Moneytalk Bob Brinker Summaries - Information ONLY

» Kirk - Detailed summary of the QQQ Advice

Brinker's QQQ Counter trend Rally Advice
Anyone interested in the ability to gain from "counter trend" cyclical bull market calls in a "Secular bear market" should study this summary.

ACousins wrote a summary of what Bob has been saying by month. http://www.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/i... I saved this recap in my files:

In Jan 2000 Brinker moved 60% of his equity portfolios to cash. In August 2000 he moved another 5% to cash for a total of 65% in cash reserves. He told subscribers to wait for instructions on how to use these cash reserves. If he had stayed there, this move would have looked brilliant. But, the story is only beginning.

October 16, 2000 subscribers got a special bulletin advising them to "Act Immediately" and buy QQQ in anticipation of a 2 to 4 months "counter trend rally" for a 20% or more gain. Callers to the office were told "Bob is comfortable with QQQ at $86." The advice in the bulletin was:

-- posted by Kirk

» Fred2000 - Re: Summary and Commentary of Bob Brinker's Moneytalk

"Does anyone remember the study that Brinker cited as compiled by a large Mutual Fund showing the results of 50% invested in the Index 500 and 50% in Treasuries as compared to an agressive portfolio over many years?"

Katrina75... Not exactly the study you refer to but here's another interesting comparison.

In the May 2003 issue of Money Magazine, the five year total gains of two funds are compared, one a relative buy and hold while the second is a timing fund and has a 383% annual turnover.

Over the last five years, Ameristock Mutual Fund (the buy and hold LCV fund) has an annualized gain of 3.7%, beating 98% of its peer funds. Over the same period, the Bonnel Growth Fund (MCG) has a -0.7% annualized gain beating 69% of its peers.

The annual expenses for the Bonnel Fund are 1.78%. Check page 64 if you're interested.

-- posted by Fred2000

» Kirk - MODEL never saw a bear, it just got cautious

In response to message posted by ACousins:

He said, for months and maybe for years prior to his January 2000 call that he would sidestep a bear market if he could. Therefore, he either

1. changed his sidestep concept
2. never saw a bear

The answer is he changed his concept.
(Assuming there is a model, for which we only have Bob's testimony.)

The big talk about going to 100% in case of a bear turned out to be just more marketing, as Will has and will point out.

The Janury 2000 call was prudent, IMO. (It also got him firmly on both sides of the question.) Bob followed with another 5% reduction in stock market investment shortly.

Then he got himself into the QQQ bind. He could not continue to increment down stock market investment while still recommending hold them there QQQs for recovery.

His only next move was the semi-MOABO call, which could not be made until the off-presidential election year bottom.

So Bob hunkered down and took real estate calls for months and months.

Then he chickened out when the off-presidential election year actually came through.

The war scare gave Bob a semi-second opportunity to call the semi-MOABO.

As with the bear call, when it get down to making the actual call Bob did not say MOABO just as he did not go to 100% cash when the model said bear. He made a weak buy call and planted feet firmly on both sides of the question.

Nice summary Jimmy62!

-- posted by Kirk

» David_Korn - Bob Brinker Recommends "High Yield" Bonds

Caller: What do you think about lowering your criteria for owning corporate bonds because conditions are improving? Bob thinks there is something to be said for that and pointed out that he made an allowance for having some "lower grade" investment bonds in his all bond portfolio. Bob emphasized that this recommendation was for investors who were in an all fixed-income portfolio. Bob justified his recommendation by pointing out that he believes the probabilities favor the bond default rate diminishing going forward into 2004, maybe 2005. If we get into a period where the corporate bond default rate slows, that will improve the performance of the lower grade bonds. If we can get into a better economic period, particularly later this year and into 2004, then you can see a dimunition in the lower grade corporate bond default rate. Even if there was an increase in interest rates, Bob thinks the low grade bonds would benefit by a dimunition in the default rate. For that reason, Bob thinks it is appropriate for investors who have no exposure in the stock market, to take the added risk by putting a "small portion" into that bond portfolio in the chance you will pick up the extra yield. Bob noted that the low grade bond portfolio that Bob recommended is trading in the neighborhood of a 15-20 year low. Bob thought that from a timing standpoint, it was appropriate to make such a recommendation into the all bond portfolio where there really isn't much risk since Bob uses a lot of treasuries and other high quality bonds for most of that portfolio. Bob thinks investors in that portfolio will be happy campers going down the road by virtue of the inclusion of that fund.

