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

» Will_L - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re Dija wrong again - 2 CTRs, 2 Swings and 2 mis

In response to message posted by JIMMY62:

"Bob's January 2000 recommendation top place most stock market assets in cash reserves was based on the negative readings of his long-term timign model and his analysis of the five root causes of a bear market. "

How do you know that? Would you know the same thing happened if he went totally to cash? Took out 10% and remained 90% invested?

Is not what you are saying simply an opinion or guess as to what caused Brinker to make the move he did? Your opinion that his model was "negative" is in conflict with what Brinker claimed at that time (a lot more likely to be honest than what he claims after knowing what the market does).

We have Brinker's word that his model was NOT BEARISH. If it is either bullish or bearish and was not bearish what was it? Do you know that his model was bearish and thus he lied? Or is it not most likely that there is no model that gives those precise readings? Is it not equally likely that Brinker thought that inflation was going to catch fire and that rates were going to skyrocket? He said that. Therefore he thought it was a good time to take a shot, but feared he'd be wrong? So he made up the 40-60 idea along with making up the 5% upside and 20% or more downside and adding that "if the market goes up 10%" (thus increasing his field from 10 up to 20 or more down).

I think my opinion is more likely the case than what you state as fact.

-- posted by Will_L

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Fred2000 - Re Dija wrong again - 2 CTRs, 2 Swings and 2 misses

In response to message posted by JIMMY62:

"Bob's call to place most stock market assets in cash reserves was based on the negative readings of his long-term timign model and his analysis of the five root causes of a bear market."

JIMMY... You may be absolutely right about that but I have no firm information what he based any recommendation on. Strictly an educated guess with me but do you have any inside knowledge?

In my opinion, root causes of a bear market are only broad talking points. Any actual value gained from them for making a projection is speculation.

-- posted by Fred2000

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

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

In response to message posted by ACousins:

I'm probably wasting my time trying to explain something to someone who thinks Brinker has not yet said we're in a bear market..after spending two years going on and on about it ad nauseum, and the last 6 months about how it's one of the worst of all time, but here goes:

The way he used the words "countertrend rally" were his way of describing a short term rally within what he calls a Cyclical Bear.

"Cyclical Bull" is his term for a longer term market event that signals the end of that Cyclical Bear, both being part of the larger Secular event.

You ask people questions that have obvious answers for anyone that has listened. These are/were his opinions, some right some wrong, and I hope this helps you in your continued confusion with the obvious.

-- posted by La_la

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Kirk - Re: The evolution of a debacle in a single post

In response to message posted by ACousins:

Good research AC.
Can you repost this on the Bob Brinker Testimonials ONLY Thread here http://www.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/i...

Thanks

I can send you the HTML via email for a graph over this period for the QQQs if you like or put a note [insert graph] in the post and I'll do it for you there.

<img src=http://cbs.marketwatch.com/charts/int-ad... width=452 height=366>

Then when Stewboner or his next incarnation shows up, we can just give a link to your post there.

-- posted by Kirk

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Will_L - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dija: answer this question part

In response to message posted by La_la:

Your explanation was fine Lala. However the time frames that Brinker has used in attempting to call a Counter trend rally and describing a "cyclical bull" have overlapped.

Recall until after the disaster of the CTR, he described "cyclical bull markets" as being 6 months to 2 years in duration. He has moved that to 1 to 3 years now. Why make such an arbitrary change? Pretty easy to see.

If you look at Jimmy's quotes yesterday giving monthly QQQ advice from the Marketimer from October 2000 through June 2001, you will see that Brinker stretched his call for a CTR out through 9 months before giving up.

So basically both calls are the same thing- a call saying the market is going in the direction opposite what you claim is the longer term trend.

I think Brinker simply moved his Cyclical market time frame away from 6 months to a minimum of 1 year to try to distance it from the failed CTR call.

There is one fact that is indisputable. Brinker has never successfully called either a Counter trend rally or a Cyclical bull market.

