Honey's Brinker Beehive--Not a Fan Club

http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk...

Top 57. Oct 16, 2005 9:34 AM

» honeyoneohone - "Who Was That Masked Man?"

.
There have been some nice folks who expressed doubt that the true identity of the poster "donlane" was actually Bob Brinker.

Remember, after "donlane's" posts remained on SI for years, within hours of his identity being discussed on the Brinker Free-Discussion Thread, ALL of "donlane's" posts were changed to "mistertopes."

Justaworkenstiff is a pen name for a good friend of Brinker's. Justa even hosted a message board for Brinker before they were all closed down.

Justa on his own SI message board, wherein he calls Brinker a "Market Savant," presented his evidence for believing that indeed, "donlane/mistertopes" is Bob Brinker:

To:Justa Werkenstiff who wrote (602)
From: Justa Werkenstiff Friday, May 30, 1997 10:05 AM
Respond to of 20897
Woops! This goes along with the post above.I was hoping that "Don " would respond by this time. I guess not. Now that you have all had a good chuckle, I will give you my reasons:
1. Where has Don posted since he joined as a member of SI on May 8? Almost exclusively (with one exception on the UTEK stock board -- a stock BB follows) to this Board.
2. In one of his posts, Don had in his back pocket a copy of a 1994 Radio and Records Magazine on BB. This is not something your every day Joe buys off the racks and is not an article a Joe would keep framed in the livingroom for quick retrieval for posting on SI. I asked Don if he was in the radio business in one of my posts and got no response.
3. Don gives his mailing address as acecruiser@aol.com. As you may or may not know, BB's is an AOL subscriber. In addition to your master screen name on AOL (Bob's is "brinkerbob") you are allowed to have four additional screen names that tie into to your master name. For a time, BB was posting on his board as "acerpar" or "aceorpar." "Acecruiser" is a simple extension of that theme tied into "MoneyTalk" with the word "cruiser." In fact, I believe for a time BB posted anonomously on his AOL thread as "acerpar" until someone asked if he were BB. BB finally stated that he was one in the same. Sound familiar?
4. BB left a paper trail. As I have previously said, BB posts on his AOL thread. Like most everyone else, he goes to his thread reviews questions and answer some all in one sitting. Remember Don joined SI on May 8. BB did not post on AOL from May 11 through May 17. On May 18, a Sunday, BB made one of his only two posts for the day on AOL. That post was logged in at 11:46 am on AOL. Twenty minutes later, Don posted reply #525 on SI to Scott D at 12:05pm. Later that day, BB posted on AOL at 7:48pm (19:48:34 EDT) for his second and last post on AOL for the day. Seven minutes later, at 7:56 pm, Don posted his second and final post for the on SI at #527. (Truman, the reference to Flanagan was made to throw everyone off the scent of his previous post to Scott D which so looked like a Brinker defense upon retrospect to BB that he had to cover his tracks. What better way to cover tracks than to unduly and inaccurately (BB has worked long weekends to my recollection) join in the barabs aimed at BB himself and to rib a colleague.) Finally, on May 29, BB posted his only response of the day on AOL at 8:25 am and within 30 minutes of that post at 8:52 am, Don had posted his one post to Truman SI at #589.
5. Now go back and look at all of Don's posts, especially #589 and #525. Does Don say "I believe Bob said...." or "I recall Bob said...." No, he speaks from personal knowledge and is quite knowledgeable. The passionate tone from Don in post #589 comes from one who feels personally offended. Look for the Binker vocabulary in all the posts: "complacency," " age of reason" etc. Finally, acecruiser or Don has never posted on the AOL thread -- unusual for someone who respects BB and who is so very well informed.

-- posted by honeyoneohone

Top 58. Oct 16, 2005 12:20 PM

» honeyoneohone - Using "donlane/mistertopes" to Tout UTEK

.
Why is it important to know that Bob Brinker posted as "donlane" which was much later changed to "mistertopes?" Because, among other things, he used this alias to tout a stock that he had an inside interest in (even though, he told Kangas on NBR that it wasn't really an "inside interest"--wink, wink, nod, nod). smile

The following written by Will L:

"There are many examples that leave no doubt that Bob Brinker posted as Don Lane. There are 3 or 4 which are totally indisputable.
Bob in many cases seemed rather stupid. I truly believe he never thought about anyone ever looking back at his posts. So he thought he could be arrogant and nasty in many posts, he could tout a stock in which he had a conflict of interest in others and at other times act like he was indeed Bob Brinker and give inside info like predicting where Brinker would be.
These two posts in and of themselves prove conclusively that Bob Brinker was posting as Don Lane.
To:Justa Werkenstiff who wrote (4966)
From: mister topes Wednesday, May 13, 1998 11:09 PM
Speaking of time off for good behavior, my good friends in Colorado tell me the university that houses the famed Golden Buffalo will be holding its spring commencement exercise this weekend in Boulder, Colorado. Hasn't the Starship Commander
discussed his daughter's senior year at the university during several programs over the last several months. And if so, wouldn't it make sense for him to attend his daughter's graduation exercise? And while he is at it, wouldn't he be a good bet to challenge Bobby Junior to a couple rounds of you know what? If so, who will we be treated to this weekend? Will it be William of
Flanagan, The Goddess of Neale, or those very motley fools? Or is my Colorado information as bankrupt as Mr. Bowtie's advice?
Now imagine that. "Don Lane" predicted that Brinker would be gone the following weekend. He did that based on a claim that some "good friend" from Colorado in talking with him told him that the University of Colorado would be holding their graduation ceremonies that weekend.
Now do you know of anyone who keeps tabs on the state University's graduation schedule and brings it up regularly in conversations with "friends" that live out of state?
Do you know anyone who could take such information and then add to it that not only would Brinker be gone from the radio but he would also play two rounds of golf with his son in Colorado. Now isn't that amazing!
And shazaaam! Don Lane was exactly correct in his prediction. Here is Junior himself who posted regularly on SI trying to spam the site to get hits on their website, confirming that "Don Lane" was EXACTLY right.
To:Justa Werkenstiff who wrote (4972)
From: Bob Brinker, Jr. Sunday, May 17, 1998 9:57 PM
Justa: I'm happy to report that after a grueling two day tournament, the undisputed champion of the Colorado Invitation Spring Tournament has been crowned. Although I have a suspicious feeling the next several Moneytalk programs will be far too busy for the results to be announced, this forum does grant me the pleasure of announcing that Bob Jr. has swept Bob Sr. in 36 holes of high-altitude golf. I love this game!-bb jr."

-- posted by honeyoneohone

Top 59. Oct 17, 2005 8:37 AM

» honeyoneohone - Bob Brinker's Sunday Show

.
I only heard a small part of Moneytalk yesterday, but what I heard convinced me that Brinker is as pompous and condescending as ever with his callers.

Close to the end of the first hour, a caller was talking about the energy situation. Brinker evidently didn't like what the guy was saying, so he let him talk without making any comment then cut him off by rudely barking, "I'm out of time"--then he went directly to station break. What a guy! smile

Here is more commentary about Sunday's show by "basher 52."

"Bob took real estate questions from several goobers and gave them his usual answer.
Bill a basher from Albany called and took Bob to task for being duped by the oil industry into believing their BS about a shortage of refining capacity. His Lordship was clearly pissed. Bob said he couldn't believe that Bill thought he was such a fool and inane to be taken in by the petroleum industry. He viewed it as a direct insult. Bob wants to put a windfall profits tax on the oil companies. It is interesting that Bob does not believe this conspiracy theory but he devoted the last hour of the previous Saturday's show to an author who feels there is a conspiracy by the Saudi's causing our current high prices for crude oil. Later a goober name Chris called for Huston. Chris didn't like Bob's idea about the windfall profits tax. Chris worked in the oil industry. He said in 1987 oil was under $10 a barrel and the industry lost 750,000 jobs and the government did nothing to help them. He also said uncle Sam gets 17% on every barrel produced in the gulf straight off the top.
By far the best caller of the day was Clancy from Rockport. Clancy is an 85 year old geezer who was a professional in aviation since the early 30's. He was in the marine corp. plus 30 years in major airlines and in fuel research. Clancy said the answer to our energy problem was Butterball turkeys. He reference this article in Discovery magazine."

-- posted by honeyoneohone

Top 60. Oct 17, 2005 11:22 AM

» honeyoneohone - Brinker and Bogle

.
Will L. speculates about some important questions that would never make it on the air with the Bobmeister...

"Actually isn't it amazing that the guys........see no dichotomy of Brinker having Bogle on his program and acting like they are on the same page?
Can you imagine what Bogle would say if someone called in (another program they would never get through on Moneycensoredtalk) and said:
"Mr. Bogle, I pay this advisor and he sent me a special bulletin back in 2000 to invest up to a third of my portfolio in the QQQQs when they were in the 80s. He never put a date or a price on the bulletin. Every month for the first 6 he sent a note that the QQQQs were ready to take off; but they kept falling until they were down in the 40s. Then he said to hold them until they were down in the teens. Finally he said to buy more of them at 24. Do you think I should resubscribe to this fellow's newsletter?"
or.
"Mr. Bogle my advisor says he can tell when there is going to be a bear market and that if I just pay him a subscription that I only have to be in the market during bull markets and I can be out of the market during bear markets. Do you think this is a wise strategy?"
"Not only do I not know anyone who can time the market successfully, I don't even know anyone who knows anyone who can do so." --J. Bogle.

-- posted by honeyoneohone

Top 61. Oct 17, 2005 5:20 PM

» honeyoneohone - Bob Brinker or Kirk Kerkorian: Who Will Be Right About GM?

.
"Basher5-2" discusses Kirk Kerkorian's purchase of GM, and a tennis buddy of Kirk's who called Bob Brinker's talk show.

He also reminds us that Kirk made his money in the stock market--not on a radio program and newsletter.

"Bob spent a great deal of time bashing Kirk over his recent purchase of GM stock. Bob said that Kirk has a large paper loss so far.
Joe a doctor and tennis buddy of Kirk's called into the show and defended Kirk. Joe said he was dating a girl who lived in New York back in the 80's and Kirk offered him a ride. He said they had a great time in New York. On the way back Kirk ask Joe if he would mind if they stopped in Detroit because he had a meeting. (I don't think he was meeting with Fish) Joe stayed on the Kirk jet.
When Kirk got back to the plane he told Joe that he thought Chrysler is going to end up OK. Joe thought about buying Chrysler stock in his retirement account but he had a patient who was on the board of IT&T who said Kirk is a very bright guy but I don't know what he is thinking on this one. Chrysler stock drifted down to about $8 a share at that time. Joe didn't buy based on his patient's advice while Kirk made a fortune. We all know how that one worked out.
It will be interesting to see if Kirk is right this time or Bob is right in avoiding GM. We do know that Kirk has more money than Bob and he has made it in the stock market as opposed to having a radio show and selling a newsletter. Looks like Kirk is up about two point this morning."

-- posted by honeyoneohone

Top 62. Oct 18, 2005 7:36 AM

» honeyoneohone - "Brinker's High Yield--Not Junk"

.
How nice it would be if just once the-Brink would explain why he is so inconsistent in so many things. He could give us a reason when he changes his mind. He could tell us what factors account for his suddenly recommending High-Yield Bond Funds; whereas, for many years he preached against all "Junk Bonds."

Perhaps Will L. is on to something here: smile

"One reason a book on Brinker would be quite interesting and bad for Bob's rag sales is his penchant for inconsistancy. You know kind of like just 5 yrs ago his whole pitch was
"The way you make money in a bear market is to "PLAY" the countertrend rallies"
After an abysmal failure with up to 1/3 of an equity porfolio placed into the QQQQs and HELD, Brinker now claims that it is not possible to do short term timing. LOL
What would we do, have a chapter on that scheme and all of those wonderful technical hokus pokus claims he was making about his indicators in the short term timing model--then say "Never mind" in the next chapter?
I have been amused at Brinker's new found liking of "high yield funds". For most of his career Brinker would correct any caller suggesting these vehicles and quickly say "Those are JUNK bond funds". He would go on to rail against such investments quite vociferously.
Recently he has been high on "high yield funds" and never calls them JUNK. He has put them in portfolios and even in portfolios of the most conservative investors.
Perhaps like Brinker's failure that gave rise to "we don't believe in short term timing", there is a logical reason for Brinker's change in his stance toward JUNK bond funds.
My guess would be that the fact he does ads for Vanguard and Payden's JUNK bond funds has something to do with it.
Perhaps it is as simple as "Another man's high yield is Brinker's Junk".
or
"If Brinker recommends high yield funds it ceases at that very moment to be JUNK"."

-- posted by honeyoneohone

Top 63. Oct 18, 2005 7:13 PM

» honeyoneohone - What is Bob Brinker Saying NOW??

.
Play "counter trend rallies?" Buy into "cyclical bulls?" How long is a "cyclical bull" market according to the-Brink? What is he now saying is the way to make money in a bear market?

Will L. has a conversation with a big fan of the bobmeister's:

"I know you are full of it if you deny that Brinker said in 2000 that "the way to make money in a bear market is to play the countertrend rallies". He did--there is no dispute. In fact he went on to put his subscribers money where his mouth was you dunce.
What was the "WE have identified a countertrend rally led by the Nasdaq 100 that we predict will result in 20% or greater gains in two to four months...We recommend subscribers with aggressive objectives buy QQQs with 30 to 50% (a third of an entire portfolio) of cash reserves. We recommend subscribers with conservative objectives buy QQQQs with 20 to 30% of cash reserves. ACT IMMEDIATELY."
You see FishXXXX, NOT ONLY DID BRINKER SAY "THE WAY YOU MAKE MONEY IN A BEAR MARKET IS TO PLAY THE COUNTERTREND RALLIES"--just as Mathguy as Oldnotbold said..he used his subscribers' money to test the hypothesis.
AFTER HE FAILED and the countertrend rally idea came a cropper, Brinker claimed that "we don't do short term timing and that short term timing is impossible". A TOTAL FLIP FLOP.
And then you couldn't go further in proving my point about Brinker being INCONSISTANT (see the first paragraph of the post you referred to half cocked--than to say this.
"MOF, just last weekend I believe he said that the way to make money is during the cyclical bulls..."
Yes his marketing campaign in mid to late 2000 was "The way you make money in a bear market is to PLAY the counter trend rallies"
Now since that failed he has a new marketing campaign. "The way you make money in a bear market is to PLAY the cyclical bulls"
Do you know that in the fall of 2001 Brinker changed his definition of a "cyclical bull market" after I pointed out his prolonged hype of his "countertrend rally" had morphed into the same time frame for a cyclical bull?
So in the fall of 2001 after reading Suite 101, Brinker changed his definition of a "cyclical bull market" from "6 months to two years in duration" to "from 1 to 3 years in duration".
Brinker is all about selling his XXXX, Fish. He relies on goobers like you who don't have the memory of a guppy. He hates people like me who recognize the BS for what it is.
Thanks for helping to show his inconsistancy and how it attracts goobers without a memory card in their deck."

-- posted by honeyoneohone

Top 64. Oct 19, 2005 8:47 AM

» honeyoneohone - Brinker's History Repeats and Repeats

.
Listening to Bob Brinker's radio program, one would get the impression that he is prescient about the stock market. Is that so? Or does the truth get shaded and spun?

