Honey's Brinker Beehive--Not a Fan Club

Top 17. Oct 3, 2005 6:27 PM

» Kirk - Re: The Newsletter That Discusses Brinker's Show

.
In response to The Newsletter That Discusses Brinker's Show posted by honeyoneohone:

Will gives reasons why taking the newsletter that discusses Brinker's radio program gets you more truthful information about what Brinker recommended. That would be David Korn's Newsletter...

I agree, David's newsletter is good. In fact, I help him promote it!

If you would like to learn about David's newsletter service, which is a recap of Moneytalk along with David's interpretations of what Brinker said plus comparisons to the past, plus even more information on the topics then visit the Bob Brinker Fan Club and get on the free mailing list.

-- posted by Kirk

Top 18. Oct 4, 2005 6:15 AM

» EPS - Re: The Newsletter That Discusses Brinker's Show

I used to be an avid listener to Brinker's show in the late '90s and early after the tech meltdown, so I want to set the record straight about his sell call. Brinker clearly explained on several occasions to callers what his rationale was for his 60:40 (I think that was the ratio) split. He wanted to limit downward exposure while positioning himself for any upside gains. While it seemed rational to me at the time; in retrospect it was tyical BB covering one's backside.

The QQQ debacle had no impact on me, but I have since seen the shallowness of his newsletter and pettiness of the radio program.

That being said, Brinker's hesitancy to put himself out on a limb would actually cause me to pause and take notice if he issued a sell or buy call.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

-- posted by EPS

http://www.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/i...

Top 19. Oct 4, 2005 7:59 AM

» honeyoneohone - Thank You EPS: Here's More

In response to Re: The Newsletter That Discusses Brinker's Show posted by EPS:

.
Thank you for telling us about your Brinker experience--very interesting. Brinker is very adept at "covering his backside."

Did you know that he is also covered up the fact that he had an inside interest in a stock that he was touting back in the 1990's?

To the following statement:

"You've never proven that Brinker did anything unethical regarding UTEK."

Will L. answered:

"I never "proved" that the sun will rise in the east in the morning. I never "proved" that OJ killed two people. A jury acquitted them. It is still obvious to any reasonable person that he did it and it was wrong.
Brinker had one stock as a buy during much of the period from 97 through 99. That stock was Utek. He touted that stock under an alias on Silicon investor and on this very thread. He touted that stock in the newsletter as his ONLY BUY. He raved about it on the radio.
What Brinker NEVER DISCLOSED was that out of the universe of 6,000 stocks the ONLY stock he found to be a buy was ALSO PAYING HIM.
Now if you are saying that I cannot fathom the synapses of Brinker's brain of course you are correct. If your premise is that he was so naive as to believe that touting a stock with scores of posts under his alias that you have admitted was Brinker himself and never disclosing the company was paying him, then of course like the OJ jury you have an agenda.
If your premise is that Brinker was so naive that having the stock as his ONLY individual stock buy during the greatest tech rally in history without disclosing that UTEK was paying him...then of course like the OJ jury you have an agenda.
If you need me to show you a video tape of OJ stabbing the cowboy "$%%@#" out of those two people I can't do it. You know, I know and any thinking person knows what he did was wrong. His behavior after the fact testifies to the truth.
Brinker under his alias was evasive and he was evasive on his last appearance on PBS when someone else called him on his apparent conflict of interest.
Now you may not want to know if the advisor you trust is being paid by the company who is the ONLY stock he is recommending. I think any thinking person outside of those with an agenda ala OJ jury or a Brinkershill like you would like to know that.
Brinker knows it was wrong and of course so do you. He hides it---you won't admit it. The thing that separates Brinker and makes his UTEK scam worse than Grubman was that at least Grubman had many stocks as a recommendation during that period in which he was also touting stocks that paid him.
I don't have Brinker's emails. I don't have the minutes of the meetings of UTEK. I don't have a video tape of the murder scene in the OJ trial. I know the difference between right and wrong and what Brinker did with his alias Don Lane touting UTEK and LYING in many cases about it--was WRONG."

