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

Top 5114. Jan 2, 2001 11:51 AM

» Mark_J - Re: Re: Re: Re: Doing the math - Joe

In response to message posted by ACousins:

Not at all, ACousins. Those pom-poms are locked up. I was pointing out that Bob is 1-2 on the rally calls. Depending on how much investors went in on each call, where they got in, and where they sold will determine how much money they made or lost.

Every investor will have different results on this one. But many are probably discovering whether or not they want to adhere to any of Bob's calls in the future. I think everyone should do as they see fit.

-- posted by Mark_J

Top 5115. Jan 2, 2001 12:04 PM

» Mark_J - Re: Re: Re: Re: Doing the math - Joe

In response to message posted by ACousins:

ACousins, if you're looking for specific and exact numbers, I posted them right here.

Now, these are for a 70-30 investor who put 30% in the QQQ. I realize other folks did other things. But, this is just one example...

-- posted by Mark_J

Top 5116. Jan 2, 2001 12:06 PM

» ACousins - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Doing the math - Joe

In response to message posted by Mark_J:

I was pointing out that Bob is 1-2 on the rally calls.

That's like saying those who shorted the NAS at 5000 in March because Bob was saying there's a downturn coming in January owe him a debt of gratitude.

Oh yes, and those who buy at 52 (or whatever) and make money when they sell at 62 (or whatever) also owe him a debt of gratitude.

++++++++

That is, those who don't really take his advice but make money anyway owe him something.

-- posted by ACousins

Top 5117. Jan 2, 2001 12:20 PM

» richard1223 - bob went golfing

bob was way off on this call,what we saved we lost in this short trade. what a shame he shuts down his site when we need it most. I'm in for the long run and lost 30% of my money. what a shame we got in this when we were in cash and safe.

-- posted by richard1223

Top 5118. Jan 2, 2001 12:44 PM

» ACousins - Re: bob went golfing

In response to message posted by richard1223:

Hey Richard1223,

Nothing like a little white ball to mess up a nice walk on the links.

Nothing like losing money to mess up a nice investment portfolio.

You're in good, if equally unfortunate, company. I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for those Boards to come back up. If you read them, you'll only get the skewed view because they're censored.

+++++++++=

Oh yes, to all you apologists, those who were confused at 83 are now down 36%! Hey, that's just 12%...per month.

QQQs at 45 anyone?

-- posted by ACousins

Top 5119. Jan 2, 2001 12:50 PM

» ACousins - Mistake on the 50-60% rise

Sorry, I made a mistake. This will now have to climb 70%+ within 3.5 months.

Great buying opportunity for those apologists to put their money where their posts are. If you liked it at 83, 72, 67...you'll love it at 52.

RamblinMan, Walkerman, etc. where are you when we're in apparent freefall?

++++++++=

Just a note, those guys shorting this thing at 61 and covering at 52 are doing things well for today at any rate. See the Nas100 board at fool.com.

-- posted by ACousins

Top 5120. Jan 2, 2001 12:53 PM

» Kirk - Re: Re: Re: Hi all

In response to message posted by SLO219:

Howdy
Sounds like you ought to be making your own market timing letter and telling what numbers to put the remainder of people's portfolio on to give it a spin!

IF they didn't lose enough or learn a lesson playing Bob's latest QQQ trade, then they can risk some more in an even riskier gamble you propose.

Good luck to you, but I sure advise everyone else to run for the hills when the advice is shorting this and buy another risky fund long... I've head of hedge funds getting these "sure things" wrong and losing 90% of capital...

Welcome to the group. Sorry to be negative on an idea that just seems so bad that I didn't even addresss it point by point. Perhaps put it into our QQQ thread? Maybe we need a gambling thread as that would be even more appropriate?

-- posted by Kirk

http://www.suite101.com/files/mysites/Fe...

Top 5121. Jan 2, 2001 12:53 PM

» JenL_2 - Re: Let's get those bears

In response to message posted by Felipe:

Go Get 'em Felipe:

...and give 'em a whack for me also......Jen

-- posted by JenL_2

Top 5122. Jan 2, 2001 1:37 PM

» walkerman - Re: Re: Re: This is not the way to go...

In response to message posted by ACousins:
ACousins....there's a huge, and legal, difference between bad service and negligence. The cleaner may have put a hole in your jacket, but Brinker didn't make the investment for anyone. Negligence could find you liable...bad service will only lose customers for you. It seems that you are saying that you ought to be able to sue a mutual fund that goes down. Sorry, unless it's due to legal negligence, you cannot do it. Or, perhaps you think that the market only goes up.

-- posted by walkerman