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: Math Junkie who wrote (1722)	10/26/2007 3:38:40 PM
From: InvesTing	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2121

Well when it's "mythical money" as Brinker's newsletter investing is-one can I suppose claim nearly anything. In this situation we know 1) Brinker sent that bulletin urging but conservative and aggressive subscribers (only those who wanted to make more than 20% profit in two to four months mind you) to use large amounts of what he described as "cash reserves" --monies gained when the equity allocation was reduced by 65% including the model portfolios. 2) Brinker spent all but about 3 lines of the first two pages of the next newsletter pimping the QQQ trade and claiming that "the great advantage of having cash reserves is to be able to take advantage of these counter trend opportunities when they are identifiable". -- Thus anyone who had assumed that Brinker wanted them to use their model portfolio cash reserves to buy the QQQs were comforted in that holding them or even increasing their allocation to the maximum exposure for their risk profile as Brinker once again outlined in the December newsletter was indeed his BEST ADVICE. (Further we have the evidence that every BJ Group investor was stuck into the QQQs according to their risk profile because of this "opportunity identified by Bob Brinker". 3) Brinker claimed that within months "We will identify an exit point and return the monies to "cash reserves". Now can you say with any kind of certainty that Brinker had no inteniton of claiming these "cash reserves gains" would not then be entered into the model portfolios? Of course not--all of thise stuff Brinker makes up as he goes along. Further, Brinker over and over reiterated how much followers would have in the QQQs and used his description of the model portfolio profiles to quantify them--to give the impression that Brinker urged, asked, said it might be a good idea, even hinted that anyone following his advice should sell the QQQs and put the money back int "cash reserves" until he "identified the time to sell and return to cash reserves" is simply not true. The only item you quote had to sound to any follower as a "bookeeping" reference. As in "since this is a short term opportunity we won't put the qQQs in the model portfolios on page 8."....but coupled with how much the subscribers should have in the QQQs, and how Brinker would "identify the exit point" and return the monies to "cash reserves"; any reasonable person would assume they were following his advice to the letter to hold the QQQs purchased with cash reserves from the model portfolios. Any other interpretation simply is beyond what even Brinker tried to pull. Total dishonsty.

To: Math Junkie who wrote (1722)	10/26/2007 4:10:44 PM
From: Honey_Bee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2121

I posted: "2) November 2000: Brinker recommended the exact percentage of model portfolio cash reserves that aggressive and conservative investors should put into QQQQ." Math replied: "He didn't give the exact percentage, he gave a range of percentages." Okay Math, I should have said "exact percentage RANGE." Math, quoting my post, wrote: "3) November 2000: Brinker said that HE would not be include [sic] this [sic] 'used' cash reserves in the model portfolios from which it came." Then Math replied: "The [sic] used cash reserves only came from model portfolios for those subscribers who were following a model portfolio." Golly-gee, if I'd known the school-marm was back, I'd have proof-read my post a little closer--but I digress. Yes, what happened to the model portfolio cash reserves is indeed the subject, isn't it, Math? .

To: Math Junkie who wrote (1722)	10/26/2007 7:18:38 PM
From: octavian	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2121

math said: <<The used cash reserves only came from model portfolios for those subscribers who were following a model portfolio.>> --I wonder what percentage of Brinker's subscribers actually follow a model portfolio. Over the years, I have probably known about 10 people who subscribed at one time or another to the newsletter, and not a single one of them actually followed one of the portfolios. Queen and I both follow Brinker, but neither of us took our QQQ money out of "cash reserves" because we weren't following a model portfolio. A lot of my QQQ money came from the sale of a tech fund at or very near the top of the market in August, 2000.