Editorial Comment (EC)#1: Wow. his is an interesting development for daBrink. For as long as I can remember, Bob railed and railed against the "high yield" bond market referring to it as the "junk bond" market. Now that he is recommending it in his newsletter, Bob has changed semantics referring to it as the "low grade" bond market. Now that is classic Brinkerease!

EC#2: I understand Bob's explanation for why he choose to recommend a junk bond fund (let's call it what it really is). It confirms with his rationale for being bullish on the stock market right now; namely, his belief that an economic recovery is in the works over the next 6 months, although Bob gave himself some wiggle room today referencing a possible recovery as late as 2004.

EC#3: Although Bob says the fund he is recommending is near a 15-20 year low, he is to an extent chasing performance in that junk bond funds have already appreciated by about 20 percent over the last six months according to Merrill Lynch. Evidence that it is not only Bob who is jumping on the bandwagon, is the fact that AMG Data Services reported that for the week ended April 9, U.S. junk bond mutual funds pulled in $1.17 billion marking the seventh straight week of inflows. Thanks to Kirk Lindstrom for raising these issues as set forth in this post on Suite101.com:

http://tinyurl.com/9gpy

EC#4: I assume that Bob is recommending the Vanguard High Yield Corporate Bond Fund (Ticker: VWEHX), but he didn't mention it by name on the broadcast. Coincidentally, (or not), Paul Merriman wrote an article earlier this month entitled, "GNMA funds in trouble" in which he discussed having a diversified bond portfolio, including Vanguard's high-yield bond fund. In discussing the fund, Mr. Merriman noted that "its yield isn't as high as some of its peers, because its portfolio is filled with the highest quality high-yield bonds. That means more stability and less risk..." Check out Mr. Merriman' article at this link:

http://tinyurl.com/9gq9

Caller: This caller asked Bob why in his Model Portfolio III, he reduced exposure to ginnie maes and increased his exposure to high yield corporate bonds. Bob quickly interjected noting that he made that change only to his "fixed income only" portfolio which is referenced on page 7 of his newsletter and is for investors who have no money in the stock market, and only have money in a bond portfolio.

EC: It bears emphasizing that Bob did not recommend the junk bond fund in any of his model portfolios. Recall that Bob didn't include QQQ or TEFQX, two disasters, in any model portfolio either. This way, if his recommendation turns sour, it won't hurt his bragging rights to the performance numbers of the model portfolios that Mark Hulbert tracks.

NOTE: If you want to learn about my service or receive a complimentary copy of my newsletter, just e-mail me at:

mailto:davidk555@earthlink.net

Or, visit my website:

http://www.begininvesting.com/

-- posted by David_Korn

» Roger_Babson - Re: Bob Brinker Recommends "High Yield" Bonds

Brinker's making the same blunder he did with the QQQ debacle, this time thinking that the economy is going to accelerate, which is when junk bonds perform the best. Hedge funds have loaded up on junk (expecting a conventional recovery) and added so much in the way of counterparty risk via hedging that this is a timebomb waiting to explode, and Brinker fell for it.

Just as with bullish sentiment in stocks, everyone is bullish, so take the money and RUN!!!

SOS!!!

-- posted by Roger_Babson

» David_Korn - Summary and Commentary of Bob Brinker on Moneytalk

David Korn's Stock Market Commentary, Interpretation of Moneytalk (Bob Brinker Host), Financial Education, Helpful Links, Guest Editorials and Special Alert E-mail Service.

BOB SAYS DON'T CHASE RALLIES TO ESTABLISH A POSITION

Caller: This caller partially followed Bob Brinker's recommendation to get back into the market in March and agrees with Bob's opinion about the direction of the market. The caller wants to know what Bob thinks of his strategy of using his remaining cash to purchase exchange traded index funds such as the Nasdaq-100 and Diamonds and at the same time writing covered call options against his position which will hopefully give him the premium from selling the call option, as well as the increased value of the underlying positions which he heard was a conservative way to possibly maximize his returns. Bob noted that this strategy will depend on the level you establish your position. Bob then stated quite clearly that you "don't want to be chasing rallies." We have had a tremendous rally since the beginning of March and you don't want to chase rallies especially if you are going to do covered call writing which is a pretty defensive and conservative position. If you are going to do that, you want to try and establish the lowest possible entry price. Regardless of what instrument you use, you don't want to wait for a big rally and then start that strategy. Whereas, if you are doing it on weakness, then you are establishing your position at a level that is more opportunistic.