It's advantageous to be aware that the bobmeister's crystal ball is a great rear-view mirror. smile

And the deceptions are nothing new. Rillinois makes a case that the-Brink was spinning the facts back in 1998:

"Let me first say that I think Bob Brinker is a great source for investment information, knowledge and philosophy. I absolutely agree with his view that indexing is the most profitable, most cost-efficient, and most tax-efficient method of investing. I also agree with Bob that mutual fund managers are in denial when they think that they can consistently outperform the market. I contend that Bob, himself, is in denial when it comes to believing that he can outperform the market. I also contend that, as part of his denial, Bob finds the need to be a spin doctor whenever he finds himself having made a mistake.
As a follow-up to my post yesterday (#3740), I'd like to address Bob's recommendation of T Rowe Price New Asia. If you listen to Brinker, lately, he makes it sound like he had the astuteness to side-step the Asian meltdown. He pats himself on the back constantly for issuing a sell on New Asia before the meltdown.
The following are posts that I made on Brinkers' AOL board along with Bob's responses. I believe I have concrete evidence to show that Bob has not only used his spinning techniques to make himself look like a market timing guru, but he has flat out lied to me and to everybody that listens to him.
Post #1, titled "New Asia", dated 12/18/97 and authored by Rillinois:
"What was the reason for the sale of New Asia? Was it underperformance?
Thanks"
Post #2 titled "Re: New Asia", dated 12/18/97 and authored by Brinkerbob:
"Marketimer subscribers sold their entire ten percent position in New Asia on July 11 based on concerns expressed in the newsletter regarding Asia performance.
At the time of the New Asia sale the fund was unchanged for calendar year 1997 through July 11. However, following the completion of our sale of New Asia, the fund melted down and has dropped about forty percent from August through December."
Post #3 titled "New Asia Part II", dated 12/19/97 and authored by Rillinois:
"You said "Marketimer subscribers sold their entire ten percent position in New Asia on July 11 based on concerns expressed in the newsletter regarding Asia performance."
Were the concerns expressed in the newsletter a result of the poor underperformance of the fund since 1994 or was it foresight into the future meltdown of the region?
Thanks again."
Post #4 titled "Re: Waiting for Bob's response...", dated 12/29/97, and authored by Brinkerbob:
"New Asia was eliminated from all Model Portfolios and the Recommended List effective July 11, 1997 at a price of $9.15 per share due to concerns about performance prospects in the Asian Theatre.
We reinvested the monies in international growth. We did not reinvest the monies in another Asian fund because we were not bullish on the Asian outlook. Since July 11, New Asia fund has declined 38% through December 29 inclusive. So far, it appears the decision to pull out of New Asia is a good one!"

My contention is that Bob sold New Asia because of lagging performance and not because of any foresight into the Asian meltdown or because he was not bullish on the Asian outlook. Bob focuses repeatedly on what New Asia did after he dropped it, but he doesn't tell us often enough what New Asia did the last few years. Here are the numbers:
1/97-7/11/97 = - .2%
1996 = + 13%
1995 = + 3%
1994 = - 19%
I am aware that the fund did exceptionally well in 1993, but my contention is that Bob's reason for the sale was because of underperformance and not because of any "concerns about performance prospects in the Asian Theatre".
Furthermore, I decided to go to the library and check out Bob's newsletter where he made the official announcement. There was no mention of any pending Asian crisis/meltdown about to come. Here is the actual text of the recommendation as it appeared in the July '97 issue.
"Rowe Price New Asia will be deleted from coverage effective July 11 due to lagging performance."
In sum, I think Bob got lucky when he sold New Asia and he is trying to spin the situation to make it look like he had the foresight to side-step the Asian meltdown.
Furthermore, I'd like to pose these two questions to Bob. First, if you did have foresight into the Asian crisis, then why did you reinvest the monies into International Growth? Why not park the money in a money market fund or in an international fund that excludes Asia? I know that with respect to the US market, you always ask people why they would purposely ride out a bear market if they new it was coming. Well, if you knew about the Asian meltdown, why would you ride it out in International Growth? Furthermore, you are quoted in the September '97 issue of your newsletter as saying, "Each of our foreign market selections is rated as attractive for purchase at current prices". Why would you purposely recommend International Growth, even with it's limited exposure to Asia, if you knew an Asian crisis was coming? My contention is that you didn't have any foresight into the Asian meltdown!
Second, if you did have foresight into the Asian crisis, then why did you continue to recommend UTEK when the chip-equipment group was one of the most exposed and worst hit groups because of the meltdown? Again, my contention is that you didn't know it was coming.
Brinker should stick to his own philosophy and stop trying to time and outperform the market. Not even you, Bob, can time the market."
Rillinois

