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

Top 7022. Jan 13, 2001 1:41 PM

» ACousins - Q52 not Q83

In response to message posted by SteveT:

So why didn't he wait to issue the buy call around $58.5 instead of $83??????

A very reasonable question. Thank you to DK for yet another well thought out commentary. It does seem that the historical value (based only on the P/E) is in the mid 50s which is pretty much where Q52 fell to. Why not have a CTR from there if that is what your own P/E numbers showed? That would have been consistent and much more helpful than at 83.

What about the advance/decline and volume numbers in and around early October would have over ridden the P/E problem? It's very curious, does anyone know?

Thank you also to walkerman et. al. for continuing to prove what kind of people are on his side of this argument. Your posts are short, personal and lacking in substance or arguable points.

+++++++++++++++++++++

I am actually learning quite a bit about short term trading here. In amongst the ugly posts from the pro-BB crowd, there are cogent arguments, interesting analyses and useful links.

I would much rather that BB had been correct to begin with and that everyone was sitting on a 20% gain rather than up to a 35% loss. Otherwise, I would rather he had defended his position on his own web site rather than close it up without commentary.

I would also rather he had not pulled down his target to, apparently, the high 70s from the 90s just a short time ago. I would rather he be correct once in awhile and that the CTR would show a rise to a viable exit point.

I would benefit much more in his being right than in his continuing to be so wrong.

-- posted by ACousins

Top 7023. Jan 13, 2001 1:42 PM

» Rande - Re: Fair Questions, Rande

In response to message posted by DanG_6:

Dan,

Thanks. Keep us posted on your subscription status. ;)

-- posted by Rande

Top 7024. Jan 13, 2001 1:47 PM

» Fahrenheit451 - Re: Why do some people get so upset at the facts? Psychological

In response to message posted by Rande:

Why do some people get so upset at the facts?

Why do people post only those facts that support their premise? Psychological. They take comfort in adhering to a dogma. This applies equally to the "Brinker is always right" crowd and the "Brinker is always wrong" crowd.

-- posted by Fahrenheit451

Top 7025. Jan 13, 2001 2:04 PM

» ACousins - Divergence in MTs

Wow, never realized just how wide the divergence between MT on the radio and MT the newsletter are. As I've said before, the lucky ones are the listeners and nonsubscribers.

Definitely reasonable to save the $185, listen to the show for 15 minutes once a weekend and go to lunch.

It's very disturbing that he's talking about comparing beta coefficients on various portfolios in order to provide a FAIR comparison. What about adding in the outside-of-portfolio advice that affect the portfolio returns? How unfair is that?

Why in the world does this guy have such a problem coming clean with all of his advice? Why can't he just post all of his results both good and bad and let the public decide? It is very disturbing.

+++++++++++++

Brinker is always wrong" crowd

F451, I have not seen one member of this "crowd" here.

-- posted by ACousins

Top 7026. Jan 13, 2001 2:04 PM

» Fahrenheit451 - Re: Re: New Title: What is your opinion?

In response to message posted by Kirk:

"Did you know that someone named "TrailerTrash" posted that he was offended to share this site with Brinker? (or something to that effect...I forgot the details as I can't read all the posts that are done here.)"

Since you can't read all the posts let me help you out. I posted as TrailerTrash for a day because I saw a post of yours in which you referred to people who came here from Brinker's site as trailer trash. It's like what the colonists did during the Revolutionary War when the British cade up with "Yankee Doodle" to ridicule the opposition: the revolutionary forces adopted it as their own, out of defiance.

I certainly never wrote anything like what you said.

-- posted by Fahrenheit451

Top 7027. Jan 13, 2001 2:09 PM

» smile_1 - betas for Brinker's portfolio's 1,2, & 3

Bob, is saying his risk adjusted return is not reflected in a simple comparison of return. This is a fact, but the numbers Bob is quoting for his portfolio betas sound real low in the .15 to .3 range - no way portfolio 1 has a portfolio less than 1 unless he is counting his cash position, and not including his Q trade.

unbelievable

-- posted by smile_1

Top 7028. Jan 13, 2001 2:11 PM

» Fahrenheit451 - Re: Re: New Title: What is your opinion?

In response to message posted by Kirk:

"IF you want a one sided thread that ONLY has positive opinions, I am told there is a club on Yahoo with others that feel the same way.>"

I hate to burst everyone's bubble as to what Brinker's fans are like, but I have read most of the posts on Brinkerbots, and it is not even close to being true that it only has postive opinions on it. I have yet to see ONE POST praising the latest trade, for example.

-- posted by Fahrenheit451

Top 7029. Jan 13, 2001 2:18 PM

» ACousins - Continuing divergence...

I wonder if being 2/3rds down in PG&E stock is worse than being 1/3rds down in Q52 in a much shorter timeframe?

Concentrating more than 4% (or 5 or whatever) in one single stock is conservative and quite reasonable (Gates wouldn't say so but what does he know?). However, concentrating up to 1/3rd in a single sector while betting AGAINST the market trend is ok?

The road to critical mass diverged in a bulletin...

++++++++++++

I hate to burst everyone's bubble as to what Brinker's fans are like

His fans show themselves for what they are every time they post. No need to have a bubble or anything of the sort.

-- posted by ACousins

Top 7030. Jan 13, 2001 2:19 PM

» Fahrenheit451 - Re: Re: Why do some people get so upset at the facts? Psycholog

In response to message posted by DanG_6:

Wow, an unbiased post! That one is a ten, Dan!

-- posted by Fahrenheit451