Honey's Brinker Beehive--Not a Fan Club

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

Top 476. Feb 12, 2006 1:36 PM

» honeyoneohone - On Board the Starship Moneytalk

In response to Re: On Board the Starship Moneytalk posted by allancoleman:

.
Yo, allancoleman,

Perhaps your aren't aware that the "allegations and conjecture" that Brinker posted as donlane/mistertopes have been proven to the satisfaction of even some of the most devoted Brinker-loyalists, including Tom Swyers/justawirkenstiff, Richard Palm/MathJunkie, and John Bernstein/poobahjohn.

It's even been proven to someone that we all know and respect right here--Kirk Lindstrom:

Author: Kirk
Discussion: FULL!__Bob_Brinker_Free_Discussion_57,800 +USE_NEW_FORUM
Date: April 5, 2004 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Dubious Evidence
.
In response to message posted by hoopstar:
Bob Brinker posted as Don Lane. That is a fact. I don't have time nor the interest to keep posting why or the proof so you have to take my word for it. Maybe Della or Will will dig up my posts here detailing the proof but I sure won't as much is in emails and private messages on Silicon Investor. David Korn can vouch for a similar experience if pressed.
Bob Jr, who you won't Will's questions over, and I exchanged many emails that were friendly until Bob Sr. got upset with me for not censoring people here and they decided they wanted to profit from things like selling recommended books that I was doing here first. After the split, it was pretty funny to read the Brinker posts about my "second rate" newsleter and reading list.
The Brinker's actually used to send discussion traffic to this "fan club site" back in early 1998 when most posting here, including myself, were still big fans. When some of us started to look at the record in detail and ask "difficult" questions, the relationship was terminated by them.
Bob Jr posted as himself on Silicon Investor, here and on bobbrinker.com. All three showed the same email address and it matched the email address from which I used to exchange emails with Bob Jr. I know for a fact the address went to Bob Brinker Jr because once Bob Jr posted on his site a private email of mine, but with some of what I wrote left out in a somewhat dishonest attempt to change the gist of what I was saying... but that is another issue.
# Will_L’s case thatBob Brinker Posted Using an Alias
# DellaO’s Complete Compilation of Don Lane aka Bob Brinker Posts. from Silicon Investor’s “Market Savant” forum..
# DellaO’s BLog of Don Lane aka Bob Brinker commenting on UTEK.
Anyway, we have enough proof to convince even OJ's jurry that the Don Lane glove fits Bob Brinker. It is hard to believe anyone can not read the full BLOG that Della posted and think the man is anyone other than Bob Brinker. What strikes me about the series of posts is the guy didn't seem to care if he had any friends on the net, he was only interested in protecting Brinker's image and keeping the Marketimer information a secret you have to pay for. Brinker actually posted some good information that was helpful in understanding his model if you take the time to read it.

But alllancoleman, I do have a question for you: Since when is it against the law to post with a phony alias on a message board? I never said it was...

Now if you want to talk about touting a stock that you have an inside interest in selling, then that's another story. We can discuss that if you like.

-- posted by honeyoneohone

Top 477. Feb 12, 2006 7:12 PM

» honeyoneohone - "Outlier" in Brinker's Secular Bear Market

.
Author: Will L.

"Now why do you think that blowhard, Bob Brinker, admits that the bottom of the bear came just 14 months into the downturn and it's been up for 39 months since and claims the up-leg is an "outlier" in his secular bear market.
Btw, Brinker believes the bottom of his secular bear market, that he would have you believe would likely last another decade, was Oct 2002.
What kind of dumbaxx would claim the bottom is in a bear market that has many years to run?
What kind of idiot would call a going on 4-yr bull market after slightly more than a year of a wicked down market, a "secular bear market"?
Guess that would be a guy who just cannot admit he is wrong and instead claims the market is "wrong" in not conforming to his predictions--ie "outlier". What hubris.
Can you believe guys like Math still pay for that rag (Marketimer)? The same guy we saw in his own words claiming his model identified those correction lows within tiny percentages --only to watch the market plummet from his predicted 8650 to under 7500. Now this same bozo is claiming to know that the market is going to be in bear mode for years to come but the low was put in Oct 2002. I don't blame you for wanting to hide this latest Brinker hubris from anybody that might have a brain."

