CLOSED Bob_Brinker_Discussion Site 43,700 Use New Thread!

Top 1217. Jul 3, 2002 7:21 AM

» Will_L - Re: Re: piano player

In response to message posted by CatBird:

"Is Bob really an O.K guy? His January 2000 call to raise 60% cash sure looks good even if some of that cash was lost on the cubes. As you say, he recommended bailing UTEK at $27.

Is it O.K. to say Bob is really O.K.? "

Sure it's OK to say anything as long as you don't do so in order to decieve others.
Perhaps it's "more OK" to point out that Brinker told people to buy UTEK on national TV in 97 at 30 bucks and it was his ONLY BUY during the best tech market in history where other stocks ran up 50 times and UTEK went DOWN. He placed it as a hold down there somewhere and sold at 27--4 years later-after touting that "next year this stock will be 50.00" for 3 straight years."

Perhaps it would be more "OK" if you qualified Brinker's performance with UTEK to include that UTEK was paying him in an undisclosed relationship while he touted the stock as his ONLY BUY at 30 bucks in 97.

Now would anyone say that as a stock picker that UTEK performance was "OK"? I doubt it. smile

His January call to raise 60% cash sure was more than "OK", but here again it would perhaps be better appreciated in a total context of Brinker behavior AFTER going to 60% cash.

He said the Nasdaq was not involved in his call. As a result he bragged on his tech heavy portfolio I. He kept VOD and MSFT as "HOLDS"--the former falling by 75% the latter down 58%. By doing so he gave the false impression that the Nasdaq was the place to be. That was not "OK". LOL

He told people after his call in January that T was a great buy in the mid 40's . It's lost 75% from that point. Not ok

He bragged about Lucent after his January call probably giving others confidence to hold it or perhaps add to their position in the telecommunications sector. It's down 98%. Not OK

His recommendations after the 60% call in January included touting the B2B fund in the newsletter for three straight months of early 2000 claiming it was "different". He continued it as a buy after it reached $18/share and then moved it to a hold in 2001 after it had fallen 90%. He then dishonestly left it out of his newsletter the next month.--I guess that would be a "hide". That was not OK.

He whipsawed people in a "radio trade" during the summer, pretending he could predict market movement down to a period of weeks and reap 20% gains doing so. It failed but he convinced many that he could do it and that he moved the markets and that future efforts would be available only to subscribers. That was not OK--he was full of bullchit claiming that selling at 84 was because "The most important thing in a bear market is capital preservation."

In October 2000 Brinker sent a BULLETIN to every subscriber describing a wonderful OPPORTUNITY for a COUNTER TREND RALLY in the QQQs while they were in the 80s. He said folks that wanted to make 20% or MORE in two to four months should put up to half the money they took out in January. He never described any risk or any exit strategy. He never put a date or a price on the Bulletin advice. He described suitability for the CTR as being "Conservative" or "Aggressive" investors who wanted to make 20% or MORE in two to four months. That was not OK.

When the QQQ event fell, he bullchitted about taking a little longer.

When the QQQ event fell futher, he bullchitted about taking a little longer and not quite getting as big a return as previously thought.

In contrast to the summer QQQ sale at 84 when he said "the most important thing in a bear market is to preserve capital" this time he said "we don't sell on weakness"

When the QQQ event fell further, he dishonestly took another bite of the apple in early 01 by using the "benchmark low of 51 on January 3" as the point to measure from. He claimed there would be a price gain of "up to 50% or more in the next few months" from that benchmark low in his second bite of the apple that was dishonest.

He gave up in May of 2001--with the QQQs less than half their purchase price and called them a "hold".

He "holds" that counter trend rally now 19 months after telling all aggressive and conservative investors to "ACT IMMEDIATELY for short term capital gains".

He now has the cajones to use this disaster as a marketing ploy to keep people subscribing to know when to get out of the QQQs.

He claims "We are holding the QQQs for a better price during the next cyclical bull market"--which he says he will call in the "newsletter"

I guess when you know all the story only a shill or a cherry picker could call the totality of Brinker's advice to be "OK".

To describe one or two events as OK and omit the other's is simply to describe as "OK" the food and entertainment on the maiden voyage of the titanic. Taken in toto, paying customers were not "OK" in either instance. More like screwed I'd say.

-- posted by Will_L

Top 1218. Jul 3, 2002 7:40 AM

» JIMMY62 - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: walkrman needs our help

In response to message posted by dija:

AC, I'm suggesting it's too late to get out of the QQQs and go to cash, and that Intel and Amgen and good tech mutual funds are MUCH BETTER options than the QQQs.

Do you disagree?

It is never too late to sell QQQ.
Just about anything would be better.

-- posted by JIMMY62

Top 1219. Jul 3, 2002 7:54 AM

» walkerman - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: walkrman needs our help

In response to message posted by JIMMY62:
Jimmy..I believe his statement was "it's too late to sell QQQ AND GO TO CASH." Meaning, it's not good to sell at the bottom. Do you disagree????? He then suggested a sideways move...ie, sell the Q's and buy some quality issues. Do you disagree?????????????? Or, do you just want to bash Brinker, regardless of the topic? If you disagree, maybe you should get together with Johnnythong, who is holding a bunch of what he calls crap stocks, and whine together, rather than selling those Q's and getting some good stocks.

-- posted by walkerman

Top 1220. Jul 3, 2002 8:15 AM

» bullrun - Bear Market

I listened to Brinker over the weekend for a few minutes. All I heard him say is that the trend is down. No kidding Bob!

OK, how many of you got out of this market when I told you too. I've been sitting here in cash for weeks now watching this thing disintegrate. No, I won't tell you "I told you so!".

There will be a bottom, and you'll know its here when people say "I'll never own stocks again!". That will be the bottom and the "Mother of all buying opportunities."

Good luck to all, and happy investing!

Bull

-- posted by bullrun

Top 1221. Jul 3, 2002 8:19 AM

» dija - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: walkrman needs our help

In response to message posted by ACousins:

AC asked: "Is it too late to sell the QQQs? Are you saying they can't go lower?"

AC later added: "I...would never suggest anyone buy or sell anything."

AC, you obviously didn't understand what I was saying. I thought that was my fault, but then I read Walkerman's post 1219 and HE understood me perfectly! Hmmm.

All I'm doing is responding to Jonathon. HE said the QQQs are "crap stocks." Then I said, IF you think the QQQs are crap, why are you holding them?

Then I said it is too late to bail out and go to CASH. Obviously, I was just giving him my opinion. Then I suggested that if he thinks the QQQs are "crap" (as I do) he should sell them and replace them with something similar, but better.

I suggested that he do some homework and pick some tech stocks and/or pick a good tech fund. I SUGGESTED that Intel and Amgen would be better stocks than most of the QQQ stocks. OBVIOUSLY, HE SHOULD NOT BUY THOSE STOCKS ON MY SAY-SO. Jeeesh. My ADVICE was that he look into those stocks if he is interested.

He is free to ignore everything I said, obviously.

-- posted by dija

Top 1222. Jul 3, 2002 8:24 AM

» dija - Re: waiting for dija

In response to message posted by Jonathon:

jonathon said: "dija you still don't get it do you?"

Jonathon, OF COURSE I "get it." Why do you and AC feel the need to preface half your posts to me with "you don't get it"?

I've been reading your posts, and responding to many of them. How could I NOT understand your feelings about Brinker.

I wasn't talking about that. I was responding to your post, in which you said you were holding the QQQs which YOU SAID consist of "crap stocks."

I guess you didn't "get" my response, which Walkerman understood PERFECTLY (see message #1219 for a very brief synopsis).

-- posted by dija

Top 1223. Jul 3, 2002 8:24 AM

» Kirk - Re: Bear Market

.
In response to message posted by bullrun:

There will be a bottom, and you'll know its here when people say "I'll never own stocks again!". That will be the bottom and the "Mother of all buying opportunities."

You are not a true bear. You are waiting for a bottom. Many are tuning to a national radio show or CNBC on TV to tell them when it is safe to get back in the Market.

Big Art Cashin, a VERY nice guy, is worried, very worried.... Brinker keeps extending his MOABO timeframe for "The Bottom".

Look at the Japanese market and listen to people like Jas in our REAL investment threads outside this one (this one is more of a joke or for entertainment much like talking about the weekend sports events). These bears say we are only getting started and the rallies are times to sell. If Brinker was in this camp, then he'd be 100% cash...

A REAL(TM) bear says there will be no bottom until shows like MoneyTalk and CNBC are off the air and people stop looking for bottoms.

Remember, we've basicaly had an up market since Brinker got in the business. Brinker blew a few bear markets big time (1997, 1991 and 1998) but they were short and were really more like corrections so they were easy to recover from.

I think we might have this sort of bear someday, but there were far too many people like Jas and Roger on our site or Fleckenstein and Stack running around bearish when the market topped out with ONLY 68% positive sentiment... I think we need 95% positive sentiment before we get a real bear market as we had in Japan or the US in 1929.

-- posted by Kirk

Top 1224. Jul 3, 2002 8:42 AM

» dija - Re: Re: Re: piano player

In response to message posted by Will_L:

Will L said: "(BB) said the nasdaq was not involved in his call. As a result he bragged on his tech heavy portfolio."

Will, this is a minor point, but I think the above statement, which you keep making over and over, is a bit misleading.

Personally, I think he said that because he was frustrated that the nasdaq kept going up, in defiance of his indicators, while the rest of the market was flat or down.

I think he felt the nasdaq was making him look bad, which is why he said it was not involved. He knew it was in a bubble and was not acting "reasonably," and he had no idea how long it would be before it came down.

In my opinion, he stayed with TEFQX, Microsoft and VOD as a hedge against the continuation of the bubble--not because he liked tech. He (like almost everyone) knew it was overvalued and was destined to crash but he hedged to save face in the short-term. Big mistake.

He always made fun of the "new economy" people, so you know he didn't really like tech in Feb. Mar. 2000. He was just afraid the bubble would go on and on and make him look bad.

He didn't receommend the QQQs because he "liked" the stocks either. He was either convinced there was going to be a CTR or, as you have suggested, he was hedging (again).

If you are correct that it was a hedge, then a lack of courage may be his biggest fault. Because I think his actions and statements in early 2000 were definitely a hedge against the bubble, not a "liking" of technology stocks.

-- posted by dija

Top 1225. Jul 3, 2002 9:14 AM

» steve99 - Thread is a joke

In response to message posted by Kirk:

Kirk said:
"Look at the Japanese market and listen to people like Jas in our REAL investment threads outside this one (this one is more of a joke or for entertainment much like talking about the weekend sports events)." Right on Kirk. I stop by here from time to time and all I see is a Jerry Springer type mentality.Can you imagine that some spend 19 hours a day here for years?? JERRY!JERRY!JERRY!WILL!WILL!WILL!

-- posted by steve99