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

Top 5254. Jan 3, 2001 9:40 AM

» walkerman - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brinker better have some damn good comments

In response to message posted by ACousins:
I am not beating up on anyone. I am saying they didn't lose as much as you all say they did if they followed Brinker's advice. If they didn't follow his advice and lost more, they are responsible. It's pretty simple.

-- posted by walkerman

Top 5255. Jan 3, 2001 9:48 AM

» Kirk - Re: Following Brinker's Advice

In response to message posted by walkerman:

I agree with what you say.

I am saying they didn't lose as much as you all say they did if they followed Brinker's advice. If they didn't follow his advice and lost more, they are responsible.

Some people, encouraged by Brinker, do even more.

Remember BB said to go to 60% cash and when the market was down a bit in the Spring he told a caller that going to 100% was just fine and he didn't say to go 100% due to taxes and other nonsense?

Then there was the caller that complained about TEFQX and Bob told the caller "I didn't recommend that fund as it was not in the newsletter"... meaning it was not in the model portfolios.

Well, TEFQX WAS added to the recommended funds and given more ink that the present QQQ disaster... so Bob sure as shinola recommended it.

I bet he will ALSO tell any callers that get through the screeners that this was a risky trade he suggested for SUBSCRIBERS ONLY that were aware of the risk parameters but that he didn't recommend it in the model portfolios... so the radio audience will STILL think he is brilliant and that the subscribers are happy campers. Of course that required removing the subscriber only discussion area from his site as it turns out there were very few happy campers.

Am I wrong?

BTW, are you Bob Brinker Sr or Jr? Are you paid by Bob to post here? Some say you are so these questions give you the opportunity to deny the charges and people can stop accusing you.

Visit my pay-per-click sponsors ------ PLEASE -----------------\/

-- posted by Kirk

Top 5256. Jan 3, 2001 9:59 AM

» Rande - Re: Pretty Simple

In response to message posted by walkerman:

Hypothetical example showing the results of following Brinker's advice:

Portfolio $500,000

65% cash = $325,000

50% of cash to QQQ = $162,500

35% loss on QQQ = ($56,875)

"Pretty simple" seems awfully callous under such circumstances.

-- posted by Rande

Top 5257. Jan 3, 2001 10:04 AM

» ACousins - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brinker better have some damn good comme

In response to message posted by walkerman:

Walkerman, I don't think you are but let's just put one in for the records.

Walkerman, are you a member or a close affiliate of Bob Brinker, any of his companies, organizations, relatives, relative's companies or relative's organizations? Are you in anyway more closely related to any of the above than is a person who simply subscribes to the newsletter?

Do you have any past, current or future (likely to have) affiliation?

Thank you.

-- posted by ACousins

Top 5258. Jan 3, 2001 10:05 AM

» Kirk - Re: Re: Pretty Simple

In response to message posted by Rande:

I hope people that read this visit my sponsor links once a day if they appreciate it...

Portfolio $500,000

65% cash = $325,000

50% of cash to QQQ = $162,500

35% loss on QQQ = ($56,875)

So... they went to cash to avoid an 8% drop in the S&P500 then lost over 10% of their portfolio, if they bail now, in a QQQ trade?

Can one of the Brinkertons please tell me how this is better than Norm's just sitting tight in his 100% S&P500 portfolio that he lump summed into in 1982? (I.e. Norm would have HUGE taxes to pay if he sold on Bob's advice.)

Now, if you told me the advice was to NOW buy QQQ at $53 (rather than $86), I would say Brinker made a good move in 2000, but it is too late for that.

I bet if Bob had a choice and did not have this past QQQ advice haunting him, he'd advise putting 1/3 into QQQ and perhaps the rest into VTSMX that is now down 20% from its peak...(not his exit point) and have his followers back to fully invested...

pure speculation... but why not?

-- posted by Kirk

Top 5259. Jan 3, 2001 10:08 AM

» KLR - Re: Re: Pretty Simple

In response to message posted by Rande:

Rande, You forgot the foregone, once highly-touted, money market interest. But, I guess for such a short period of time, it's negligible.

-- posted by KLR

Top 5260. Jan 3, 2001 10:11 AM

» Mark_J - Declining Math Skills

Unfortunately, by looking at the numbers Will, ACousins, and Kirk post, you'd be smothered with misinformation. Walkerman has it right, we're talking about a QQQ investment that was about 10-12% of a portfolio. That has seen a 30-40% drop since the entry point, affecting one's portfolio by 4-5%.

Again, Walkerman posted the numbers. LibertyPi posted the numbers. I posted the numbers. How can you spin basic math? I know Will, ACousins, and Kirk keep trying. But let those who passed Basic Math prevail!

I'm not touting it as a great trade, but it's hardly a calamity. Heck, it may yet turn out to be a winner.

Plus, those following the January 2000 call still have a significant cash reserve ready to participate at MOABO, when the final bottom is put in. That cash reserve is not subject to the ravages of a bear market. Those buy and hold forever types will not have any dry powder available at MOABO. (And they may be tempted to sell at that time, since history tells us that this is what investment types on TV and magazines will be telling them to do.)

-- posted by Mark_J

Top 5261. Jan 3, 2001 10:11 AM

» Will_L - Re: Re: Following Brinker's Advice

In response to message posted by Kirk:

Kirk,

Your post "BTW, are you Bob Brinker Sr or Jr? Are you paid by Bob to post here? Some say you are so these questions give you the opportunity to deny the charges and people can stop accusing you."

will be interesting to see what Walkerman's response is. It has to drive Brinker crazy when he can't zap posts detailing those calls he would like to forget, or discussing his onery and heavy-handed behavior. For anyone to believe that he would sit on his hands and not post here is proof they don't understand Brinker. He had more "alias" than the guys on the bulletin board at the post office just to respond to critics and say what a wise man he was on his own site. He has sent people there subscription fees back for posting over here so I think it would be amazing to think he wouldn't try to make himself look good and critics look bad here.

Walkerman, seems to be the best candidate I've ever seen. Facts to him mean absolutely nothing-all that is important to him-is that if something good happened, it was because of Brinker. If something bad happened following his advice, it was the investor's fault. Now if he could get real nasty like ole Joe Previte when Brinker brought that alias out we'd know. smile

-- posted by Will_L

Top 5262. Jan 3, 2001 10:12 AM

» Rande - Re: Re: Re: Pretty Simple

In response to message posted by KLR:

KLR,

Don't forget, walkerman and others make a point of saying how important it is to be following Brinker's advice. If that's the case, your 35% (40% for much of the year) was in Model Portfolio 1. Even without the QQQ trade (or TEFQX for that matter), P1 was down around 4-5% for the year including money market interest on cash reserves.

-- posted by Rande