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: Market Savant & Radio Host -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kirk © who wrote (34404)	2/7/2008 10:06:41 PM
From: Midwest_Investor	Respond to of 42834

What exactly is a secular bear market? Is this defined someplace?

To: Kirk © who wrote (34404)	2/7/2008 10:48:12 PM
From: Math Junkie	Respond to of 42834

"You carefully avoided answering all three of my questions by listing something else Brinker said to talk around the questions that remain." I answered the only part that was relevant to changes in his outlook, which was the only thing I made a claim about in the statement that you claimed was false. Here's what I wrote, in case you forgot: "I'm a subscriber, and I can tell you that he does explain the reasons for changes in his outlook. "Are you being obtuse to be dishonest or is this really too difficult for you to comprehend?" You are just determined to pick a fight, aren't you? <Grin> "#1a Explain why TEFQX ..... still remains on HOLD, but not listed as such in the newsletter. [Hint, it is a HOLD and yet not covered in the newsletter.... where is his explanation for why?] "#1b Explain why he dropped it from his recommended list, still on hold, without telling people to sell for a huge loss. [Hint, it is a HOLD and yet not covered in the newsletter.... where is his explanation for why?]" Read my statement again. It was about changes in his outlook. The change in his outlook was taking it off the recommended list and putting it on hold. That is the ONLY part of the two items above that I am claiming he gave reasons for. I hate to belabor the obvious, but the fact that it is still on hold is not a change, and therefore is not something I made a claim about one way or the other. "#2 Explain why he said a secular bear market ended in mid 2006 just as the market was peaking last year in mid 2007, a secular bear market that never was. [Hint: There NEVER WAS a secular bear market yet he declared it over! How is that explaining anything? I see it as layering another deception on people to hide he was wrong or didn't understand that the definition of a secular bear ending means the unluckiest investor to buy at the very top is ahead, which includes dividends. Even Brinker on the air said people who talk about returns without including dividends have something to hide. He proves it.] "#3 Explain why he said the secular bear market would not be over unless the S&P went 10% higher, then he declared it over with it was only fractionally higher, both on a closing basis. [He never explained why he changed his definition to something non standard then, after I hammered him on it for a year or so, came around to my definition and simply declared the secular bear was over...when in fact there never was one.] "Brinker has NEVER explained this changes in very important concepts." I didn't say anything about his explaining changes in concepts. "BTW, what happened to MOABO or the most important thing to do in a bear market is to preserve capital? He NEVER explained why he didn't preserve capital with TEFQX and QQQ in 2000 and 2001 and 2002. He simply never repeated the phrase 'the most important thing to do in a bear market is to preserve capital' since his own actions would make him look foolish for not following his own advice." He gave his reasons for the changes in his outlook, and that's the only thing I claimed. You seem to want me to take the position that Brinker has ALWAYS explained EVERYTHING HE DOES! Sorry, ain't gonna do it!