EC: The implication of Bob's advice here is that he thinks there will be further weakness in the market that would prevent a better buying opportunity than the current levels. How so? Consider this. The market is up about 11.5% since Bob's model turned bullish. His prediction is that the market will make gains in excess of 25% from the level the market was when his model turned bullish. If he didn't feel that further weakness was likely, he would presumably have advised that now would be as good as anytime to try and take advantage of the gains that are ahead. His advice this weekend mirrors the advice he gave during the two weeks following his recommendation to become fully invested. I also believe that we will see further weakness. The question of course, is how much. Stay tuned.

FOMC MEETING TO DETERMINE INTEREST RATES

Brinker Comment: The next meeting of the Federal Reserve Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) is May 6, 2003. At that meeting, Dr. Greenspan and the committee members will look at all of the economic data and determine whether they should make any change in short term interest rates which are already at 40-year lows. The traders on the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade trade 30-day federal funds futures contracts every day betting on what will happen with interest rates. When the trading ended late Friday, the traders were pricing in a probability of 29% that the FOMC will reduce rates by 25 basis points at the May 6th meeting. Conversely, this means that they are placing a 71% probability that the Fed will leave the federal funds rate unchanged at 1.25%. The Federal Funds rate is a pure measure of short term interest rates and is a one-day interest rate where member banks can borrow money in federal funds from a bank who has excess funds on deposit with the Federal Reserve.

EC: Bob didn't offer his opinion on whether the Fed will lower interest rates. I suspect they won't, unless the employment report next Friday completely shocks everyone and comes in much much worse than already projected. Keep tabs on the 30 Day Federal Funds futures contracts at this link:

http://tinyurl.com/4xou

GREAT TAX TREATMENT ON THE SALE OF YOUR HOUSE

Brinker Comment: One of the reasons that housing has held together so well is the favorable tax treatment given to your principal place of residence. According to the IRS, your "principal residence" is defined as a residence you have lived in 2 of the past 5 years. You can take HUGE profits from your principal residence without regard to federal income tax. For example, if you are single, you can take $250,000 of tax free profits out of your property as long as you have lived there in 2 of the past 5 years. If you are married, you can take $500,000 in tax free profits. This means that down the road, you can use your house as an enormous tax-free income producer. For example, if you and your spouse purchased a house for $200,000 and sold it for $700,000, you would pay a tax bill of ZERO on the sale. Bob pointed out a few of the important points governing this provision of the Infernal Revenue Code:

1) There are no age restrictions on this provision;
2) Anyone in the country can take advantage of this rule;
3) You don't have to take your money out to buy another house.

Bob said for as long as he has done the program, he has taken the position that it makes sense to own your house, rather than simply paying rent. One provision that confuses people who want to take advantage of this tax provision, is the bit about living for 2 out of the last 5 years. When does the five year period terminate? On the date of the sale of the property. Therefore, you count backwards 5 years from the date of sale and must have "lived" there for 2 years. The test though, is not whether you were in the house every day. Indeed, it doesn't matter if you were on vacation, or even away for "the season." That is not a problem. It still counts toward the 2 year total as long as your house remains the "principal residence." If you are married, the ownership test would be achieved if either of the spouses meets the criteria. This is a fantastic tax break that everyone should be aware of.

EC: An easy to read article that elaborates on many of the issues raised by Bob in this segment can be found at the following link and is entitled, "Let's sell the house and get rolling":

http://tinyurl.com/aemm

Brinker Comment: If you are going to sell your home, but you are not going to make any profit from the sale, you unfortunately are not permitted to realize a loss for tax purposes on your principal residence. If it was a business or investment property, it would be a different story. If you do have a principal residence and a profit to boot, the tax code really has some favorable treatment for you.

EC: If you are going to sell your home, required reading is IRS Publication #523 entitled, "Selling Your Home" which can be downloaded for free by going directly to this link:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p523.pdf

TIPS OR I-BONDS?

Caller: This 52-year old caller has some cash to invest and wants to know if he should invest in Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS), or Series I, inflation-indexed savings bonds (I-Bonds) or a combination of the two. Bob noted that there is a significant difference in the way taxes are treated for these two types of instruments. With the I-Bonds, you get tax deferral on the interest that you earn for 30 years. If you are investing personal money (in a taxable account), and you don't need the cash flow, that can be a very important factor. The caller asked if Bob thought I-Bonds were better than TIPS, to which Bob asked rhetorically if you can afford to pass up the tax-deferred treatment on the I-Bond. If you purchased a Treasury Inflation Protected Security with personal money, say on a 10-year note, you will have to pay income taxes every year on the interest. With the I-Bond, you can defer the taxation out 30 years. Bob noted that there isn't one rule that fits everyone's situation as to whether to go with I-Bonds, or TIPS. That said, if you have personal money and you don't need the cash flow and just want a conservative way to invest your money, the I-Bonds make a lot of sense. Bob added that you need to look at the guidelines governing the I-Bonds before you purchase them, because there are some special rules such as you need to hold them for 5 years to avoid a penalty.

EC: Another big difference between I-Bonds and TIPS is the way they perform during periods of deflation. I-Bonds lock in the value of the bond every 6-months and the combined rate of coupon interest and inflation will not go below 0%. If you sell the I-Bond before maturity, you get the accumulated value (except if you sell before 5 years and pay the penalty). With TIPS, you are guaranteed the return of your original investment at maturity, but if you sell before maturity, the value may be eroded during extended periods of deflation. The article at the following link entitled, "The Big Difference Between I-Bonds and TIPS" illustrates this point and provides links at the end to other articles on TIPS and I-Bonds:

http://rehphome.tripod.com/tipsbond.html

Caller: This caller noted that on May 1, 2003, the Treasury will reset its "base rate" for the I-Bonds which they do twice a year (its actually referred to as the "fixed rate of return" by the Treasury department). What does your crystal ball say on whether you should purchase I-Bonds now, or wait until after May 1st? Bob said in his opinion, he doesn't see the Treasury raising the base rate. For that reason, Bob has no problem in purchasing them prior to Thursday. Worst case scenario, is that they will leave the base rate unchanged. On the other hand, it is possible that they would lower the base rate, in which case you would do a little better if you purchased them prior to Thursday. In either event, you aren't talking about much of a change in Bob's view.

EC: If you purchase I-Bonds before May 1, 2003 (which is this coming Thursday), you earn a 1.60% fixed rate of return above inflation. The 1.6% fixed rate applies for the 30-year life of the I-Bond as long as you purchase it between November 2002, and before May 1, 2003. In addition, those I-Bonds are also earning 2.46% annualized rate of inflation bringing the current earnings rate for I-Bonds to 4.08%. In addition to announcing a change in the fixed rate, the Treasury will also announce the new inflation rate on May 1st which changes semi-annually and, therefore, does not apply to the life of the I-Bond like the fixed rate. If you are ready to purchase I-Bonds, you can do it online over the Internet 24/7 at the following link:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/

Brinker Comment: Bob pointed out that I-Bonds have really caught the attention of investors looking for a conservative investment. Bob went through a few of the attractive features of I-Bonds. A married couple can purchase $90,000 of I-Bonds per year. That's $30,000 for spouse A, $30,000 for spouse B, and $30,000 jointly. The interest is inflation-adjusted, so if rates rise you are protected and the principal is guaranteed by Uncle Sam. As with all treasuries, I-Bonds are state and local tax free. Sure, the fixed rate is pretty low, but its relative - rates are low across the board right now. They can be purchased online and if you use credit cards, you might be able to get additional benefits (such as frequent flyer mileage rewards from your credit card company). If you hold them at least 5 years, then you don't have to worry about a 3-month interest penalty for premature withdrawal. You can spend them on your children's education tax free if they are set up properly. Bob likes them. If you decide to go with Treasury Inflation Protected Securities, you should probably put them in a tax-deferred account so you don't have to pay ongoing taxes on the income stream.