You can read much of the touting, done as "donlane/mistertopes," on this thread:

-- posted by honeyoneohone

Top 20. Oct 4, 2005 2:36 PM

» EPS - Re: Thank You EPS: Here's More

Yes, I am aware of all his shortcomings. But I guess my point is that there are plenty of very smart and successful people who have less than stellar character. While I would not want to be chummy with a lot of these people , I would not trash their proven results.

Like it or not, Brinker's long term calls haven't been that bad.

His short term calls - Abysmal!

My advice, keep up the thread as a record for newbies so that they don't get suckered, but try not to be vindictive. It isn't healthy.

-- posted by EPS

Top 21. Oct 4, 2005 4:09 PM

» honeyoneohone - Bob Brinker and Honey's Health

In response to Re: Thank You EPS: Here's More posted by EPS:

.
Perhaps you didn't read the title of the thread. This is NOT a fan club for Bob Brinker, but it is ABOUT Bob Brinker. If you want to pass judgement on me perhaps you are in the wrong location.

But thank you for your concern for my health. I will take it seriously.

-- posted by honeyoneohone

Top 22. Oct 4, 2005 7:30 PM

» honeyoneohone - "Imagine Tiger Woods..."

.
Brinker did admit he "was wrong" about this, but he then proceeded to bury the results, and it was never included in his portfolios.

Will explains how it was handled here:

"...it is amazing to hear the syncophants rave on.
Now can you imagine if Tiger Woods tomorrow would hit a ball out in the rough off the first tee and say--"skip that one"--Hit his second shot in the water and say "skip that one", hit his 3rd shot into a sand trap, take 10 swings and finally in disgust, pick up the ball, drop it 3 ft from the hole and make the put, writing on his scorecard "A hole in one".
It is no different ethically than what Brinker did. You don't have to take my word. Let's say you paid Brinker for his advice. Let's say you were as enthralled with him as this bunch of shills and syncophants, thinking he knew what he was doing and was the guru of the millinium? Pretend you got this in the mail from him as every subscriber did. Then remember that he NEVER included this advice for up to 1/3 of an ENTIRE EQUITY PORTFOLIO in his performance.
He hemmed and hawed, dodged and hid this call, finally dishonestly including some $24 and change QQQs in every portfolio instead of the $80 some $ QQQs he was recommending in this ACT IMMEDIATELY BULLETIN--the first he'd ever sent.
Now if you knew that a person was this dishonest would you go to the lengths some of this crowd does to try to get others to trust him now??? Yes perhaps a few would, there is always stupid. But you have to believe the majority of the screen names (only a couple people likely have most of them) here wanting you to sign up and trust Slick Bob have something to gain.
You must remember the guy that goes by "#$%^" here was bragging about how great this QQQ call was at the time as well. -- Shill Extraordinaire!!

Here is a copy of the bulletin that Bob Brinker sent to his subscribers:

"Marketimer is projecting a significant countertrend rally which is expected to be led by the Nasdaq 100 index. We expect this rally to persist over a period of approximately 2 to 4 months and to generate Nasdaq gains in excess of 20% from the vicinity of the recently established closing low point.
We view this projected Nasdaq rally as a significant trading OPPORTUNITY for marketimer subscribers seeking potential short term capital gains. Our clear vehicle of choice for this OPPORTUNITY is the Nasdaq 100, which is traded on the American Exchange under the ticker symbol QQQ.
We recommend marketimer subscribers with AGGRESSIVE objectives invest 30% to 50% of existing CASH RESERVES in the QQQ shares to exploit this OPPORTUNITY. Also we recommend subscribers with CONSERVATIVE investment objectives invest 20 to 30% of existing CASH RESERVES in the QQQ shares to take advantage of this OPPORTUNITY.
Marketimer will provide follow up guidance for this short-term opportunity in regular monthly editions and if necessary in follow-up bulletins.
We recommend marketimer subscribers interested in taking advantage of this recommendation to ACT IMMEDIATELY."

-- posted by honeyoneohone

http://www.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/i...