-- posted by honeyoneohone

Top 478. Feb 13, 2006 8:42 AM

» honeyoneohone - Brinker Says October 2002 Likely Bear Market Low

.
Bob Brinker says that it is a "possibility" that the low was October 2002, but he also says that he has seen "no evidence" that the "secular bear megatrend" has ended, or that a new "secular bull megatrend" has begun.

Hocus-pocus--now you see it, now you don't. smile

Will L:

"If I didn't know Brinker's belief that Oct 2002 was likely the low for his secular bear market, I would not have said it as fact and I would never offer to wager unless I was absolutely certain.
Apparently Math has not read Brinker's recent writings or is being coy.
Anyway here ya go.
"In our view there is a good possibility that the secular bear market that began in the first quarter of the year 2000 has already recorded it's absolute low for the megatrend. If so that low would be the S&P index closing low of 776.77 recorded on Oct. 9, 2002."... (Page 2, Paragraph 2, February 3, 2006 Marketimer)

-- posted by honeyoneohone

Top 479. Feb 13, 2006 9:39 AM

» honeyoneohone - Brinker's Latest "Crystal Ball" Vision :)

Author: Will L.

"I invited Dija to check with Math to see if he agreed that Brinker thought the lows for his "secular bear market" call occurred in Oct 2002. Math replied:
"Sorry, no can do. I haven't seen Brinker write anything like that, and I seldom listen to the broadcasts. Besides, why would he call Oct 2002 the bottom of the alleged secular bear if it's supposed to last another decade? Those two concepts contradict one another."
ZACTLY Math:
"In our view there is a good possibility that the secular bear market that began in the first quarter of the year 2000 has already recorded it's absolute low for the megatrend. If so that low would be the S&P index closing low of 776.77 recorded on Oct. 9, 2002."(Marketimer, Page 2; Paragraph 2)
Contradictory you say? Inexplicable? Yep.
So you have Brinker saying he believes the low was put in slightly over a year in the bear market--I believe the S&P was over 1500 in Aug of 2000, perhaps it was a couple points below the spring high but I'm not certain. At any rate, the steep decline ended in Oct 2002 and Brinker says he thinks that was the low for his 15-20 yr bear market was established then. Crystal ball?
Now he has claimed this trend since October 2002, which is now 39 months and counting, is an "outlier" in his terminology to explain why it doesn't conform to his previous claims. He seems extremely bullish and is now saying there is no end in sight for this "outlier" cyclical bull market and indeed believes the Dow will pass the old highs.
Ergo, Brinker confirms my premise. He is in denial. Brinker made his "secular" call and now calls anything that doesn't conform to that an "outlier".
What really happened was a total technology/telecom bubble that collapsed. The rest of the market has been fine. Brinker's beloved stocks, like Luuucent, Vod, Msft, along with his favorite sector, BTB, represented by TEFQX and his favorite index, he tenaciously holds on to through any market meltdown. The QQQQs, are solely responsible for any shortcomings from previous highs. Brinker simply refuses to recognize that.
I don't know what stocks were removed from the Dow when INTEL and MSFT (I think that was the two techs) were added in 1999, and I believe Chevron and some others were taken out, but don't recall the exact shuffle. Bad 'timing' I would say. Would be interesting to see where it would be if they left the Dow alone on that change, wouldn't it?
So you have a Dow that has dallied within a few hundred points of the old highs. The S&P is trading about 80% of the all time tech driven high. Yet the Nasdaq is still considerably less than 50% of it's level when the bear began--at the time techs made up 43% of the S&P market cap. You have obviously had a powerful bull market. The problem was one sector that was bloated and operating on the bigger fool theory. Now those companies (with some exceptions) are trading more in line with other P/E driven prices.
Brinker who described himself as being comfortable with a huge overweighting in technology because he "understood" the sector, seems unwilling to face the genesis of the recent bear market. He is unwilling to admit that huge amounts of capital that was "fluff" of the technology bubble just "disappeared", and the market has in large measure made up for that loss of capital over the last 5 years.
Perhaps Brinker will come to grips and admit the obvious, but he seems bent on denial and has decided that the short powerful bear market that began with the technology meltdown and ended in 2002 will continue until his beloved LUUUUUUCENT, MSFT, TEFQX, QQQQs are back where he thinks they should be--Nasdaq 5200. That may take our "technology expert" a while, and indeed be a secular problem for him.
It indeed seems like he's saying "This is a secular bear until those QQQs go over 100.00 and I can close out that trade I am hiding..."

