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 (1740)	10/27/2007 4:32:36 PM
From: Math Junkie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2121

In this situation we know What we know is that whenever "InvesTing" begins a post with the words "we know," it's usually the case that most of what follows is not "known" by anyone. 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" Please show us where and when that quote appeared. 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. Well now, it seems the latest tack to denying what is down in black and white is to claim that Brinker said it wasn't his BEST ADVICE. Too funny! (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". Irrelevant. Most subscribers were not BJ clients, and had no idea what he was telling them. 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? That was no longer possible after the November 2000 issue came out. In any case, his intentions were irrelevant. Only what he wrote and said matters. 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. His recommendations on what people following his model portfolios should own were shown on page eight of every issue, and he gave EXACT PERCENTAGES. He explicitly reinforced this on pages two and seven of the first Marketimer issue following the bulletin. The ONLY period of time for which it is legitimate to claim that the model portfolios had QQQ in them was the two or three weeks between the bulletin and the November issue. 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. You're speculating on what was in the minds of others, and it's a VERY IMPLAUSIBLE speculation at that! Can we stick to evaluating what Brinker wrote and recommended, please? "Any other interpretation simply is beyond what even Brinker tried to pull." Baloney. My "interpretation," as you call it, is the ONLY one that is consistent with Brinker's published results, with the sole exception that he didn't include the small losses that occurred between the bulletin and the November issue. "Total dishonsty." Same to you, pal.