Top 23. Oct 5, 2005 8:41 AM

» honeyoneohone - BJ Group and the Utek Money Machine

.
Written October 5th, 2002 by Will L:

"As I recall from posts on this thread at the time UTEK had something like 700 employees. Let's say an average of 50k of funds went into Brinker's management company. At 1% of assets, that would 500.00 X 700 or 350,000. I would guess that this is a lowball figure. If you disagree and think several hundred customers handed to Brinker by managment of UTEK is trivial, I have a bridge to sell you.
The great thing about these wrap fund gigs like Brinker's BJ group is that it is almost like stealing. He functions as basically a money forwarder. Brinker collects a fee and simply forwards the money to mutual fund companies and takes a % of total assets for little work. There are no trading expenses or research staff needed for Brinker's wrap fund. Just collect the money, take the vigorish and send what is left to the selected mutual funds. A tiny clerical staff is all you need.
Assuming normal times and increasing account assets it's like a money machine because there is an annual fee on an increasing account that requires almost NO WORK after setup.
Instead of having to advertise for individual customers, having a company choose to make availabe to hundreds of their employees your wrap fund is a home run. Utek chose the BJ group as their wrap fund for their 401k plan.
Brinker chose UTEK as the only stock that he could recommend people BUY in his newsletter from sometime in 97 for the next couple years while nearly all technology skyrocketed and UTEK languished.
What Brinker never did disclose and tried to obscure under his aliases and on the radio was the fact that while he was touting UTEK, the company was paying him in a fee based relationship.
Brinker under his aliases on the net when confronted with the same thing Paul Kangas and a radio caller did live, shifted the question from a quid pro quo and answered a different question. "The BJ group never invests in individual stocks so there is no conflict"--he would say. He totally avoided the impropriety of touting a stock without disclosing that the company you are touting is paying you in a fee based relationship. Slick....but not forthright.
You may find that behavior honorable and above board. You, like "XXXX", may say everybody was doing it and it was the culture to screw your subscribers. I don't think that was true at the time either. I find it reprehensible and exactly the method Grubman used in selecting a stock to tout--based on the fact they were paying his company in a fee based relationship. In fact I would say Brinker was far worse. At the time Jack Grubman had many stocks that he called a "Buy", that were not paying him. Brinker in the greatest tech boom in history during the late 90s in his newsletter had only one "Buy"--UTEK, and UTEK was paying him in an undisclosed fee based relationship.
Watching Brinker's handling of the QQQQ fiasco, watching his dishonesty posting as Don Lane to tout UTEK after luring people to the site by his media touting and newsletter touting of UTEK, tells you that he really really really wanted you to "buy utek" and for godsake not short utek.
Please dija go to the link I gave you and explain Brinker's behavior and tell us why you never saw him act that way over a mutual fund or another stock? Is it rational behavior for a two bit radio show host to be pumping a stock like Brinker did UTEK under his alias on the net?
Does anyone not believe that it was related to the lucrative business in his BJ group that was selected by the company? If so wanna buy a horse?"

Here is a transcript of Brinker's last appearance on NBR. To read more on this subject, go here:

"KANGAS: We just have a minute left. You also said at that time to by Ultratech Stepper (NASDAQ:UTEK) at 29. Now, it's down to about 15. What do you do with that?
BRINKER: Ultratech's been through a difficult period. They have strong financials, close to $10 in tangible book value, mostly in cash. A new product effort under way, and they have a new technology, bump processing for advanced semiconductor manufacture. This is an important technology going forward for high performance low cost chips. So we have a "hold" on that stock.
KANGAS: Bob, it's come to my attention that employees at Ultratech have the option to invest their 401 (k) funds with a management firm in which you are a principal.
BRINKER: Exactly.
KANGAS: So, my question is does your firm recommend individual stocks?
BRINKER: Absolutely not. The BJ Group exclusively invests in no-load mutual funds.
KANGAS: All right. So, you see no conflict there?

BRINKER: Absolutely not."

-- posted by honeyoneohone

Top 24. Oct 5, 2005 1:42 PM

» honeyoneohone - Is Bullish-Brinker a Contra-indicator Right Now?

.
Does Brinker have a clue about the market this year? It is basically flat for the year. Notice that he never mentions that. He only talks about the "last three years." Here is some food for thought, written by Will L:

"Beware the Ides of October

Brinker's optimism is something of a contraindicator to me when it comes with markets falling in October.
Those who listened to his infomercial this weekend said he was extremely bullish. Remember that mid-October QQQQuestionable call of 2000? He was extremely bullish then, calling for 20% or MORE gains in just two to four months with the market being led by the Nadaq.
It headed down and never stopped until Brinker was out of the "countertrend rally" bidness and his vehicle of choice was in the ditch with a 75% loss.
So a little caution would be in order I spose.
Does anyone else wonder if the model figures out what the market is going to do in the next several months why it doesn't say it's going to be flat? Isn't the market flat for the year? Why would Brinker be chastising those bearish this year? Seems if one were bearish they would have been as "right" as someone who was bullish...maybe better, if they were simply in fixed income vehicles. Why make fun of someone who is bearish when you are bullish in a flat market--aren't both equally clueless or equally right?
Clueless brings some hope to this contraindicator. I really don't think Brinker has a clue, so he is just as apt to be right as wrong the last 3 months of the year. Of course those who bit on the QQQs know the "wrong" part. Maybe he's due for an end of the year rally and he can rail against those terrible, evil, stupid and dishonest bad news bears.......or maybe he'll just shut up about them as he did for a few years."

-- posted by honeyoneohone

Top 25. Oct 6, 2005 7:55 AM

» honeyoneohone - How Much Cash Did Brinker's Followers Have...

.
...to put into the market when he made his latest "buy" signal that he and his loyalists like to brag about?

Let's take a look at exactly what he told his subscribers to do with the portion of cash that they would have taken out of the market, on his advice, in 2000.

If one takes the time to do the math, it becomes obvious that Brinker's bragging about the 50% increase in the S&P over the past couple of years, is just so much hot air--as it applies to his subscribers.

IF they actually took all of his advice. smile

Will L. maps out how inconsistent Brinker's actions were from what he claimed he would do, and now likes to infer that he did:

1) Brinker told people to leave 35% in the market -- bragged on PORTFOLIO I which was the WORST place to be because of it's high beta funds compared to index.

2) Brinker told people to HOLD MSFT and VOD--off 60 and 75% respectively
3) Brinker told people to BUY TEFQX up to 5% of equities--- OFF 90% and then dishonestly hidden but never SOLD
4) Brinker told every investor both CONSERVATIVE and AGGRESSIVE to put 20% to 50% of the funds they removed from the market and buy QQQs in Oct 2000 around 83. He has said to hold them nearly 2 years now and they are down to 23--75% LOSS
Now why would anybody who knew the paddy wagon was outside, have told people to keep playing the piano in the XXXXhouse.
It again is simply a glimpse of a guy who wanted it both ways and X'ed up royally and now wants to rewrite history with the help of screeners, shills and very deceptive practices in a newsletter where things seem to "slip" away without being sold. Look for that to happen with the QQQs soon.
Brinker didn't know what would happen or he would not have been in the market at all. Look at what he held all the way down--the worst picks possible.
Brinker claims now that he called this bear market. He claimed last weekend that he knew that all sectors would be decimated by this big burly bear. That is why he used the line that in a bear market, they even take away the piano player.
Now how is that consistant with the following?
Keep 35% in the highest beta sectors in Portfolio I?
Funds in portfolio I down 60% from early 2000
Keep MSFT---down 60% from early 2000
Keep VOD-- down 75% from early 2000
Keep QQQs --- from 83 in Oct 2000 down to 23 now
Buy and Keep TEFQX down 90% now
Are those the moves one would make if they thought a bear was coming to take everything?
What happened to that guy who said "If my model turns negative we will go to 100% cash"
What happened to the guy who a few years ago (96 or 97) encouraged subscribers to get familiar with the Rydex funds that short the market because "we think there is a high probablilty of a bear market in the next year".
Instead Brinker has kept and loaded up on the frothiest part of the bubble--with up to 70% of the funds in a subscribers account in Jan 2000 and sat there on a piano stool waiting for the bear he claims was coming--hauled him away."

-- posted by honeyoneohone