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: InvesTing who wrote (1645)	10/17/2007 5:23:24 PM
From: queenleah	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2121

Stockie, ALL of THAT in order to attempt to refute what I said about MY OWN actions (or inaction) when I obviously know more about my own portfolio than anyone else could possibly know? I'm sorry that it's so hard for you to understand. Indeed it seems the only thing stopping you from buying more QQQs than you did was that you just didn't trust Brinker's bearish call and had left everything in the market and yet were anxious to buy more as you did. You're assuming, and erroneously, I might add. I think it is a great case study in how worthless subscribing to his newsletter was for you. You had no benefits and all the pain. More erroneous assumption on your part. I'm sorry for your losses in not being able to really act or not act appropriately. Thank you, but I've made it up many times over. My investments are currently in the "scenic float" mode rather than the "wildwater" mode. And that's why I don't worry much about it now, it is (and I am) doing just fine, IMO. Of course if one has a good asset allocation, that is well diversified, they don't find themselves worring about being out of state or when the next big trading idea is going to arrive in the mailbox. I WASN'T worried or vigilant enough about it, that's the problem, as it happened. The fact remains that my original comments in answer to Joe's questions were truth: I lost more on my own inaction in not following the Brinker January call than I ever lost on the October QQQ call, no matter how my truthful comments and replies are picked apart and my truthfulness doubted.

To: InvesTing who wrote (1645)	10/17/2007 5:49:21 PM
From: Honey_Bee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2121

Inves Ting reminded us that Ms. Queen quite candidly admitted that even though she is a long-time, loyal Marketimer subscriber she failed to act when Brinker gave his 60/40 sell signal in January, 2000. I see that she claims to have been "out of state" at the time and couldn't "sell a thing." Inves Ting then pointed out the fact that Ms queen had MONTHS to act on Brinker's sell signal. MOF: it is also a fact that it was August, 2000 when Brinker actually INCREASED his cash reserves (from equities) to 65%. (I must say Ms.queen, you were "out of state" for a very long time, weren't you?) 8^) Then to follow up, Inves Ting pointed out that Ms Queen DID get home in time to take advantage of Brinker's big "countertrend rally--buy QQQ immediately" hocus-pocus, which she jumped right on--paying almost top-dollar for them. . Based on these self-admitted facts by Ms queen, I agree with Inves Ting's conclusions here: "Now I see in a post you thought it was unlikely many used 50% of their "cash reserves" (I and I believe most of his critics did not because I had made up my mind that Brinker was as full of it as a Christmas goose long before that brain dead letter). I think your own action belies that claim. . Indeed it seems the only thing stopping you from buying more QQQs than you did was that you just didn't trust Brinker's bearish call and had left everything in the market and yet were anxious to buy more as you did. . I think it is a great case study in how worthless subscribing to his newsletter was for you. You had no benefits and all the pain. I'm guessing that is a very likely outcome for many guru followers." .