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

Top 5174. Jan 2, 2001 4:36 PM

» Will_L - Re: Re: Re: I Give Up

In response to message posted by Rande:

Yep Rande, in the arena of ideas one has to realize that they can either defend their position, change it, or turn tail and run. Your Dad was quite perceptive. smile

-- posted by Will_L

Top 5175. Jan 2, 2001 4:47 PM

» Mark_J - Bricks and Mortar

Well, good news from the talking heads this afternoon. They're on TV talking about how bad the economy is, and we're going into a recession, etc.

They have the bricks and mortar out, and are constructing a big Wall of Worry. Knew it had to come at some point. The bullishness was pretty rampant up and even through the holidays. Perhaps those who like to bet on the horse who won the last race are finaly ready to commit to tobacco and oil stocks, bonds, energy, and others on the Y2K Hit Parade.

Just as those who were touting tech in March were saying that it's a new internet economy and all, we now have a bunch saying that tech was way overdone back then and will struggle going forward, and that it is important to focus on consumer goods.

(Hint: Sell that MO while you still can and buy tech!!!)

-- posted by Mark_J

Top 5176. Jan 2, 2001 4:54 PM

» DanG_6 - Re: I Give Up

In response to message posted by LibertyPi:

Liberty, not exactly true. I followed Bob's January call to reduce market exposure, and I'm still very glad I did. Do I care if there is or is not a bear market? Nope! I'm just happy to be very conservative when the market is shouting danger. As far as I'm concerned, it was a good call. Avid anti-marketimers can shout to the rooftops about how impossible it is to time the market. They have a lot of evidence to back them up, but I'm still glad to be where I am in this environment.

But the QQQ call was a horse of a different color. Trading is hard enough, but to attempt a long position in a wicked bear market is even more difficult, and to do it without any risk control is just plain reckless. Of course if you wish to do that yourself, that's fine--free country. But when you recommend such action to heretofore long term investors who probably haven't traded anything more sophisticated than comic books in their entire lives, does that really sound responsible?

-- posted by DanG_6

Top 5177. Jan 2, 2001 5:03 PM

» SLO219 - Re: Re: Hi all

In response to message posted by dija:

Hi Dija,

THAT is the $64,000 question. For some of us, it is literally a "$64,000" question. It seems that what's past isn't necessarily prologue. BB has assumed that this is the case; a bounce must occur from what he has referred to as an "oversold" condition. This is technical talk for a condition in which a security/index/whatever has fallen too far too fast. The technical types use various statistical measures to determine this condition. Since I don't believe in technical analysis, I don't know exactly what they are. However, I think that one measure is based on a survey of Bulls and Bears and such things as the advance/decline line, etc. I think that the theory is that, in the short term, the market will regress to a mean (i.e., an equilibrium point). This has tended to happen in the past but I don't believe that there's a guarantee. I was surprised that BB even used the term, given his seeming distaste for technical analysis. Once sentiment turns negative toward the market (in general), that's it. Nobody will want tech stocks for some time to come. Low risk investing will be all the rage.

I think that I'm safe in saying that the NAZ has dropped further and faster than at any time in history. The velocity of this move is staggering. I recall someone mentioning on CNBC that the amount of money lost in this market is equivalent to the amount of money currently in circulation. Not to scare anyone, but this is exactly a statement made in a book (that I read years ago) on the 1929 crash. I recall it clearly. However, even in the 1929-1932 period, significant rallies occurred.

-SLO219

-- posted by SLO219

Top 5178. Jan 2, 2001 5:11 PM

» Rande - Re: Bricks and Mortar

In response to message posted by Mark_J:

BTW -- There still IS a New Internet Economy and we still ARE in early innings. Just not the kind most thought we'd be in. I know that plenty of us here talked in the last couple of years about the MACRO benefits of an Internet economy and technological innovation -- increased productivity coupled with globalization and unprecedented mobility of capital and labor. We talked about an era of triumphant capitalism and waning communism, of newfound fiscal and monetary discipline, of budget suprpluses and entrpreneurial private-sector wealth generation. Guess what? Nothing's changed with respect to the long-term macro aspects of any of it and all of it's still in early innings. What's more, despite a temporary rain delay, this is a game that could well go into extra innings. Don't confuse the long-term macro Big Picture with get-rich-quick, quick-buck, pie-in-the-sky foolishness. That's not what it's about. It's about the Big Picture. And the Big Picture still looks positive for the long term, in spite of the cyclical headwinds we're going through. Getting carried away with the mania that embraced anything with a dot.com attached might seem ridiculous at this point, but in retrospect it could seem only mildly amusing compared to the heart-breaking folly of running to the other extreme and giving up entirely on the future.