-- posted by honeyoneohone

Top 65. Oct 19, 2005 1:27 PM

» honeyoneohone - Bob Brinker: UTEK "Spin Doctor"

.
Bob Brinker touted UTEK for a long time. Did he actually make money for his followers or did he make money for himself?

The numbers don't lie and this "history" is no joke...

"From: Rillinois

The following was posted on Bob Brinker's Moneytalk board on AOL by me on Jan. 16, 1998.
Bob,
Let me say first that you were the one who showed me the advantages of investing in index funds. They provide tax-efficiency, a low cost way of investing, and the performance is better than most actively managed funds. (Thank you). Furthermore, I agree with your comments that mutual fund managers are in denial when it comes to being able to beat the market consistently. Bob, there is no doubt that you have a vast knowledge of financial matters and I have no intention of taking that away from you. My contention, however, is that you might also be in denial when it comes to thinking that you can outperform the market with your stock selections.
Two weeks ago, you had a caller ask you about Ascend Communications and Seagate Technology. He said his broker recommended these stocks to him recently. ASND at approx. $40 and SEG at approx. $35. You quickly made the comment that SEG is a "teenager" and went on to say that the caller should fire his broker and I believe you suggested he should look at index funds as a better investment vehicle. I thought this comment was premature.
Bob, you made your first mention of UTEK on the Nightly Business Report. The date was May 31, 1996. Here is the text from the transcript:

KANGAS: Any individual stocks, new ones that you would buy at these levels?
BRINKER: There are great small cap ideas and in the technology area, particularly, Ultratech Stepper, which manufactures photolithography systems.
KANGAS: Symbol?
BRINKER: UTEK on the Nasdaq 25.
KANGAS: Okay.
BRINKER: And this company is making systems for the manufacturer of semiconductors and thin film that's also for disk drives. And outstanding outlook, rapid growth, and I think it's very attractive.

Within weeks UTEK hit a low of $14 on July 15, 1996. I remember you blasting across the airwaves that UTEK was a "ROARING BUY" under $20. And it may have been, but I didn't forget that you first recommended it at $25 on NBR on May 31, 1996. You went on to finally recommend UTEK in your newsletter in July of 1997 at under $24. And then, most recently, you recommended UTEK in your October newsletter at under $30.
You said, "...and we now rate UTEK shares 'buy up to $30' should short-term weakness occur." Well, sure enough short-term weakness occurred. In fact, on October 17, 1997, UTEK closed at $29.25 and, to your credit I'm sure, UTEK opened the following day at $33. (I wonder how many MoneyTalk Treckies saw the close below $30 and called in an order to buy at the open...?) You also made mention of UTEK for the second time on Nightly Business Report on October 17, 1997. Here is the text from the transcript:

BRINKER: Yes. Ultratech Stepper is, I think, a special situation in capital equipment. They have a new process, Paul, "P-Gild" which is an advanced laser thermal processing tool for semiconductor manufacture in the smaller geometries. This is a big potential market. Could be a $2 billion market within a few years. They have other new products. They have a new mask-making division, Ultrabeam. They'll be coming in in '98. And they have a new pole-trimming tool, which is used for disk drive manufacturers. Saves a lot of money for the manufacturers in that area. I think Ultratech Stepper would be my single best purchase at this point. I would recommend buying that stock right in here tonight, in the 29-and-a-fraction area.
KANGAS: OK. That's U-T-E-K.
BRINKER: Yes. UTEK.
KANGAS: NASDAQ.
BRINKER: NASDAQ.