EC: Everything you want or need to know about I-Bonds can be found by starting at this link:

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/sav/sbii...

SECONDARY OFFERING BY SONUS

Caller: This caller owns stock in Sonus Networks Inc. (Nasdaq: SONS) which issued a secondary offering last week of 20 million shares over an existing 200 million shares. How do companies bring additional shares onto the market without the stock dropping. Bob noted that companies don't always manage to keep the stock from dropping. The first question you want to ask, is whether these are new shares that will dilute existing shares, or are these shares already owned by officers, directors, institutions, etc. that are being offered for sale as a possible diversification tool for the insiders. The caller noted that Sonus completed the public offering of 20 million shares of stock at $3.05 each. The stock had traded close to a 52-week high in the days before the offering, but closed at $3.00 on Friday - even below the offering price. Bob said that is not surprising because when a secondary distribution of new stock is announced, investors get concerned about the company's finances. The secondary offering to raise cash begs the question of why the company needs to raise money?

EC: In case you are interested in Sonus, this link brings you to a story on the secondary offering:

http://tinyurl.com/agcr

NOTE: This was only an excerpt of my newsletter. If you would like to read a complete copy of my newsletter, or learn how to subscribe to my service, e-mail me at this link:

mailto:davidk555@earthlink.net

Or, visit my website:

Website: http://www.BeginInvesting.com/

DISCLAIMER: I am not associated with ABC Radio Networks, Moneytalk or Bob Brinker and this service is neither sanctioned by, nor written under the auspices of ABC Radio Networks, Moneytalk or Bob Brinker.

-- posted by David_Korn

» Kirk - Re: QQQ Update

I like your summary in this weeks Newsletter David!

BOB BRINKER FIX

Bob took the entire memorial day weekend off, but I expect him to return to
the airwaves next weekend and will be interpreting his comments then. In
the meantime, for those of you who followed his recommendation to become
fully invested in March, here is how the major market indexes have played
out since Bob Brinker's timing model turned "favorable" based on the S&P 500
Index's close on March 10, 2003 and he recommended investors redeploy their
cash reserves into a fully invested position by bulletin issued at 2:00 a.m.
on March 11, 2003:

S&P 500 Index: Up 15.57%
Dow Jones Industrial Average: Up 13.65%
Nasdaq Composite: Up 18.12%

That call is looking very good so far. For those of you who also followed
Bob's recommendation to invest anywhere from 20% to 50% of your cash
reserves in the Nasdaq 100 (QQQ shares), here is how those shares have
performed based on various recommendations of that security by Bob:

October, 2000 (Original Recommendation): Down 66.2%
January, 2001 (Second Recommendation): Down 55.0%
March 11, 2003 (Third Recommendation as part of model portfolio): Up 17.03%

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

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

-- posted by Kirk

» David_Korn - Bob Brinker on Area Lows

BOB BRINKER ON STOCK MARKET AREA LOWS

Brinker Comment: Bob noted that he put his buy signal bulletin up on his website on the morning of March 11th and the S&P 500 closed that day at 800 which is the level that Bob is using for his model portfolios since after the close of the market on March 11th was the first time the no load funds could have been traded. So far, the closing level of 800 on the S&P 500 on March 11, 2003, marks the closing low for this calendar year. It also marked the third time the S&P 500 had revisited an "area that has established itself to be as an area of the low." Bob added that he defines the "area low" as anything below 810 in the Standard & Poor's 500 Index.

Editorial Comment: Very interesting. Bob's comments here confirm what I had suspected was one of the reasons he choose to become fully invested again as of March 10, 2003. (Other reasons include the sentiment data that day as discussed in my prior e-mails). Bob has spoken periodically over the years of what it takes to identify a bottom of the market. That discussion has centered around the market historically reaching a low, and then going back and retesting that low. Often, the retest comes with positive divergences in the market internals.

Editorial Comment #2: If the October 9, 2002 lows stay, that will have meant that Bob missed calling the exact bottom, although not by too much and certainly close enough to make some of his decision to partially exit the market based on the S&P 500's close on December 31, 1999 worthwhile. Let's look at the numbers that I am sure Bob used in connection with his decision to become fully invested again.

