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 (1612)	10/15/2007 12:51:20 AM
From: queenleah	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2121

Kirk said to queen: You asked me if I agreed with David's comment that Brinker, as a trader with experience, should have set a stop loss rather than continuing to suggest buying as the QQQQ fell from $87 where he was recommending it to the mid $40's when he put it on hold. No, Kirk, I asked you if you disagreed with David's comment that Brinker as an advisor should have advised a stop-loss on the QQQ trade to his subscribers. We were talking about Brinker as an advisor, and what he did or didn't do or should have or should not have done as an advisor, not "as a trader with experience". Kirk's own words from post #1589: I don't understand this talk of a "stop loss" as related to Brinker's QQQQ advice. (emphasis added) Also, Kirk's own words from #1597: I disagree. I think Brinker should have advised shorting QQQQ in October 2000 when it was in the $80's. THAT would have been a profitable trade. What he did or didn't advise his subscribers was the topic, remember? Originally, apparently sidestepping the question as to whether you agreed with David regarding stop-loss advice, Kirk said that obviously Brinker should have shorted the Qs instead and covered when it bottomed. I don't believe Brinker has ever advised his subscribers to short the market on anything. What Brinker should have done with his own portfolio, allowing for hindsight as in "he should have shorted and then covered when it reached the bottom", is beside the point.

To: Kirk © who wrote (1612)	10/15/2007 7:11:28 PM
From: octavian	Respond to of 2121

kirk said: <<BTW, Brinker used to "advertise" in the 1990's that he would go short if his model turned bearish.>> --Well, I see you corrected this erroneous statement in a later post. Thank you. Did you get an email from David K? -:) <<I think may are upset with Brinker for using his radio show in the 1990's to give the impression he was an experienced and successful trader while it turned out he was nothing more than someone having the benefit of a bull market to save his bad trades.>> --I would say that is pure speculation disguised as fact. Does anyone want to know the definition of "basher?" -:)