Honey's Brinker Beehive--Not a Fan Club

Top 446. Feb 9, 2006 4:02 AM

» mrs1123 - Did you let your Bob Brinker newsletter lapse?

I did but it was to save money. Actually I got the idea from listening to his show. My take on what Bob said on a particular show was that we were going to be in a bear market for three years. So I thought "great now I don't need his newsletter" because nothing would be happening for 3 years.

-- posted by mrs1123

Top 447. Feb 9, 2006 7:57 AM

» honeyoneohone - Re: Brinker's Political Bully Pulpit

In response to Re: Brinker's Political Bully Pulpit posted by dukeandduke:

.
As Brinker pointed out, the National average unemployment rate is now only 4.7%. He also gave the USA Labor Department statistics for the different classes of education.

1) High school diploma (which is 3 out of 4 citizens) unemployment rate is 4.4%

2) Some college (even one semester) unemployment rate is 3.5%

3) Bachelor's Degree and higher (which is about 1 out of 4) unemployment rate is 2.1%

Here is the shocker:
4) High school drop-outs unemployment rate is about 7%, which is 50% higher than with a diploma--triple that of holding a Bachelor's Degree.

Brinker made several caustic remarks about how "we" need to deal with those who "don't have enough education."

He said that there were "all sorts of reason" for the drop-out problem, and that "some of those reasons" can be addressed, but he did not offer even ONE suggestion for addressing the problem.

You named several of the effects of the problem, but I would suggest that those "effects" are also largely the cause of it.

As a Californian, I would say that illegal immigration contributes hugely to the problem. If so, then Brinker is right, something could be done about it, but there's zero chance that it will be.

A few years back, California passed a proposition saying that we did not want to pay to educate ILLEGAL immigrant children (indeed, if they are ILLEGAL, they should be sent home). One judge threw it out!! Can we survive? Your fears may be very justified.

-- posted by honeyoneohone

Top 448. Feb 9, 2006 12:40 PM

» honeyoneohone - Re: Question about the sell signal

In response to Question about the sell signal posted by mrs1123:

.
Welcome to my thread, Mrs.1123! Actually, it's part of Kirk's website, but he lets me pretty much do as I please with it.

I hope you will check in and post your comments often. It's nice to have a "sister" in this mostly male domain. smile

Actually, in January 2000, Bob made what he called in his newsletter, a "tactical asset-allocation change" as he clearly stated in his February 2000 Marketimer.

On his radio program, he was very adamant that he was "not bearish."

He recommended going to 60% cash/40% equities in January and 65% cash/35% equities in August 2000. He never was completely out of the market.

Here are some comments that were written by Will L. that will perhaps be of interest to you:

"The shills and some rather honest Brinker-lovers, for the longest time, tried to shut me up claiming that he would sue me and this and that. I heard at that so many times that I got tired of laughing.
You see, it's not a question if Brinker did all that crap as Don Lane--it's a FACT.
It's not a question if Brinker sent that ACT IMMEDIATELY bulletin, giving trading advice in an undated, unsigned, urgent bulletin with no mention of suitability or risk and no exit strategy.
It's not a question that Brinker is HIDING that advice and thus "using the same money twice and counting it once". You can't use cash reserves to buy QQQs and not sell them and then claim the same money in your performance as though all the QQQQ money was invested in March 2003.
It's not a question that Brinker was being paid by UTEK at the same time he had UTEK as his ONLY BUY without disclosing that he was being paid.
It's not a question that Brinker pumped UTEK to people drawn to UTEK sites on the internet by Brinker's public touting of UTEK- to buy the stock under an alias claiming not to be Brinker.
It's not a question that Brinker posted that he hoped that a call to move out of the market would come in such a manner as to screw the "radio freeloaders".
It's no question that Brinker in a total flight of fancy claimed that Abby Cohen was a marketimer subscriber and used his newsletter to make her famous.
It's no question that Brinker made fun of Larry Kudlow's substance abuse rehab.
It's no question that Brinker claimed that he was "NOT BEARISH" when he made the January call in 2000, and even boasted how much he would make if the market rose 10%. Yet today he will lie and say, "When we became BEARISH in Jan 2000."
There is NO QUESTION that Brinker was WRONG the only time he went 100% out of the market and claimed to be BEARISH.
There is NO QUESTION that Brinker called a Buying opportunity at Dow 8650 weeks before he made the "you can't be out of the market one day" gift horse stuff at Dow 7500. He bragged on the latter--hid the former.
There is NO Question that Brinker had TEFQX as a buy from $13 to $18 and all the way down to under 4 bucks--and then moved it to a "hold" and then it "disappeared" the next month forever. Much like the QQQQ call only much smaller taters."

