CLOSED Bob_Brinker_Discussion Site 43,700 Use New Thread!
- Will_L
- Jonathon
- Will_L
- Will_L
- JIMMY62
- JIMMY62
- JIMMY62
- Will_L
- Will_L
- steve99
This archived discussion is "read only".
For the corresponding "live" discussions, post in the active topic forum here.
« Previous 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 Next »
» Will_L - Re: Re: Re: Re: piano player
In response to message posted by dija:"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. "
I think your point is that Brinker is a big fat Liar instead of clueless. Well I believe he is both.
You claim that he knew that tech was "over valued" a "bubble". Let's examine his actions.
He claimed to be a technology expert and told everyone that he was comfortable in being way over weighted in that sector. He said that before and after January 2000.
Look at the stocks/funds he promoted buying after his January 2000 call.
Name ONE SINGLE non technology company?fund (TTL market excepted) he had anything positive to say about after January 2000?
He did Brag on B2B as has been noted. Wrote the lengthy pieces in several newsletters promoting TEFQX. Would have sworn he was engaged to the manager of that fund as hot as he was toward him.'
The bear is still primarily a tech-telecom phenomenon. Yet his ONLY keepers and buys were in that arena.
VOD and MSFT were his holds. He held VOD all the way down to his entry point. Does that sound like a hedge to you? Or simply someone who misjudged where the bear was coming from having bought into just as he said about B2B--"this time it's different".
He told people to buy T in the mid 40s on the radio.
He told people to buy a chitpot full of QQQs-the only remaining area that had not fallen in the Nasdaq--large cap tech right at the worst possible time. If he realized that large cap tech was tremendously over valued as it so obviously was--what fool would be willing to bet that it would go up "20% or more" with a third of their porfolio?
Recall he told the guy not to buy Diamonds to play that rally? The only place to be was QQQs. I sure hope the caller didn't listen to our "tech expert" Brinker.
If you read Don Lane's posts and those of the Brinker aliases on Yahoo, you will see mountains of hubris--he considered himself a "technology wizzard".
Bob Junior posting under his own name was talking about his brilliant technology trading skills and making over 100% one year.
Brinker bet on tech like everyone else and like a compulsive gambler finding his way back into the casino, lost everything he gained by going home early.
But you are right he is dishonest as well as not the stock market/technology expert he thought he was.
-- posted by Will_L
» Will_L - Re: Re: Re: wallkerlie
In response to message posted by Jonathon:Yes I believe walkerman's lie was that Brinker said in that Bulletin that it was only for Experienced Traders Who Understood the Risk.
The words "experienced" "trader" "risk" were no where in that QQQ bulletin. Neither was a date or a price. There were clear directions as to amounts for CONSERVATIVE INVESTORS AND AGGRESSIVE INVESTORS who wanted to TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS OPPORTUNITY FOR SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN.
It read like telling a gambler--"don't bet more than you want to win"--there was NO DOWNSIDE discussed contrary to the lie walkerman was telling until the QQQ bulletin was posted in its original form.
It is still amazing to me someone hasn't sued his assets off for that and the BJ fiasco. I think it could be shown that his advice was not complete enough and did not describe risk suffieciently for its target audience.
-- posted by Will_L
» Will_L - I think with the exception of walkerman, everyone here admits th
I think with the exception of walkerman, everyone here admits that Brinker cannot be trusted to tell the truth. Some seem to think that is not a big deal at all.1) How many think that should Brinker issue a buy signal, that he will pretend and measure his performance as though he exited the market completely in January 2000 and stayed totally in cash until this "re-entry" signal??
2) How many think Brinker will keep giving updates on the QQQs once he gives a "re-entry" point?
3) How many believe as I do that he will pull a fast one and kind of "meld" those qQQs with a gimmick like
"now that we are in a fully invested position each subscriber should rebalance their portfolios along areas of risk and diversification that are appropriate for them in this cyclical bull market. As we've always said in Marketimer we treat all our assets as one portfolio. If any of you would feel better making changes in your allocation from previous holdings or any counter trend rally purchases during the bear market, now is the time to bring them back into compliance with our model portfolios. Since we are fully invested all such moves would be "sideways" moves.--
---translation of that is "You won't be hearing about the QQQs ever again and I am going to pretend that I went to cash in early 2000 and stayed there until a re-entry point. That lie will sell a lot of newsletters that the truth would not"
See if he doesn't do that, every month he has to acknowlege that those QQQs were part of his legacy. If he issues a sell he knows that there will be many people saying
"I bought those sobs at 83 and now he tells me to sell them at 45. What kind of timing is that?"
Those of you who believe in Brinker, I would enjoy hearing not only if you agree if he will do this but would such deception change your opinion of him?
For the new believers here, who might say "that's impossible he wouldn't do that".
1) TEFQX was a buy and then a hold and then "disappeared"
2) I predicted right here last spring that after months of promising to call Moabo with his model, that he would back out and say his model "was about identifying risks, not about finding a bottom"---
Those were nearly his exact words last May or June when he gave up the moabo game and claimed his model was not about finding a bottom.
Now it seems he's claiming it is once again about finding a bottom and is trying to sell newsletters on the basis of "EBO"--Extraordinary buying opportunity"
Perhaps everyone ought to take cover when Brinker uses the word Opportunity---check that QQQ bulletin and see how many times Brinker used "Opportunity". 
I must confess I can read that sucker like a book.
-- posted by Will_L
» JIMMY62 - wallkerlie
In response to message posted by Will_L:Yes I believe walkerman's lie was that Brinker said in that Bulletin that it was only for Experienced Traders Who Understood the Risk..
