THREAD FULL!!! Bob_Brinker_Discussion_41,600 is CLOSED!!!!!

Top 1533. Jun 2, 2002 8:19 PM

» ACousins - Re: Re: Dija: answer this question part 2

In response to message posted by dija:

For one thing, you CANNOT say that the CTR call was for nine months. When he said, in Jan. 2001, that a CTR could last three to six months, IT HADN'T STARTED YET. Therefore, he obviously was not predicting a nine-month CTR.

The CTR was almost 3 months old in January. What do you mean it hadn't started yet. Dija is calling Bob a liar?

So the CB starts where the CTR ends. And the CB has the potential to last MUCH longer.

Really? I thought you said these were unrelated. Is Dija calling Dija a liar?

LOL

-- posted by ACousins

Top 1534. Jun 2, 2002 8:19 PM

» TonyFromGlendale - Mr. Brinker and the Sacramento Kings

Last weekend Mr. Brinker was really talking up the Sacramento Kings Basketball Team, and one of their big stars Chris Webber. Mr. Brinker told the caller that he was sure he wasn't making LA very happy with his enthusiasm for the Sacramento team. I hope Mr. Brinker put his money on the Kings to win on the Vegas Strip, because that would make this LA fan very happy...QQQ's and the Sacramento Kings...At least the Kings came close to being a winner, and QQQ on the other hand...Well, do I have to finish the sentence?

-- posted by TonyFromGlendale

Top 1535. Jun 2, 2002 8:48 PM

» Jonathon - pulling a walkerman

i heard a caller ask brinker a question this weekend that brinker didn't know the answer to. he kept avoiding it, talking about anything else that he could. brinker pulled a walkerman!

-- posted by Jonathon

Top 1536. Jun 2, 2002 8:51 PM

» dija - Re: Re: Re: Dija: answer this question part 2

In response to message posted by ACousins:

AC said: "The CTR was almost 3 months old in January (2001). What do you mean it hadn't started yet?"

AC, I can only characterize the above statement as stupid. The CTR was NOT 3 months old in Jan. 2001. A CTR is a counter-trend rally. There was no counter-trend rally. Bob's PREDICTION of a CTR was 3 months old. The CTR had not started and did not start in January or February. After being wrong from Oct. through Dec., Bob then said the CTR would START in Jan. and would last 3 to 6 months.

The absolute maximum time he gave for a CTR was 6 months. The absolute minimum time he gave for a CB was six months. That is NOT what a rational person would call overlap.

But, if I was dealing with rational people, they would not say things like: "zero to infinity is precision."

-- posted by dija

Top 1537. Jun 2, 2002 9:44 PM

» ACousins - Re: Re: Re: Re: Dija: answer this question part 2

In response to message posted by dija:

I can only characterize the above statement as stupid. The CTR was NOT 3 months old in Jan. 2001. A CTR is a counter-trend rally. There was no counter-trend rally. Bob's PREDICTION of a CTR was 3 months old.

If you didn't know about Bob's October call for a CTR, he wasn't going to tell you about it in the following January's MT. For those WHO KNEW (unfortunately) about his call, this was what he said,

"We continue to view short-term price weakness in Nasdaq 100 shares...Clearly, the Nasdaq indexes have moved lower than we anticipated in recent weeks. However, this has not altered our expectation that a major bear market rally will develop going forward...."

Continue? Anticipated? Not Altered?

These are continuations of the trade. You can, of course continue to call Bob a bald faced liar as you seem to agree with the critics who say he was burying the CTR to make it LOOK AS IF it was starting at these lower levels. That means he LIED, CHEATED HIS LOYAL CUSTOMERS and, basically, LIED.

Agreed?

-- posted by ACousins

Top 1538. Jun 2, 2002 9:45 PM

» ACousins - Re: Re: Re: Re: Dija: answer this question part 2

In response to message posted by dija:

You also failed to answer the previous question "part 1"

In your zeal to support Bob no matter what, you left out monetary policy which is a cornerstone of Bob's longterm model. Then you say things like this:

The long-term model has nothing to do with the CTR call. That's not to say there might not be one or two factors that were used for both calls

In your zeal to support Bob no matter what, you left out monetary policy which is a cornerstone of Bob's longterm model. Then you say things like this:

The long-term model has nothing to do with the CTR call. That's not to say there might not be one or two factors that were used for both calls

which are just plain stupid. Sorry, but I have no other word to characterize those two sentences. They are completely unrelated except where they are related.

Ridiculous.

-- posted by ACousins

Top 1539. Jun 3, 2002 4:29 AM

» Fred2000 - Re: Dija: answer this question part 2

In response to message posted by ACousins:

"They are completely unrelated except where they are related."

AC... There is no chance of having a discussion with dija on any point. Regardless of the substantiation you may provide, she sticks to her warped view of the situation.

Reminds me of the time I was on jury duty when during deliberation, one lady juror would not believe the defendant was capable of doing something he actually confessed to on the witness stand. Her reason? She didn't think anyone could do such a thing. What can you do with thinking like that?

-- posted by Fred2000

Top 1540. Jun 3, 2002 7:22 AM

» Kirk - Re Dija wrong again - 2 CTRs, 2 Swings and 2 misses

In response to message posted by dija:

AC, I can only characterize the above statement as stupid. The CTR was NOT 3 months old in Jan. 2001. A CTR is a counter-trend rally. There was no counter-trend rally. Bob's PREDICTION of a CTR was 3 months old.

Wrong!

Does anyone in real life pay any attention to anything you say when you are proven to post as facts pure, unadulterated garbage or lies as if you know for a fact they are the truth?

You don't even qualify yourself and leave open that you might be wrong when you are cluelessly spouting off nonsense.

The CTR started the week before people started getting their special bulletins. The first bulletin was recieved on 10/16/00

As that chart shows, the CTR started at the $75 level (the same place Bob tried to call his summer, free crack sample CTR where he said to wait for the QQQs to come back to the mid $70's). I think Brinker was using the strong support level of $75 to base his CTR call but he says he doesn't "use charts" which means he says he doesn't use support and resistance (which has a proven statistical effectiveness).

Anyway, on 10/12/00 the bottom was put in and then we got the huge up day on 10/13/00 where I think he decided to mail the bulletin. I think it was unpriced as Brinker was planning to send this for some time (the reason for the free, summer crack sample) so he didn't know when or at what price it would come from hence the undated, unpriced bulletin.

Between 10/21/00 and 10/24/00 the QQQs peaked over $86 on a closing basis for a 15% gain from the $75 bottom. 15% is a nice rally for an index… it just did the rally quickly and was 5% shy of his target.

The 3rd CTR that he called for in early January 2001 was a good one... over 30%.

There was a nice rally from $52 to $68 for a 31% gain… just that gain was well short of the 50% gain "or more" he was calling for.

Two rallies, two swings and two misses.

-- posted by Kirk

http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk...

Top 1541. Jun 3, 2002 7:24 AM

» CatBird - Re: From Morningstar

In response to message posted by Karin_:
+

Can't see blaming companies for showing the tax benefit from employees exercising stock options as operating cash flows when related employee salaries are deducted from operating income.

It is not the fault of companies that congress saw fit to give companies a cash tax savings incentive to issue employee stock options.

Just do not see any deception going on from my viewpoint sitting up here. Where would you have companies report the cash savings in tax from employee options exercised?

This whole area of employee stock options is very hard to understand. I was reading an interesting post at Silicon investor awhile back that convinced me that stock option plans are easily abused during periods of sharply rising stock prices like we had going into year 2000. I agree that disclosure of the dilution from option plans is totally inadequate. See if you do not agree. Follow the discussion backwards and read the linked posts within each linked post at SI. It was very interesting for me how the profits employees make on resale of stock acquired under option plans is funded directly by other shareholders. It is like the company executives can reach right into the pockets of shareholders and steal money from them without their understanding what is happening to them. It should be illegal from my viewpoint sitting up here.

-- posted by CatBird