Honey's Brinker Beehive--Not a Fan Club

Top 87. Oct 24, 2005 9:23 AM

» honeyoneohone - Brinker's Ongoing, but Hidden "Trade"

.
Will L. replied to the following statement: "I don't think posting passages from a 5 year old newsletter would be of great concern to anyone."

"You sir are quite wrong. You see that is very actionable advice because the trade that is discussed in that newsletter for up to 1/3 of an entire portfolio is still ongoing. Well it's so far underwater that it would need a 100% plus bump from here to get even.
And yes it is dishonestly hidden from Brinker's performance numbers although the money taken out of the market upon which the amounts to be put in the QQQs was based is on the books.
On second thought you are right--all the bullXXX in that newsletter claiming that the big move in the QQQs was just around the corner was just that.
It was not good and is not good for anything more than catching birdXXXX in the bottom of the cage. Anyone who didn't shed the QQQs because of his optimism in that letter wished they'd put in under the parrot before reading I'd reckon."

-- posted by honeyoneohone

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/business/federa...

Top 88. Oct 24, 2005 11:49 AM

» honeyoneohone - Ben Bernanke and Bob Brinker

.
Well, it looks like the-Brink won't have "Mr. Greenshades" to kick around anymore. smile

It will be interesting to hear what Mr. Brinker has to say about Ben Bernanke--and what little pejorative nickname will he give him? We can only speculate. smile

WASHINGTON - President Bush named top White House economic adviser Ben Bernanke as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board on Monday in place of near-legendary Alan Greenspan as the official in closest control of interest rates. Bernanke instantly announced his first priority would be "to maintain continuity with the policy and policy strategies under the Greenspan era."

-- posted by honeyoneohone

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnfl...

Top 89. Oct 24, 2005 3:45 PM

» honeyoneohone - "Basher52" Comments on Brinker's Sunday Show

.
"Sunday's moneytalk was quite tame compared to Saturday's thrill packed edition. Bob did not continue his jihad against the UAW and airline employees. I suspect ABC received many complaints from union workers across the country. It's a good bet that Bob will not be the keynote speaker at next years AFL convention.

Bob spent a great deal of times selling I-bonds. One caller ask about using them in their ROTH IRA. Bob didn't think this was a good idea. I DON'T GET IT. What Bob is saying here doesn't make any sense to me at all given the current tax code. If I-bonds represent the best buy in bonds today as Bob seems to be saying why not put them in a ROTH. You NEVER have to pay any taxes on the interest and there is no risk of loss of principal. The other way even if you have it in a regular IRA the interest will be taxed as ordinary income eventually.

A caller from Chicago said he was having trouble hearing Bob. Bob claimed there was no problem but I was listening to the KGO feed on the internet. I could barely hear Bob while the caller was coming in loud and clear.

The last hour was spent talking with a woman real estate expert. Bob reiterated that the real estate bubble was over. Bob said that the average cost of a house in California was over $500,000 and only 1 in 6 people living in the state had enough income to qualify them for a loan of that magnitude.. What Bob failed to mention was that 2 in 6 people living in California are illegal aliens who are citizens of Mexico. Bob ran into another technical glitch when he lost the phone line to the real estate expert, He went to commercial.

A caller ask about the proposal from the president's tax advisory group to limit the deduction on home loans to $310,000. Bob said that the rich have little power as a voting block. I felt sorry for Bob because he clearly hasn't read the complete recommendations being made by the group. If he had, he would have known that this is being proposed to offset the elimination of the AMT which is the biggest tax headache that the rich face. Here is an article that covers the proposal which explains what I have just said."

-- posted by honeyoneohone

Top 90. Oct 25, 2005 8:30 AM

» honeyoneohone - Brinker's "Travesty of Trust"

.
Will L. was talking to a Brinker fan--pen-name, Dija, but the questions he asks about the-Brink's record should be wisely answered by anyone who might be planning to follow his advice, or subscribe to his newsletter.

