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 (2023)	3/18/2008 9:44:45 PM
From: Boca_PETE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2121

Kirk: This story about the re-assignment of BULLISH forecaster, Abby Joseph Cohen, sounds like the opposite of the Wall Street Week dismissal of BEARISH forecaster, Gail Dudack near the peak of the 1990's NASDAQ bubble. As I remember, shortly after her firing, the market peaked and started its bear market decline. If we get the reverse outcome, Abby's re-assignment could market the beginning of a stock market recovery. I'm very encouraged by the FED;s granting of expanded authorities to FANNIE MAY and FREDDIE MAC to repurchase mortgages. This could drive down mortgage interest rates making homes more affordable and stem the decline in home prices. Together with the newly established aggressive FED pattern to arrange shot gun marriages of failing banks with strong banks whereby the shareholders of the failed bank take maximum responsibility for their bank's losses, IMHO, this expanded mortgage re-purchase authority is VERY exciting news, indeed. P

To: Kirk © who wrote (2023)	3/18/2008 10:03:22 PM
From: queenleah	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2121

Kirk brought up the subject of Cohen (who is not the subject here) last night, first misstating I just read GS fired Abby for being as bullish as Brinker* going into 2008* and Goldman gave her the axe today (emphasis added). Neither statement was true. Today Kirk, never bothering to correct his misstatements, or answer any questions, invited queen to keep her opinions "on the ranch" and accused queen of "personal attack" after queen noted here that the Goldman-Cohen move had taken place (according to WSJ) some months ago. Then Kirk drew his completely speculative opinions on the reasons for the Cohen move into his hypothetical apples-and-oranges questions as to whether Brinker should not be "replaced" ala Cohen. Now Kirk says Queen should chime in and say "who gives a flying fig if the others don't beat the Wilshire5000" since they are not the topic here. Neither was Cohen, and I didn't bring her up. I have to wonder why Kirk is suggesting what I should say. Maybe he didn't care for what I did say? He hasn't responded to any of the points I've made except to suggest I keep them to myself. Kirk's questions as to whether Brinker should be fired as a "money manager" and Kirk's personal conjecture and assumption about WHY Cohen moved within Goldman Sachs, equating Cohen to Brinker, amount to an erroneous premise upon which is built a house of cards. If the premise is hypothetical and shaky and very possibly false, the "house" will topple. Just as it has.

To: Kirk © who wrote (2023)	3/19/2008 7:11:58 PM
From: octavian	Respond to of 2121

Kirk was asked: "--How many mutual funds, investment newsletters, financial advisors, etc., do you know of (excluding yourself) who have beaten the Wilshire 5000 over that same time period?" Kirk "answered": <<I said something about Abby not doing any better and being replaced and your buddy da queen got on my case. Queen should chime in and say "who gives a flying fig if the others don't beat the Wilshire5000" since they are not the topic here.>> --Well, you didn't answer my question, which is no surprise. To answer it accurately would have weakened your anti-brinker case. That's the difference between you anti-brinker "critics" and us more fair and objective posters. We can answer ALL legitimate questions because we have no agenda.