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: dogman who wrote (2043)	11/9/1997 5:26:00 PM
From: dougjn	Respond to of 42834

The law restricts only those w/a particular duty, from frontrunning those they have a duty towards. Not generally journalists. In fact, the whole area is quite fuzzy. In any even, all legal issues are generally dispelled if the person discloses their personal interest in the stock. E.g. I have Intel, I don't have intel. I generally get quite tired of how much people complain about any negative views expressed, especially if strongly or convincingly, w/respect to stocks they own. Tolerance to unfounded postive views is infinitely higher for no logical reason that I can discern. Other of course than the self interest/ comfortable kidding of oneself that many longs may indulge in. In my personal experience, when I have warned people out of a stock I have gotten out of (e.g. Asnd in low 50s, coms in mid 40s), Rmbs, etc. I get firstly huge hostility when calmly warning. And no thanks or recognition unless virtually forced (and then grudging) when right. It is human nature one could anticipate, but the strength and one sidedness of the tendency is hard to overstate. Quite amazing, actually. Personally, I love to hear well reasoned, as opposed to rumor mongering, etc. bearish discussion on stocks I own. Like to hear both sides. Doug

To: dogman who wrote (2043)	11/9/1997 8:22:00 PM
From: Boca_PETE	Respond to of 42834

Dogman: I've been listenning to BB on the radio since October 1981. He IS a man of integrity. If he bad mouths a stock or a fund, it's because he is educating the listenning public on how to evaluate whether or not a stock or fund is overvalued. It's his thinking that's most important to listen for, not the name of the stock or fund. Any suggestion that he'd tout or bash a stock or fund for personal gain is BOGUS - off the wall .... He lives in "the land of Monopoly Money" and does his program to help clueless people starting out on an investment program on the skills needed to reach the land of critical mass. I can't believe you've been a listener for very long. Nobody who listens regularly would even think of making such an absurd suggestin. Just be glad he's generous enough to continue the program. If I were you, I'd take lots of notes each weekend. When BB quits, I doubt any replacement will provide 1% of the knowledgable, valuable, and impartial investment advice he spouts each weekend on the radio. P

To: dogman who wrote (2043)	11/9/1997 11:11:00 PM
From: mister topes	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42834

Get real Dogman. Brinker has already answered your insults on the Moneytalk program many times. He has repeatedly said he sold all of his Intel in the mid-nineties based on concerns over the move to lower priced personal computers which are now hurting the stock. He also said he has no position whatsoever in Intel so he cannot be short the stock since that would be an obvious position. As for Coca Cola he has repeatedly said on Moneytalk he has never owned Coke and has never had a position of any kind in Coke. If you had just listened to his programs you could have avoided embarrassing yourself with your unfounded accusations. Maybe in the future you will listen before writing your fictional accounts. He has also correctly trashed Iomega at 55 and Cymer at 49.