"Ok Dija lets look at the record. I have said that Brinker's QQQ act immediately bulletin was the worst financial advice and the most poorly given and the most dishonestly accounted for that I have ever seen. If you disagree please give me the specifics of someone else's flakey advice that mirrors the ACT IMMEDIATELy bulletin in % of a portfolio, urgency of action, lack of information in the advice, and lack of accountability.
Now as we have documented Brinker claimed for months that he could "identify countertrend rallies". He pumped that aspect of his rag as very very important to "investors" during a bear market. He made it sound like it was a well accepted form of "investing" and not risky speculation. He made it sound like he had great experience in doing this. His audience was not astute investors and they were very very gullible. Math obviously fit that bill as he now claims that he was "too optimistic" in believing Brinker.
So Dija do you disagree that Brinker led his flock down a hubris lined primrose path in his countertrend rally crap? Was he simply incompetent in being able to do what he was trying and used his subscribers as guinea pigs? Or was he desperate to jack up newsletter sales? Do you have another reason for the ACT IMMEDIATELY bulletin?
Did you ever hear of a bulletin urging action from a financial advisor that was undated? Did you ever hear of an advisor issuing a buy recommendation but not including a price? There was no mention of risk or an exit strategy in the letter. There are only two choices that logic dictates.
The QQQQ bulletin was the work product of a completely incompetent advisor, incapbable of giving actionable advice in an acceptable manner....or....The QQQQ bulletin was purposefully kept vague to allow for spinning later (recall the early summer "radio trade" --announced after the fact with the QQQs well in the black).
Now if you have a logical explanation for the shoddy bulletin other than incompetence or duplicity, please give it. Don't just whine about me. Explain why you think Brinker did the bulletin in the shoddy undated, unpriced, no discussion of risk or exit form that he did.
Now Dija, as you know Brinker hunkered down and tried to "buy time" while the QQQs dropped. He even dishonestly called a new "starting point" of 52 claiming like a scamster that there would be "up to 50% or more gains" within a short time. That likely caused many who were "optimistic" (Brinker's term for koolade drinking goobers) to "double up" on Brinker's baby.
It went on for several more months with the "prosperity is just around the corner" in the QQQs crap. On the boards shills and idiots who were "optimistic" would claim that there would soon be "watermelon smiles" for all of those bots that participated in Bob's call. "The only way you can lose money is if you are dumb enough to sell out here" ..they would say still keeping up the charade that Brinker knew something that the market did not.
The QQQQs Dija, lost 3/4 of their value at one point. Brinker, instead of having a plan, simply hid from the reality. He stopped talking about the recommendation for up to 1/3 of an entire portfolio. This would have been HALF the money one took out following his advice in January. Yet dishonestly Brinker counts the half taken out in January, but does NOT COUNT the half pXXXed away in the QQQs in October.
To cover his debacle Brinker included QQQs in every portfolio at 25 bucks in March 2003, so anytime QQQs are mentioned from then on, Brinker could say "well our cost basis on the QQQs is 25.00. That was our only recommedation in the model portfolios".
It was truly a travesty of trust, Dija, and I would like to hear your "logic" in apologizing for Brinker's handling of and hiding of this disservice to those paying him."

-- posted by honeyoneohone

Top 91. Oct 25, 2005 7:38 PM

» honeyoneohone - More Discussion About Brinker's Sunday Program

.
Pen name, "force-majeure asks: Did Bobby PERFECTLY forecast yesterday’s relief rally? Did Bob talk about stocks at all over the weekend? Maybe he just filled the airwaves by slamming Delphi workers, Airline workers, blabbering on about real estate and I Bonds?"

Basher52 answers:

" Bob did not say much about the market. A goober got him with the old "Can I ask you another question?" trick. He said he didn't take advantage of Bob's last call to become fully invested and want to get into the S&P 500 now. Bob did a great job of side stepping his question. Bob ask him why he would want to buy now in the 1180 level if he didn't want to buy in the 800's.
Bob did a good job of spinning the latest sell off in oil. He claimed that he predicted the recent sell off several weeks ago when the oil analyst was his special guest. What a scam.
Bob said nothing about WHEN this sell off or correction would occur. It would be like me predicting that the market would have a correction and it does sometime next year. Then I tell everybody that I predicted this correction last year. True but I never identified the time frame and neither did Bob. What a con artist.
New listeners probably think he did predict what happened the last couple of weeks but he never said it would start at the beginning October. Bob's prediction is on a par with Libertypilgim's famous 40 40 20."

-- posted by honeyoneohone

Top 92. Oct 25, 2005 8:40 PM

» Kirk - Re: Bob On Oil

.
In response to More Discussion About Brinker's Sunday Program posted by honeyoneohone:

Bob did a good job of spinning the latest sell off in oil. He claimed that he predicted the recent sell off several weeks ago when the oil analyst was his special guest. What a scam.

I found an old David Korn summary of Bob Brinker's March 2003 show. I posted it here here.