JULY, 2002

In July, 2002, the market for the first time reached this "area low" as Bob refers to it on a closing basis. It only reached the area low on one occasion on a closing basis during that time. For you number crunchers, I am using the S&P 500 closing numbers (which Bob uses in his timing model):

July 23, 2002: S&P 500 closes at 797.70

OCTOBER, 2002

In October, 2002, the market reached this "area low" as Bob refers to it on 5 consecutive days beginning with October 4, 2002. Its all-time bear market closing low also occurred during this time frame:

October 4, 2002: S&P 500 closes at 800.58
October 7, 2002: S&P 500 closes at 785.28
October 8, 2002: S&P 500 closes at 798.55
October 9, 2002: S&P 500 closes at 776.76 (All-time Bear Market Closing Low)
October 10, 2002: S&P 500 closes at 803.92

MARCH, 2003

In March, 2003, the market reached this "area low" as Bob refers to it on 3 consecutive days beginning with March 10, 2003 - the day that Brinker's model turned bullish:

March 10, 2003: S&P 500 closes at 807.48 (Brinker's Model Turns Bullish)
March 11, 2003: S&P 500 closes at 800.73
March 12, 2003: S&P 500 closes at 804.19

Will we get another retest of the "area lows?" Well, anything is possible, although historically is is unusual to get a 4th retest. Stay tuned.

NOTE: This was just an excerpt from my newsletter. If you would like to receive a complimentary copy, and learn what it entails to subscribe to my service, e-mail me by clicking here:

mailto:davidk555@earthlink.net

Or, visit my website:

http://www.BeginInvesting.com/

-- posted by David_Korn

» Kirk - Re: Bob Brinker on Area Lows

Good work David!

That is a really good point that the March 2003 visit to 800 was the third time the S&P500 had visited that area low. Here is a chart to illustrate:

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

It is interesting that the July 2002 closing low was lower than the March 2003 closing low.

Thanks for this list of dates and closing levels. I condensed them below to the key three closing lows:

July 23, 2002: S&P 500 closes at 797.70
October 9, 2002: S&P 500 closes at 776.76 (All-time Bear Market Closing Low)
March 11, 2003: S&P 500 closes at 800.73

Now add in July 24, 2002 Intraday data which traders I know consider more important.

High 844.2
Low 776.96
Close 843.42

and compare it to the final low of 10/9/02

High 798.55
Low 775.86
Close 776.76

Note you had to use the intraday lows of 2002 to really see the detail and get a different day for the market to bottom. I think that shows why intraday data is far more useful.

What is really interesting to me is the market is now above the previous 950 support level. This was "a low" set almost two years ago as shown in this chart:
<img src=http://cbs.marketwatch.com/charts/int-ad... width=452 height=366>

It is also interesting how the July 2001 rally was more of a "snap back" 20% while this current rally is slower and stronger. It appears that Brinker is getting what he was looking for and should be congratulated. Too bad his radio audience and subscribers who don't check his bulletin site are still waiting for a retest of the area low as it sure doesn't look like it is happening.

  Date       Kirk    S&P500   Delta
2003 YTD    +23.5%    10.2%   13.3%  as of 5/31/2003 
 
                              Kirk   S&P500+   NASDAQ 
4+ Yrs 12/31/98 to 05/31/03   89.4%  (17.3%)   (27.2%)
+with dividends reinvested.

-- posted by Kirk

» DellaO - But, But, Bob...We Love You

Author: Will_L
Date: June 8, 2003 7:06 AM
Subject: A question Brinker has never answered
If anyone doubts my take on Brinker and his QQQs try calling in and asking this question.
"Bob I have been a subscriber since Hector was a pup. I love you Bob. Bob you are the greatest. Bob I have a question. I am making money like a bandit off your March QQQ call to buy at 24.00. However I am confused Bob. Since I had bought QQQs with a third of my portfolio in OCT of 2000 and you said to keep that out of the portfolio content, I used the rest of my money to buy more QQQs in March. Was I supposed to buy more QQQs like I did in March with the rest of that money or was I supposed to now count those QQQs you had me buy at 83 in the portfolios like I bought them at 24? Hello Bob, Bob ...can you hear me Bob?...phone seems to have gone dead...I love you Bob"

-- posted by DellaO