Bob, you said UTEK "would be my single best purchase at this point. I would recommend buying that stock right in here tonight, in the 29-and-a-fraction area." Well, Bob, you virtually picked the top. UTEK opened the next day at $33 and it went as high as $34.125 the following day, but that's it.
I feel the need to post these facts because it seems there are many of your listeners who feel that you are currently recommending UTEK at $17 and have no idea of the other untimely recommendations that you have made regarding UTEK. And the reason they believe this, Bob, is because you with all due respect are a "Spin Doctor" when it comes to your stock selections.
Shortly after the start of the Asian crisis when UTEK was at $27.25, you stated in your November newsletter very specifically, "We do not view the current problems in Southeast Asia as a major problem for Ultratech Stepper." In that same issue you said, "In the interim, we suggest that subscribers use any short-term weakness in the mid-to-high twenties to scoop up bargain priced shares while the opportunity exists." I also remember you talking on the radio in November saying that even though there might be pricing pressures in the chip manufacturing industry due to the Asian Crisis, you contended that those companies still needed the equipment to build the chips and remain competitive. Hence, UTEK shouldn't be effected.
Furthermore, I couldn't believe you said in your January issue, "An exceptional buying opportunity could occur in our view if short-term disappointment in fourth quarter earnings creates share price weakness toward the 1997 low of $17 per share...We continue to recommend purchase, especially on weakness." HELLO BOB..., what about the weakness you said we should have taken advantage of in October under $30 and the weakness in the mid-to-high twenties in November. Is it the same weakness that made you like this stock under $30 that now makes you love it around $17? How many times have I heard that statement from brokers....If you liked it at $30, you've got to love it at $17....Come on, Bob, you should know better than that!
Also, in the first week of December (UTEK closed at $25.5), a caller asked you if you were still positive on UTEK...your response was, "ABSOLUTELY." Today UTEK is at $19 11/16. Anybody following this advice must be running out of money to take advantage of this persistent weakness, Bob. Don't you agree?
I know full well that you advise limiting individual stock exposure to 4% max. of equities, but you didn't advise dollar-cost averaging into UTEK at $30, Bob, you said "it would be my single best purchase at this point...."
Finally, let's look at your performance since you first recommended UTEK on May 31, 1996, at $25. An investment in UTEK purchased at $25 on May 31, 1996, would be down over 21%, today. That compares with a return in the S&P 500 of over 43% in that same time period, excluding dividends, of course. Negative 21% versus positive 43%. Even worse, anybody who followed your advise in October and bought UTEK under $30 would be down over 34% in just 3 months. Is this the way a "ROARING BUY" should perform, Bob? I don't think so...
Wow, don't you think investors would have been better off in an index fund than following your recommendation on UTEK. This is the advise you gave that caller two weeks ago when he asked you about ASND and SEG, isn't it? Now I know, Bob, this is a long-term investment, but you never considered that ASND or SEG was a long-term investment when you made the suggestion he should fire his broker. What if this is just short-term weakness in the shares of ASND or SEG? Why shouldn't he buy ASND or SEG on weakness?
Stop putting a positive spin on this recommendation, Bob. UTEK will eventually go up, but your timing has been the worst. You were definitely early on this one. Your spin on how UTEK will eventually hit $40 in the long-term is ridiculous. If you are not going to acknowledge that you blew the timing on this, then what was the big deal about waiting to buy under $30. If UTEK becomes a huge winner will it really matter if you paid $30 or $34. I'm willing to assume that you wouldn't have recommended UTEK at $30 in October, if you thought it had a chance of going to $17 by January.
The fact of the matter (just like you taught me, Bob) is that individuals, including mutual fund managers, can not time or outperform the market consistently. Not even you, Bob. Again, I realize you recommend index funds, but why even bother trying to outperform the market with stock picks. Is it human nature, Bob? Did you think you could outperform the market?
BTW, I do not own UTEK, ASND, or SEG.
Thank you, Bob, and I'll be listening.
Rillinois
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.a...

-- posted by honeyoneohone