-- posted by Rande

Top 5179. Jan 2, 2001 5:19 PM

» ACousins - Re: Re: I Give Up

In response to message posted by Mark_J:

No, your math continues to be wrong because you continue to use the wrong numbers. I don't know what you and people like LibertyPi are getting out of belittling the real losses people are experiencing.

Your dismissal of what they have lost is really unnecessary. No rational person can look at a 35% drop in 10 weeks as reasonable or minor.

Add to that the conservative bent of most participants and it is a real fiasco that even Bob would be aghast at if it happened to someone other than himself.

What would he think if you had called up the show 3 months ago and said you had invested 30% of the cash reserves you had set aside in a short term trade. Then you told him it had gone down 35% in 10 weeks. Do you honestly think he would have said, hold on to it I'm sure you'll do fine? Would he have actually said it's not a problem because it's just a 3-12% drop of your entire portfolio?

Of course not, he would have been aghast. He's aghast if you pay a couple of % in a loaded fund. A 35% drop is 7 hugely loaded funds strung together.

Remember, look at your timeframe when thinking about this trade. It's only 2.5 months old and down 35% from that ill-fated bulletin. Try annualizing that number and then keep defending it.

-- posted by ACousins

Top 5180. Jan 2, 2001 5:34 PM

» Rande - Re: Re: Re: I Give Up

In response to message posted by ACousins:

Maybe it's misplaced loyalty or the love of a good argument that leads some to desperately want to spin this QQQ fiasco in a positive light, but if they just stopped to think about what some people are going through they might step back. It hurts to lose money. Get this: It hurts. We've seen both types around here. The ones who get off on others' misery and who come out of the woodwork when things are going badly in order to gloat and lord it over. And we've seen the apologists who dare to say with a straight face that you're nuts if you think you really lost money. What's worse -- relishing in others' pain by saying "I told you you were a jerk to own stocks" or pretending that nothing's really happened by blowing smoke in a crass denial of what people are going through? Blowing smoke seems slightly more insidious to me.

-- posted by Rande

Top 5181. Jan 2, 2001 5:57 PM

» pete_man01 - Most will not make a profit with this trade!

I am guessing most BB MTers will not make a profit with this trade. Why? Well, if by chance you bought in the high $60s and $70s, you are just dieing to get out at a break even price. If you bought in the $80s, you've probably resolved to the fact that you may have a loss and will have to sell lower or you may have resolved that this is a long term trade (e.g. years). I am assuming here that the QQQ's will come back before MOABO. I am doubtful they will reach $90 in 2001. Too far of a wall of fear to climb. We'll need alot of good news to see those prices again. My target is $75 assuming this is bottom. If the COMP goes to 1800, then forget it! This trade is dead and losses will be HUGE! This is an ugly market and yes, I'm scared, angry, and sickened by this trade. It tought me a lesson I will never forget. I also loss a guru. Brinker's next call will be like a tree falling in the forest that noone hears. His days are numbered.

-- posted by pete_man01

Top 5182. Jan 2, 2001 6:13 PM

» SLO219 - Re: Most will not make a profit with this trade!

In response to message posted by pete_man01:

I agree with you. The NAZ is likely to hit 1800 and the Qs will be at around 43. In effect, this will be MOABO. See my previous posts. I've gotten into a reasonably decent market neutral position. My fear is that we are now approaching a secular Bear market that will include the relatively unscathed old economy stocks. I think that the Wilshire 5000 has (technically) already entered a Bear market since it's down 20%? The major question is how long will it last?

-SLO219

-- posted by SLO219