Bob Brinker Free Discussion Site 59,820+
- capran
- BrianMcG
- bob90245
- gadget767
- bbaddict
- permabear
- noggin
- Normxxx
- bbaddict
- bbaddict
This archived discussion is "read only".
For the corresponding "live" discussions, post in the active topic forum here.
« Previous 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 Next »
» capran - Re: QQQ
In response to QQQ posted by glh:Hope you are not holding your breath waiting for Bob to answer. He has obviously moved on. I'm not sure if it was Normxxx or Kirk that once siad it doesn't matter where a stock has been- havng no bearing on where it will go. I don't expect my tech stocks will ever get back to zero- gee, only 42% to go! And although its reported that Bob thinks 1350 is reasonable, there is no way anyone can make such prognostications so many months in advance. I still think some form of market timing is warranted, al least with some of my money. Seems it's market timing of a sort when you buy low and sell at a determined gain. I've left the 200 k in 403b/roth/ira money completely alone. When I checked the other day I was almost up to a 1998 to present big fat zero (actually, a minus 1.8%). Had a friend that pulled out after brinker suggested a sell, but went back in after a while and rode it down.
This year I started seriously moving money in and out of a self directed retirement account during over bought and over sold conditions. I am currently all out with a YTD of 13.97%. I expect to pick up a few pennies before the end of the year in the money market account which will bring me to 14% for the year (and that's on 230k- giving me a gain of 31K). I used to listen to Bob until I'd heard so much of the same BS I turned it off, figuring he'll never address is qqq or any other mistake he's called. I still get a "come join the newletter" rah, rah rah in the mail every so often and I toss it. But quite honestly, had he taken responsibility for his mistakes I might still be listening.
-- posted by capran
» BrianMcG - Re: Re: QQQ
In response to Re: QQQ posted by capran:I think your experience is similar to that of many others. I gave up listening to the program years ago, at the same time I let my subscription lapse. I was frankly tired of the BS. Somebody here called it "speaking in riddles." That seems to me a good description. That, and the self-posturing and self-serving comments, are about all you can really depend on in the program or the newsletter. All that said, however, I will pay attention when Brinker changes his posture--even if it's a "strategic asset reallocation," like the one he gave in 2000, as I believe he does have some insights. It will be one factor among others I will take into consideration when deciding whether to lighten up. Don't think I would ever go to 100% cash, as I feel it is always good to have some exposure to the equity markets. It's just a question of how much.
-- posted by BrianMcG
» bob90245 - Re: Yardini's chart
In response to Re: Re: Re: QQQ posted by Kirk:The thing that strikes me about Yardini's chart is the degree of extreme undervaluation in the market since 2002. The current levels of undervaluation haven't been seen since 1979.
I wonder if this is due to the currently low levels of interest rates? It would be interesting to see a chart showing earlier periods (1950-1970) when interest rates were also this low.
-- posted by bob90245
» gadget767 - Re: Re: Re: Yardini's chart
In response to Re: Re: Yardini's chart posted by Kirk:Yes, I have noticed HPQ. Nice to see that Carly (sp?) wasn't able to completely destroy that company.
-- posted by gadget767
» bbaddict - Re: Re: Re: Yardini's chart
In response to Re: Re: Yardini's chart posted by Kirk:Great work, Kirk! That Yardini work is fascinating. Anything else you can share?
Also, it is interesting that RSI is a good indicator for MSFT and INTC, but not HPQ. Why do you think that is?
And Permabear, one point to note: You said "So much for the Laffer curve", when noting the deficit. The deficit is a 2 part equation: spending - revenues. The Laffer curve doesn't have anything to do with spending. Since the tax cuts, revenue to the Treasury has increased, leaving the Laffer curve intact. These imbeciles in Washington are spending like... well, you know. So, we have increasing revenues AND increasing deficits because spending is out of control. And wait until the Medicare prescription drug plan kicks in.
-- posted by bbaddict
» permabear - Re: Re: Re: Re: Yardini's chart
In response to Re: Re: Re: Yardini's chart posted by bbaddict:Since the tax cuts, revenue to the Treasury has increased, leaving the Laffer curve intact. These imbeciles in Washington are spending like... well, you know. So, we have increasing revenues AND increasing deficits because spending is out of control.
I know Kirk is going to get on my case for responding, but I can't help myself. Even though I agree that the Republicans are spending like drunken sailors, the fact is that it is the tax cuts and spending on defense and national security that are far and away the biggest factors in the growth of budget deficits. Revenues currently make up approximately 16 percent of GDP, which is a level not seen for decades. By contrast, spending makes up around 20 percent of GDP, which is close to the mean historically. The tax cuts have created the lower revenues. The numbers speak for themselves:
-- posted by permabear
» noggin - Re: Re: Re: Re: QQQ
In response to Re: Re: Re: QQQ posted by Kirk:Kirk, In a interview with Lou Dobbs in Jan. 2000, He was asked if he was wrong about calling for a recession due to the Y2K bug (that he said would happen)- He deflected the question and said he was no longer calling for a recession and was recommending a fully invested position - (Just in time for the bear mkt). The reason I bring this up is he was saying the opposite of what this model was indicating. Personally I watch the Fed model and he deserves credit for having discovered it, but he lost credability after this blown call.You are probably aware of this but I wanted to point it out just in case.
Thank you for posting it and all your great work here.
-- posted by noggin
» Normxxx - Re: Re: Re: QQQ
In response to Re: Re: QQQ posted by BrianMcG:I think your experience is similar to that of many others. I gave up listening to the program years ago, at the same time I let my subscription lapse. I was frankly tired of the BS. Somebody here called it "speaking in riddles." That seems to me a good description. That, and the self-posturing and self-serving comments, are about all you can really depend on in the program or the newsletter.
Ah-h-h, but that's what's wrong with over 95% of the market letters, even the good ones, like Sy Harding's. What else can you expect, when there is really nothing to say much of the time, but you still have to produce a 4 - 12 page letter every week or so (the monthlies hardly count)— but beware of saying anything remotely stupid or which is likely to come back to haunt you? Some are a little more self-appreciative than others, but some are so blatently self-deprecating (while never forgetting to menion the 'great' calls and the 'great' track record), that after a while that wears as thin as the self-adoration (however disguised).
however, I will pay attention when Brinker changes his posture--even if it's a "strategic asset reallocation," like the one he gave in 2000,
Yes, after a time, you learn to pass over the "gas" and look for the "one or two good calls a year." But, if the gas doesn't entertain you, eventually you let the subscription lapse because you figure it's not worth it. But think about it; if BB or some others comes up with a really great call (which you can reliably isolate from the gas), on average about once every few years, isn't it worth a few hundred bucks a year? Especially if that one call can net you many tens of thousands (or more) in profit?
That's the strategy the big money goes for; but they can afford to pay a few thousand per (for known 'occasional' hit men, who, at those prices, tend to limit the gas and just say, in so many words, "nothing new this week"). That's why those letters are for the "sophisticated" investor that doesn't expect a $100 newsletter to come up with a ten bagger each week!
-- posted by Normxxx
» bbaddict - Re: Re: Brinker QQQ, Yardeni & Buffett/Munger
In response to Re: Brinker QQQ, Yardeni & Buffett/Munger posted by Kirk:Referring to "his asset allocation advice I have for 2002 overlaid on his chart"
Kirk, where is that chart?
Permabear, again you are mixing 2 variables. The Laffer curve demonstrates that tax revenues increase with lower rates. The reason is that GDP increases with lower rates, thus increasing tax revenues. GDP increases faster that tax revenues, so, yes, as a percentage of GDP, tax revs can go down. But the Laffer curve just refers to the revenues in $$, not in %GDP. To our representatives in government: "It's the spending, stupid!"
-- posted by bbaddict
» bbaddict - Re: Re: Re: Re: QQQ
In response to Re: Re: Re: QQQ posted by Normxxx:"if BB or some others comes up with a really great call..., on average about once every few years, isn't it worth a few hundred bucks a year?"
I let my subscription lapse after the QQQ call. Hence, I missed the 2003 buy signal at S&P 800. Big opportunity lost there.
Still kickin' myself for letting it lapse.
-- posted by bbaddict
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 Next »
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.