OPENING MONOLOGUE
Brinker Comment: Bob, the Valley Guy, started the broadcast off noting that the market action last week was "totally awesome." Indeed, it was the greatest week of stock market gains for the Dow since 1982. Stocks went up every day during the week. Bob addressed three factors that he believes are contributing to the recent gains on Wall Street.
First, Bob thinks that investors last week were responding to the collapse in the price of a barrel of oil. Just two weeks ago, oil was almost $40 per barrel and the "bad news bears" were predicting that oil prices could go to $100 per barrel. In the three words made famous by daBrink, "they were wrong!" Today, oil prices are closer to $27 per barrel as prices collapsed in the wake of the developments over the past week. The widely anticipated demolition of Iraqi oil wells did not occur, and instead an amazingly small number of wells have been set ablaze. The drop in oil prices has been one of the major contributors to the buying frenzy on Wall Street. Investors recognize that a drop in oil prices is the equivalent of a massive tax cut to the U.S. consumer who will now have more money to spend on other items, rather than devoting their income to energy costs.
Bob then noted the recent positive action of the U.S. Dollar. Bob patted himself on the back for pointing out a few weeks ago that the dollar had firmed up and was looking better after being in free-fall for so long. Over the last few weeks, the dollar has been gaining against the euro and the yen. A strengthening dollar is another factor that has been contributing to the bullish behavior of U.S. stock market investors. In response to a caller later in the weekend, Bob won the award for modestly calling himself the "voice in the wilderness" in his so-called "discussion" of the direction of the dollar. Bob told the caller that he continues to believe the trend in the dollar will remain strong.
Finally, investors are encouraged by the Federal Reserve's stance on monetary policy. The Federal Reserve is more accommodative than at any point in time during Bob's entire life. This means easy money in terms of lower interest rates. Likewise, the current fiscal policy is also beneficial to the stock market. Our government is running a deficit in the $300-$400 billion range and this spending should have a simulative effect.
IF YOU MISSED THE BUY SIGNAL, WHAT SHOULD YOU DO NOW?
Click to find out David's interpretation of what Bob said to do

I wonder what the Bad News Oil bears feel about oil now? smile

(Actually, David suggested I post it there where people at the Bob Brinker Fan Club could enjoy that summary .)

-- posted by Kirk

Top 93. Oct 26, 2005 8:49 AM

» honeyoneohone - Bob Brinker: I-Bonds, IRAS and AMT

.
Why does the-Brink advise against putting I-Bonds in IRAS? We have the question discussed by Basher52. Anybody have an answer? smile

"This weekend on moneytalk Bob told a caller not to put I-bonds in a Roth IRA. Would you do it? I sure would and don't understand why Bob was against doing so.
With TIPS you have to pay the taxes each year so it would make sense to put them in a tax deferred account. With I-bonds you don't have to pay taxes until you sell them or they mature....

...Bob gave the impression on his show that I-bonds are the best investment you can buy that gives the highest current yield with total protection against loss. I see absolutely NO reason why you should not buy them for a Roth IRA. It seems to me that none of you Brinker supporters can defend Bob's position on this issue. IMHO Bob's position is indefensible because he is just as wrong about this as he was with the QQQ trade. It is things like this that have tipped me off that Bob may not be the financial expert he claims to be. I also pointed out that he went off half cocked attacking the proposal to limit interest deductions on home loans without mentionin that it is tied to the elimination of the AMT an making the current tax cuts permanent. Bob need to get the all facts before he criticizes something. Don't you agree?
Eliminating the AMT is a high priority for high income tax payers and I think they would be willing to go along with this proposal which Bob clearlydoesn't understand. The irony is it would probably save him a bundle."

-- posted by honeyoneohone

Top 94. Oct 26, 2005 12:26 PM

» honeyoneohone - I-Bonds, Tips and Brinker

.
As we look for answers to why the Bobmeister did not recommend I-bonds for Ira's, Will L. sheds a little light:

"The caller was asking about a Roth Ira. As Basher points out Brinker told her not to put it in there. As Basher has correctly pointed out there is no reason in hell if you want a fixed income investment not to use it in a Roth.
The reason one would use TIPS in a regular Ira as someone explained is that the "phantom" tax is not deferred and due annually--making it a poor choice for non deferred investments.
There is no downside to putting I-bonds in a roth if you are looking for yield and there is not another security as safe that yields more.
After all, once it goes into a Roth there is never a tax to consider. On the other hand I-bonds have considerable advantages outside a deferred account because of the deferral of taxes.
Brinker as he often does, didn't listen to the caller or think it through. He often shoots from the hip and he is often wrong. The problem is that Brinker sounds just as sure and confident when he doesn't know what he is talking about. QQQQuestion that and I can find some QQQQ bulletins for you. "

-- posted by honeyoneohone

Top 95. Oct 26, 2005 12:36 PM

» honeyoneohone - Opposing Opinion: Brinker, I-Bonds and IRAs

.
In order to give you the opinions on both sides of this question, here is a Brinker fan, who posts with pen-name, "Ifish":

"Ms Roses, ...I can quite easily answer your question. I would never use I bonds in a tax deferred or tax-free account, because using TIPS will give you a much larger nest-egg.
...I-Bonds pay interest upon maturity, so you get principal and interest when the bond is sold or matures. That's all you get.
TIPS, as Brinker and I know, have the same inflation protection AND they pay interest SEMI-ANNUALLY. This allows you to get those interest payments, tax-deferred or tax-free, and RE-INVEST them. It works just like compound interest, and this will result in more money at maturity than you'd get with an I bond. Same tax benefits, but more money.
So, if your goal is more money, one would NOT use I bonds in either an IRA or a ROTH IRA, but would use TIPS instead.
Sorry, but you have to chalk up another victory for Brinker on this one....
As always....HTH "

-- posted by honeyoneohone