-- posted by honeyoneohone

Top 449. Feb 9, 2006 2:51 PM

» mrs1123 - Re: Re: Question about the sell signal

I do credit Bob Brinker for getting me out of the market at nearly the top and back in with nearly all my profits. I did stay in cash for three years and didn't make any gains because of the 1/2% interest rate. But I did keep my gains and was ready when the market turned around.

But Bob does not get all the credit. It was me having the common sense to take 100% out of the market to keep my gains. If I had listened to Bob and only taken 60% from the market the remaining shares would have gone down to the price I paid for them 10 years ago.

One thing for sure Bob did teach us to do our due diligence.

"On his radio program, he was very adamant that he was "not bearish."

Not bearish? Geez, do you mean he watched his investments go straight down for the three years of the bear market?

"He recommended going to 60% cash/40% equities in January and 65% cash/35% equities in August 2000. He never was completely out of the market."

Wow never completely out of the market? How did he make any money. I may not have been looking very carefully but I saw things only declining over the next three years.

I am pretty happy overall with Bob Brinker. But I blended my own decisions with his over the years. I am much less happy with the talking heads on television that were pumping a stock while selling it within the company, Bastards! Thankfully I never heard of Enron until after the disaster. But I did get screwed on three investments. Luckily very small amounts.

I should probably kiss Bob's feet for getting me back in the market. I might have stayed frozen in fear and missed the gains as the market went back up.

I lost money on QQQ's but I think it could have been a very wise call. I don't think any of us really suspected that when the stock market bubble popped the market would drop so far. I knew the QQQ's were over valued but I expected them to pop up myself. It just seemed impossible that stocks would fall so out of favor. I personaly thought stocks would only fall to the value they were in 1995 and not to the value they were in 1990.

You know I should write the people at the Fox Business Block and thank them for my gains. Most every one of them was saying "there is no good reason to be in the market" so I dove right in with more money. I knew from experience that this was a buy signal. When everybody thinks one thing often the opposite is correct. I only wish I put more in the market. To clarify I do always maintain a cash position in this bear market situation so even when I am fully invested it is never 100%. I might be 50% to 75% in stock mutual funds depending on how confident I am in the market. But should we hit a big and obvious bull run I could be 90% invested.

Why doesn't Bob Brinker tell people to put stop losses on the trades he recommends? His silence was deafening as the QQQ's were falling.

The QQQ's weren't as bad as the call another guy made about buying RAD at $50 or $52 and seeing it fall all the way to $2.00 per share.

-- posted by mrs1123

Top 450. Feb 10, 2006 9:46 AM

» honeyoneohone - On Board the Starship Moneytalk

In response to Re: Re: Question about the sell signal posted by mrs1123:

.
Thank you so much for sharing that, Mrs.1123...

It's very generous of you to give Brinker credit for your decision to go to 100% cash in January 2000. As you know, that was not his recommendation, so I'm glad that you also give your own "common sense" some of the credit.

You are correct that Brinker has tried to teach us to do "due diligence." He also taught his listeners that the only person who could be trusted 100% with managing ones portfolio is the person who looks back at you from the mirror. smile

In the early 1990's, he convinced me that I could do it myself so I began a long road of learning that continues to this day. Listening to him gave me the courage to leave a major brokerage firm where one of their "shark-attack" brokers was taking giant bites out of our portfolio.

I see that you give Brinker credit for your returning to the market in March 2003, but I notice that you also acted as a contrarian to what was being said on Fox. I also notice that you didn't follow Brinker's advice to go 100% in the market.

BTW: Reading all of the informative threads that Kirk offers here would have helped you reach the conclusion that the low was in even sooner than Brinker.

I was wondering if you feel that Brinker's advice to get back in the market made up for the losses that you suffered in the QQQQ trade?

Your question about why Brinker didn't recommend stop losses is a good one. Were you aware that he had put a stop loss on a QQQQ trade that took place just before the infamous "Act Immediately" Bulletin?

He talked about it on the air--the recommended sell limit was $84. It was a DISASTER! The stock dropped to exactly $84, took out the limit orders, and shot back up. Many believe it was not coincidence.

I too, wonder why Brinker never really gave any guidance as the Q's dropped down to the low $20. He eventually put them on hold even though they were not included in his portfolio. He then removed them entirely and later issued a new "buy" price in the mid-$20 range.

Some final questions: What do you think Brinker's next move will be? Will you go to 100% cash, even if he suggests less? Do you believe Brinker's premise that we are in a "cyclical bull" within a "secular bear" market?

-- posted by honeyoneohone

Top 451. Feb 10, 2006 6:01 PM

» mrs1123 - On Board the Starship Moneytalk

In response to On Board the Starship Moneytalk posted by honeyoneohone:

What I learned from Bob is that he often speaks in circles or in ways that don't clearly voice the meaning behind his message. I concluded that Bob really only speaks to those in S&P 500 index funds which I went into myself last year. Because what he says is often so cloudy I can only really understand his message when he gives a sell or buy signal. Even then I take his message mostly to mean get in completely or get out completely. I do that because I can't always understand him. I assume that if he is bearish than I should be too.

I do give Brinker credit for my decision to go to 100% cash in January 2000 because I wouldn't have, or probably wouldn't have recognized the top of the stock market bubble.

The idea of going to 100% cash came from knowing how little we paid for the shares and knowing just how much money that would be retained if we exited the market. For me Bob's 60% recommendation just didn't make sense to me. Experience has shown me that stock prices fall so much faster and have such a long recovery that it is wiser to bail from the market completely in the truly negative times. I am often not very smart but I just couldn't see leaving any money in the market when the prices were falling.

I was lucky in the way you were. I didn't have shark attacks but was following a newsletter that was keeping us in very safe investments even though the stock bubble was starting up. I moved into some high flying funds and stocks and did OK. Can you say "mortgage free".

About Bob's call for 100% back into the market my confidence was shaken. First my QQQ experience did erode my confidence in Bob to a degree. I can't remember for sure but I think the weekend that Bob gave his buy signal he gave it only on Saturday and did not repeat it on Sunday. So my confidence was shaken again. But it wasn't all about Bob B. I was also shell shocked from watching all the funds I had been in fall for three years in a row. I didn't have Bob's letter anymore. After he said we were in a bear market I figured his letter served no purpose for me as I was relying on it for market moves. Going into a three year bear market I thought I might as well save the money for the cost of the letter as it wasn't needed for the next three years.

About the 100% specifically. I didn't really understand Bob's mumbo jumbo. I didn't understand that he was calling us 100% back into the market. Actually I was confused by what he said on the radio. I was really thrown by the lack of MOABO. As I was just typing "MOABO" I realized that it seemed like he was really trying to get back at those who weren't subscribed to his newsletter. He had been talking about MOABO and how great we would do with it. How with the great MOABO entry point we would be in the gravy. But when his call came on the radio it was almost wishy washy. The excitement wasn't there. The alert alert alert MOABO is here wasn't given. So those with the newsletter had a clear indication of his call and the radio listeners had a namby pamby wishy washy call.

Of course there was still more confusion from Bob. He would say we are in a bull run in the middle of a bear market. Then another time I would hear him say he is bullish. I was never sure if he thought we were still in a bear market or we had gone to a full bull market.

Because I listen to the different talking heads I always saw somebody being very bearish. I am certain that was also part of the reason I just didn't jump in with both feet to a level of 100%. I always wanted to protect some portion of the profits and protect them with a cash position. But beyond that there were enough talking heads that were negative so I didn't have the confidence in the market either.

"I notice that you also acted as a contrarian to what was being said on Fox." Yes, that was partly from my experience with Bob. I remembered the lesson that when the market gets low enough it probably will go the other way. But from the talking heads I heard them often say to do the opposite, if everybody else is saying the same thing you should probably do the opposite.