-- posted by Will_L

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Kirk - Good Points by La_La and Will

.
In response to message posted by Will_L:

Good points.

Summary

One to consider is he is NOW saying we are in a SECULAR BEAR MARKET which means the S&P500 will not hit 1530 (old highs) in 10 or 20 years if I read him right.
http://stockcharts.com/def/servlet/SC.we...

His 1 to 3 yr cyclical bulls are counter trend rallies by definition.

This is the point AC is making.

AC has also shown that he extended the time frame (of the QQQ CT Call) so they merged.

Brinker has also said that his model doesn't see that far out so it makes you wonder what makes him say we are in a secular bear unless he reads the future which others say is impossible.

-- posted by Kirk

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» shallam - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dija: answer this question part

LaLa:
The way he used the words "countertrend rally" were his way of describing a short term rally within what he calls a Cyclical Bear. "Cyclical Bull" is his term for a longer term market event that signals the end of that Cyclical Bear, both being part of the larger Secular event

SH:
My take on "rally" vs "cycle" is similar to yours. Rally is shorter in duration and smaller in variation. I think it would be helpful if BB were to specifically define all these terms, well defined onset and offset. I also see some inconsitencies in his use of the terms.

He defined the end of the 90's secular bull as
the onset of the current cyclical bear. However, he has lately discussed cyclical bulls within the alleged secular bear. So what defines the end of a secular trend?

-- posted by shallam

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» JIMMY62 - Dija wrong again - 2 CTRs, 2 Swings and 2 mis

In response to message posted by Will_L:

"Bob's January 2000 recommendation top place most stock market assets in cash reserves was based on the negative readings of his long-term timing model and his analysis of the five root causes of a bear market. "

How do you know that?
I don't know it for a fact. That is what he wrote in the newsletter at the time.

Would you know the same thing happened if he went totally to cash? Took out 10% and remained 90% invested?

It is Bob's model and Bob's newsletter. He makes up the scoring rules as he goes along.

The assertion responded to was about the model. Well, the model is and does whatever Bob says it does. For fun we can search for inconsistencies, but Bob does not attribute the 60/40 call to the model alone. Bob added his analysis of some stuff.

-- posted by JIMMY62

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» JIMMY62 - Re: Re Dija wrong again - 2 CTRs, 2 Swings and 2 misses

In response to message posted by Fred2000:

JIMMY... You may be absolutely right about that but I have no firm information what he based any recommendation on. Strictly an educated guess with me but do you have any inside knowledge?

No inside knowledge. All I know is what I read in the newsletter.

-- posted by JIMMY62

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» shallam - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re Dija wrong again - 2 CTRs, 2 Swings and 2

J62: "Bob's January 2000 recommendation top place most stock market assets in cash reserves was based on the negative readings of his long-term timign model and his analysis of the five root causes of a bear market. "

WL'
How do you know that? Would you know the same thing happened if he went totally to cash? Took out 10% and remained 90% invested? Is not what you are saying simply an opinion or guess as to what caused Brinker to make the move he did? Your opinion that his model was "negative" is in conflict with what Brinker claimed at that time (a lot more likely to be honest than what he claims after knowing what the market does). We have Brinker's word that his model was NOT BEARISH. If it is either bullish or bearish and was not bearish what was it?

SH: Suppose you had a model (that you believed in) that said no more than 10% upside and more than 20% potential downside. Are you bullish or bearish? Not an easy question to answer. The only clear answer you could give based on the model would be NOT bullish, if we defined bullish as 20% or more upside. You couldn't simply say "bearish" since your model predicts the possibility of some upside. Perhaps you could say the balance of risks outweighs the rewards.
Off course you shouldn't change how you characterize your model as the data rolls in as BB appears to have done. Additionally, if you are saying to yourself -- gee this seems to allow for an awful lot of wiggle room-- I'd have to agree.

-- posted by shallam

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions