THREAD IS CLOSED! --- Bob Brinker Free Discussion Site 11K+

» Mark_J - What a run!

I don't know the final outcome on Bob's contract status, but what a run! We've had 15 years of non-biased straight talk from the guru of investing. So many years, and so many calls that went against the grain of popular investing. You recall so many "gift horse" calls when folks were selling at the bottom? Unbelieveable! And then this year's call to raise cash just as folks like Joe Battapaglia were packing their bags for the rocketship trip to the moon? Bob said "these things always end badly" and so many folks have seen their temporary fortunes taken out to the woodshed and shot. Many of us also made 30% or more this past summer in the first major countertrend rally of the bear market. Whew!

I hope he keeps on keepin' on! Thanks for a great run, Bob!

-- posted by Mark_J

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Rande - Re: Secular Bear 1966 - 1982

In response to message posted by Swan1:

Jack,

Certainly the 73-74 period in the middle is regarded as a full-fledged bear market, worst since the Crash. The 66-82 period is generally regarded as stagnant by most who just look at the percentage price change of the large caps. When dividends are thrown in and the compound returns are calculated, it wasn't as horrible as some make it out, especially when small caps are considered as part of the mix. Certainly, not the best of times for equities, but stocks were STILL the best performing financial asset (over bonds and cash) in those worst of times for financial assets. Yes, it does lend some comfort to those with a long-term time horizon and that's my point. I don't care for the scare-mongering that seeks to frighten people out of a prudent long-term strategy in favor of what most mainstream investment advisors would regard as hairbrained and ill-founded, especially when the scare-mongering is being done by someone promoting their own services.

-- posted by Rande

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Ronjamm - Re: Re: The Fed

In response to message posted by Swan1:
I'm beginning to see how BB drives some people nuts. Earlier he said there is no doubt the fed will go to a neutral bias on Tuesday. (He did not say at least a neutral bias). I just now heard him say what you said, Swan, 1/3 chance of easing. He apparently sees no contradiction when he talks that way.

-- posted by Ronjamm

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Rande - Re: Re: Re: Nice one, Rande!

In response to message posted by be6:

be6,

Just telling it like it is. One thing you have to remember is that this thread is the garbage thread of the site compared to what you can find elsewhere here, sort of like the "Jerry Springer Show" compared to public television on your t.v. set. One thing supporters and detractors of Brinker would likely agree on is that Brinker does bring out the worst in people. Probably an extension of his own nasty personality. The poison has certainly been evident over at BB.com and sometimes it spreads over here to this thread. S'okay -- anything having to do with Brinker is ultimately for entertainment purposes only. Don't take it too seriously.

-- posted by Rande

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Fahrenheit451 - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nice one, Rande!

In response to message posted by Ronjamm:

So repeating yourself is OK if you tie the post to another to which you're replying ("He made me do it!"), but otherwise it's not? Sorry, that's just too silly. The persistent negative bias in this thread is justification enough.

-- posted by Fahrenheit451

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Swan1 - Re: Re: Re: The Fed

In response to message posted by Ronjamm:

That is why I don't try to pick his words apart. Sometimes he makes mistakes in the way he states things and occasionally the weird side of his personality pops up and he says stupid things. I listen more to the whole of what he says and bounce that against my other sources and my own experience to form a conclusion. The reason that I don't think the Fed will lower rates is because of what Bob stated about Greenspan. He would be admitting that his .5 increase was too much. As much as I like Alan G., he has an ego too. I think he will wait until next time to lower, given the continued slowdown in the economy.

Jack

Jack

-- posted by Swan1

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Ronjamm - Re: What a run!

In response to message posted by Mark_J:
Mark, this post is really for Kirk.

Kirk!! Help!!

Could you please give us a "Block Mark J" button right next to the "post" and "reply" buttons? Thanks in advance.

-- posted by Ronjamm

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Ronjamm - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nice one, Rande!

In response to message posted by Fahrenheit451:
"The persistent negative bias in this thread is justification enough." My reply is NO IT'S NOT. The bias is more than offset by the Orwellian censorship on the other site.

-- posted by Ronjamm

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Fahrenheit451 - Re: Re: Re: Re: Cinderella

In response to message posted by Ronjamm:

Almost missed your reply from yesterday - I still haven't figured out a foolproof method for finding all replies to posts of mine.

I like Bill Seidman too. He seems very level-headed and knowledgeable.

It seems like lots of people are worried about recession now. People laughed when Bob started talking about it as a possibility.

-- posted by Fahrenheit451

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Fahrenheit451 - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nice one, Rande!

In response to message posted by Ronjamm:

I don't see how you can blame everything on a discussion site which cannot even be read publically.

-- posted by Fahrenheit451

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions