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

Top 1603. Jun 4, 2002 11:20 AM

» Kirk - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Model Debate - LaLa and AC

In response to message posted by La_la:

No..

Lets use an extreme.

Your parish priest or reverend is your spiritual teacher. IF he was convicted of child abuse, would you listen to what he had to say about how to live a moral life?

I think Brinker is so deep into cover-ups and making himself look good that he loses almost all credibility.

I've heard him spin the news to only show the news that makes him look right… Not a credible person to listen to… but he is entertaining and gives you much to think about if you do more research on your own.

-- posted by Kirk

Top 1604. Jun 4, 2002 11:34 AM

» La_la - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Model Debate - LaLa and AC

In response to message posted by Kirk:

Well, maybe you see Brinker as some kind of spiritual leader. I see him as a guy on the radio, much of who's audience is eager to learn about basic investing concepts, and how to not get hurt. Occasionally he dips into market timing and indivual stock recommendations..and he seems to be somewhere around 50/50 with those, but if it's more, or less..I'm not one who cares. People here find him alot more interesting than I do.

-- posted by La_la

Top 1605. Jun 4, 2002 11:37 AM

» Will_L - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Model Debate - LaLa and AC

In response to message posted by La_la:

"It's worth repeating..truer words were never spoken here. "You're way beyond simple-minded..you've crossed into childish, trivial, and bitter, and you've been well into all 3 for months." I noticed you didn't dispute this."

What is it with you Lala? Of course you were wrong for posting such a slap. I would doubt that you would say that to anyone's face. Since you want me to comment on your take on AC, I will.

"You're way beyond simple-minded". Well lala, AC is bright and aware enough to know that to learn about Brinker, you don't just listen to his radio show. To do only that would be in my mind "simple minded".

AC would not believe that Brinker is spending all that time hawking the books on his website during his radio show for the public's benefit, but instead to make 15% on every sale of a book on his website. A simple minded person who claimed to know all about Brinker didn't know that a while back.

Childish? Don't know AC's age. I do know that I never said a word to you when you came over here slamming me because ostensibly you didn't like the way I posted. Until then I never knew you existed and still don't really care. I've noticed that you have not attacked any of the Brinker apologists in a similar mode. That seemed childish to me and you've been at it ever since.

Bitter? I think AC is a little less than thrilled with Brinker's QQQ call and perhaps has some twinge of resentement. Now why are you so bitter?

There, you want me to be honest, I will.

-- posted by Will_L

Top 1606. Jun 4, 2002 11:46 AM

» shallam - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dija: answer this questi

LaLa:
Shallam, for a while he was saying there would be no way of knowing that a secular trend had begun until well into the event, and a cyclical bear and bull had come and gone; consequently, he was unsure of what exactly we WERE in.

SH: Yes, but still makes me wonder what the exact definition of secular is or if their is one.
I understand that in general it means long term but the exact definition may matter if one attempts to evaluate BB prediction of a secular bear. The definitions can be very important to the objectivity of analysis.

Now, for some reason, he has changed that view, and sounds quite sure a new secular trend has begun. It's obvious to me that some people here think it's a huge deal when he changes his mind or views. I don't find it the least bit significant, and would take him much less serious, if he did not.

SH:

-- posted by shallam

Top 1607. Jun 4, 2002 11:49 AM

» ACousins - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dija: answer this questi

In response to message posted by La_la:

He decided to go 60/40. Those who chose to follow him, did. No one sane cares that he chose to go that route. He wasn't sure..so what?

It's ridiculous to ignore his actions? You're focusing on the 65% that he went out of the market while ignoring the FACT that he said he would go 100% when his model said to?

I didn't say he would go 100% out of the market, I didn't berate people who wanted to buy and hold, BOB DID. He went overboard in rolling his eyes at people who were determined to be long term buy and holders. He did this repeatedly over a very long period of time.

Then, what did he do? He bought and held (and is still holding) and NEVER went out of the market.

Of course he has the right to change his mind as conditions change. What he shouldn't get away with is burying things so that he looks smarter and more skilled than he really is.