-- posted by honeyoneohone

Top 480. Feb 13, 2006 4:41 PM

» honeyoneohone - A Pen-Name Who Knows a lot About Brinker

.
Pen-name, "poobaa-brinker," (a poster who says he knows what Brinker was thinking when he wrote the latest Marketimer) was trying to make a point that Brinker has not called the bottom of the bear market because he hasn't used the "magic word," when he said this to me:

"Listen Honey, ask yourself this: Has Bob uttered the magic word "MOABO????" Well? Shouldn't that clue you into what Bob is actually thinking?"

Will L. had a rather amusing comment about "poobaa-brinker's" question: smile

"Oh PUUULEEEZE, MOABO was Brinker marketing ploy several years ago--it was used after the "COUNTER TREND RALLIES is where you make your money in the bear market" went to crap.
Brinker himself disavowed the concept on the radio telling a caller who asked about the "mother of all buying opportunities"--"I didn't say that".
Ancient history, as Dija would say. Now Brinker is selling OUTLIERS in secular bear markets that have their bottom Bob thinks within the first year or so and last 16 yrs or so.
LOL how does he make this crap up and how can he find goobers and geezers that will swallow it?"

-- posted by honeyoneohone

Top 481. Feb 13, 2006 6:39 PM

» honeyoneohone - Bob Brinker Changed, Unfortunately

.
During the late 1980's and throughout the 1990's, Bob Brinker was a different man on his radio program.

He very seldom even mentioned his newsletter and he certainly didn't play the game of "buy it if you want the answers to your questions."

He was a teacher and a very good one. He changed after the QQQQ "Act Immediately" disaster, and he's been devoted to two things ever since--covering it up and selling newsletters. How sad is that?

-- posted by honeyoneohone

Top 482. Feb 14, 2006 8:30 AM

» honeyoneohone - Happy Valentine's Day

.
Best wishes to everyone--I pray that each of you has love in your life. smile

-- posted by honeyoneohone

Top 483. Feb 14, 2006 8:38 AM

» honeyoneohone - Brinker's Camouflaged Starship Moneytalk

.
Pen-name "poobah-brinker," a devoted Brinker-fan, said to Will L: "And what about your beloved NASDAQ! It will be decades before that parlor game gets its highs back above 5000."

Will responded:

"Mark, my boy puleeeze, don't mix me up with you and Brinker. You and Brinker were in love with the Nasdaq. The QQQs over $80 was a great idea for a third of a portfolio, Brinker said. TEFQX was the place to B2B.
Indeed, you pimped Brinker's call on (Suite) 101 bragging about it while others were leaving the QQQ game, you were sitting down with a beer and a hotdog, and (saying that) everybody that held on to Bob's QQQ recommendation would have "watermelon smiles"--the only way they could lose, you said, was to sell." LOL! How'd that go, Mark?
Obviously, you should go back and read my posts about your hero this morning. Instead of jabbering about Brinker's claim of a secular bear--he would be better off to face the fact that it was a technology/telecom bear market. The rest of the market is just fine, thank you very much.
Instead, the guy you pimp for is looking for words to explain why his cyclical bullcrap in a secular bear crap isn't working according to his script--thus the new word "outlier". Only the spelling needs work."

-- posted by honeyoneohone

Top 484. Feb 14, 2006 9:38 AM

» pbradford6 - question

I appreciate you copying and posting Will's replies. Could you/would you please post the active site where Djia, Math, and Will are posting now?

Thank you.

-- posted by pbradford6