I wasn't aware of Kirk back then. But even if I was fear is pretty powerful. I really had a lot of luck along with a lot of market watching. I was able to catch a lot of the lows and avoid some of the big drops that came before them.

At the time of the QQQ's my mind was still ringing with Bob's advice of never putting more than 4% into any one investment. The money I put into the QQQ's was more like .032%. But even though the amount was still small overall I still lost half of the money I bought the Q's with. The money I made on Bob's advice for getting back into the market was 7.5 times more than the original amount I investment in the Q's. So in my case it did make up for the QQQ losses. I suspect I intentionally put the QQQ losses out of my mind because I don't remember the exact amount I lost. I just know I bailed after I lost half.

Nope, I didn't have even a tiny clue that Bob had a stop loss. I don't remember reading about that. Did he make that public? It seems totally irresponsible that he didn't make that clear. I know some people are going to yell at us about protectiong ourselves but we were paying him for his advice. His radio program is really not for advanced investors. If the QQQ's weren't so far in the past the words low down might come to mind.

As far as I can tell Bob's advice is only good if you combine it with your own experience to catch the long buy and sell trends. For me he is simply too cryptic in his advice to use it in any short term way.

I don't have an overly negative opinion on Bob Brinker because I see investment gurus that I trust completely make bad calls. But I suspect that I am much like many others who have lost a great deal of confidence in him. A lost confidence because of what I perceive as his double speak, his silence as I saw it, as the QQQ's tanked, and the way in my opinion that he is shy about giving clear market timing advice to his radio listeners.

I just realized though that if we had listend to Bob about buying the QQQ's in the mid $20 range we would have wiped out much of the pain of our original QQQ investment.

In my mind I only see 2005 as a cyclical bull within a secular bear market. The gains were great in my mind. I believed more about being in a cyclical bull before, but in hindsight I remember the horrible dips in the market and the flat trading ranges that have haunted the market.
I see the overall market as being bearish.

I was bullish at the 1st of the year because I thought the gentle uptrend would continue. But now we are back in the rut again. My confidence is shaken a bit. I am still above where I was on December 31 so I have time to leave the market if it goes horribly wrong.

I almost see Bob Brinker making the wrong call. I almost see him telling us to leave the market as it goes up. There is so much cash on the sidelines I can see it flooding in if the market gets really low. With the housing market pulling back the speculators could put their money back in the stock market too.

I have been thinking that people are so tired of not making any money that they will turn to the stock market.

At the 1st of the year I was confident that even though we wouldn't see a guick rise like we had in January I thought we would have a pretty good rise over the year. I am shaken a bit by the nervous nellies because I see the earnings that have been announced as being pretty good. But I am hesitant to leave the market because I saw such nice gains last year despite the dips.

I put even more money in the market in January because I was certain of a continuing uptrend.

I am not sure what Bob will do. I don't really see a big breakout soon. I have been thinking that many people who never invested in the stock market before had gotten into the market at the end of the bull run and lost their shirts and dresses as it fell. Therefore there are a great many people who won't come in the market in the numbers we saw between 1995-2000. So our gains will have to be earnings driven and not come from "irrational exuberance".

-- posted by mrs1123

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

Top 452. Feb 10, 2006 6:40 PM

» honeyoneohone - On Board the Starship Moneytalk

In response to On Board the Starship Moneytalk posted by mrs1123:

.
Wow, there is a lot to think about in your outstanding post. I shall return. smile

In the meantime, I have "nominated" your post to the "Best Posts of Suite 101" Thread. Here is the link for you:

-- posted by honeyoneohone

Top 453. Feb 10, 2006 9:38 PM

» mrs1123 - On Board the Starship Moneytalk

In response to On Board the Starship Moneytalk posted by honeyoneohone:

One important thing I did forget was hearing all last year just how horrible 2006 is going to be investment wise. I am going to do some thinking about taking profits.

-- posted by mrs1123

Top 454. Feb 11, 2006 8:03 AM

» honeyoneohone - On Board the Starship Moneytalk

In response to On Board the Starship Moneytalk posted by mrs1123:

.
How much would you charge for giving investment advice? smile

You have done much better than most, even Bob Brinker, just using your "common sense" to make your market moves. smile

But seriously, are you not going to wait until Brinker gives a "sell signal?"

-- posted by honeyoneohone