He takes a very, very strong stand on market timing and sidestepping a bear market and he does so for years even in the face of people like Bogle saying that's a fool's game. Then, when the opportunity of a decade (almost two) comes, he DOESN'T DO WHAT HE SAID HE WOULD DO.

IMO, he should take the excuse that the model didn't signal a bear due to massive sector rotation (HA!) Note Bob that's my idea so don't steal it, thank you smile

-- posted by ACousins

Top 1608. Jun 4, 2002 11:51 AM

» La_la - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Model Debate - LaLa and AC

In response to message posted by Will_L:

Weren't you the guy going on and on about insults a minute ago. You constantly call me stupid, and harken back to this book percentage thing. No wonder I'm the only one who answers all of you idiots' questions. Apparently, the tiniest slip-up gets a person months of rambling.

AC, you, and several others have insulted me continuously. One jackass who didn't like my opinions even suggested I get booted off. No problem, I can take it and haven't complained. Now please return to your mindless, repetitive ramblings...and insults.

-- posted by La_la

Top 1609. Jun 4, 2002 11:57 AM

» shallam - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Model Debate - LaLa and AC

Kirk:
No.. Lets use an extreme. Your parish priest or reverend is your spiritual teacher. IF he was convicted of child abuse, would you listen to what he had to say about how to live a moral life?

SH: Listen? Yes. Accept uncritically ? NO! On the other hand there is precious little that one should accept on faith.
Even if you hate BB's guts I don't see any reason why you still can't learn from him. I think he's got some interesting stuff to say. Even critcs wil often acknowledge some good components of his advice DCAing, diversification, low expenses, you can learn and do it yourself, watch out sharks etc.

When it comes to questions of personal credibility people have different points of view. My own point of view is that if a source has dubious credibility I will most likely still listen to what they have to say and consider their logic. I am however VERY skeptical of the information that they claim as facts. There are people who make up facts to support their claims.

I think BB is a good source of stock market ideas to ponder. He has had an influence in how I think about stock market investing. When it comes to claims about his personal stock market prowess I tend to want some indepedent verification.

-- posted by shallam

Top 1610. Jun 4, 2002 12:04 PM

» ACousins - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Model Debate - LaLa and AC

In response to message posted by La_la:

La la, you remind me of Bob who also likes to dish it out but apparently can't take it smile You can take that as a compliment or as an insult just as you like. When you take the rather arrogant tack that people should revise their posting style to suit you, you should expect derision.

I don't care if you call me names, I think it's pretty funny. I DO CARE if you give Bob nonsense excuses like saying 65% is the same as 100% and isn't his longterm model terrific?

I still think he was expecting a short 20% bear followed by a new bull. He used to say over and over that he had put money into short term MMFs so as to have it available to go back to work in the stock market. I do not believe he had any idea that the market would fall this far or this long although I do give him credit for mulling the possibility of a Nas return to 1998 panic bear levels.

However, I give more weight to his ACTIONS vs his WORDS as words are cheap. His ACTIONS belie his words and shows that his longterm model wasn't sufficiently sensitive to or was confused by this bear.

-- posted by ACousins

Top 1611. Jun 4, 2002 12:08 PM

» JIMMY62 - Dija: answer this question part

In response to message posted by ACousins:

OK, let's try to stop being simple minded here shall we? Bob said repeatedly year after year that he WOULD NOT RIDE OUT A BEAR MARKET.

RIDE OUT A BEAR MARKET Does that mean stay fully invested in the stock market during a bear market? Well, Bob did not do that.

NOT RIDE OUT A BEAR MARKET Does that mean sell all stock market investments during a bear market? Bob did not do that either.

Bob did change asset allocation. He changed it a lot, a whole lot.

Therefore, he:

1. was and is a liar?
2. has a long-term model that is still in asset reallocation mode?
3. didn't believe his long-term model because it had failed before?

1. Righto.
2. The (fictional) long-term model turned negative or unfavorable in January 2000. The asset allocation was Bob's deal.
3. The (fictional) long-term model was rebuilt in the early 1990s. The only call attributed to the re-built (fictional) long-term model, in January 2000, was prescient.

Always keep in mind that the concept of the Marktimer long-term stock market timing model is just a marketing ploy.

-- posted by JIMMY62