nasdaq composite Index above the 3000 level by spring or summer as measured from the closing lows." (March 1, 2001, QQQQ closed at $39.15)" .

To: Kirk © who wrote (1589)	10/14/2007 4:41:53 PM
From: queenleah	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2121

Kirk said I don't understand this talk of a "stop loss" as related to Brinker's QQQQ advice. So you disagree with David that Brinker should have advised the use of a stop-loss? Just asking. To me, it is like saying a gambler should have bet on red rather than black after losing his money on black. But no, a second wager after losing money on the first, is not the same thing as taking one's loss on the first bet and walking out of the casino. A stop-loss at the time of purchase is more like saying to oneself "I don't know if this is going to work, but I'm not going to lose my sox if it doesn't". Gamblers don't do that very much, that's what casinos count on. But investors quite often do exactly that, I understand.