A rational understanding of that Bulletin is that it was only for Experienced Traders Who Understood the Risk. Bob made that perfectly clear when he made the first QQQ call in the spring.
That Bulletin did not explicity say anything similar, so it stands on its own for the record.
The larger and ongoing fault is Bob's conversion of the QQQ call from a short-term trade to a hold.
A secondary fault was selection of QQQ as the security for the trade. This fault was componded by the conversion.
As Bob told subscribers when to buy (immediately) he also told them the price (market).
The implied exit strategy was to sell on Bob's call. Bob told listeners when to sell on the first QQQ trade. The same expectation was and remains for the second QQQ trade.
I do hope that Bob says something new that can be debated soon, as this topic is getting stale.
Not to say that Bob is any less of a fraud just because new evidence is not coming out as regularly as before.
-- posted by JIMMY62
» JIMMY62 - Re: I think with the exception of walkerman, everyone here admit
In response to message posted by Will_L:2) How many think Brinker will keep giving updates on the QQQs once he gives a "re-entry" point?
It is a surprise to me that Bob has kept mentioning QQQ for this many months. It must be as painful for him as it is to those still holding.
I had thought that by now all QQQ buyers had let their subscription lapse and Bob was seeking out new suckers.
Put my name in the column of those who say Bob will never make a QQQ sell call.
The Janury 2000 recommendation has, on radio, already moved the 1st quarter of 2000. The percent sold has grown in the presentation as the exact figures of the January 2000 recommendation are lost in detail.
Has the Marketimer long-term timing model died?
-- posted by JIMMY62
» JIMMY62 - QQQ holding tactics
In response to message posted by walkerman:Jimmy....spiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnn. Naw, your post was just wrong, and we know it. You quoted another poster out of context, and we called you on it. Better luck next time.
Is it not getting close to the time of year for Bob to recommend to those holding QQQ that they should swtich in the a mutual fund for a month to harvest the annual short-term QQQ tax losses?
This year Bob can recommend to those with QQQ in tax sheltered accounts to move those QQQ holdings to a Roth IRA so the expected gains will be free of future income taxes.
-- posted by JIMMY62
» Will_L - Re: wallkerlie
In response to message posted by JIMMY62:"A rational understanding of that Bulletin is that it was only for Experienced Traders Who Understood the Risk. Bob made that perfectly clear when he made the first QQQ call in the spring."
Ah yes, that QQQ call in the Spring. He did say that was "for experienced traders". Now how long did he stay with that thought? Till the second week.
Recall he said originally "DO NOT BUY QQQS UNLESS THEY GO BACK TO THE LOW 70's." He had of course said that he began the trade on a Tuesday prior to his radio show on Saturday and that they were in the low 70's on Tuesday. In the intervening time the feds didn't raise rates and the market took off.
Would he have announced this "QQQ counter trend rally that began on Tuesday" had the trade been in the crapper rather than up more than 10%? Not a chance.
So he announced the trade "for experienced traders only" when it was well in the black. He told folks not to buy unless the QQQs dropped to the low 70s. He intimated that he thought they might, but if they did not no-one should buy.
Well by the day after memorial day the QQQs were at 82 and Bots were "abuyin". By sundown on that Tuesday the QQQs were at 85--John Bernstien, one of the chief bots and who could understand the english language had sold out on the same day--getting cold feet. Others on his site were going crazy about buying the QQQs and were doing so as the price went up.
The next week or two people were still buying those QQQs and he quit talking about the "sophsiticated trader" crap. (What "sophisticated or experienced trader" would listen to a two bit radio host???) Anyway he told "Jimmy" (meaning no disrespect but it will do) something totally different. Jimmy had purchased the QQQs in the mid to high 80s a few days after Brinker's last program.
Did he castigate "Jimmy" for buying the QQQs above that low 70's price. Did he say "Jimmy you are a dumchit and not an experienced trader that should do this"
Nope he used Jimmy as a very "different example". He said "Well Jimmy here has "done the math" (exact quote). Jimmy knows that if I am expecting more than a 20% gain from the low 70's he will still get a significant short term gain buying in the mid 80s."
Gone was that caution about "for traders only". Gone was all of that "don't buy unless they fall to the low 70's." Brinker opened the gates for fools to rush in following the biggest fool of all---Brinker.
Recall his words after encouraging more folks to get in about an exit.
"It is too complicated to explain my exit strategy (kind of like the non-existant proprietary model--he simply didn't have a rational sell signal in mind). I will tell you when to sell on the radio. Wait for my signal."
The QQQs went over 100--Brinker told the audience NOT TO SELL--again repeating that he had devined that the perfect time to sell would occur between 8 and 12 weeks after entering the trade and that would be more than a 20% gain (which over 100 already was).
The bots on his site were sure that Brinker was confident that his model for CTRS was telling him there would be a chance to sell at 110 or 120.
He kept them guessing and buying QQQs into the 90s. No more mention of that "experienced trader crap". Only "wait till you hear me say on the radio to sell"
Well we know that Brinker in a panic said "Sell at 84" Sell at 84"--his voice was like somebody who saw a tornado coming after having 10 cups of java.
His excuse was "In a bear market CAPITAL PRESERVATION IS THE MAIN CONCERN"
So Jimmy, Brinker wasn't consistant on risk or who should participate in the first trade. He was clueless and ill prepared for the exercise.
It is interesting that he totally contradicted himself on the second QQQ trade--It was for "everybody" conservative and aggressive investors from the beginning. There was NO RISK mentioned. There was only "OPPORTUNITY". There was of course "guidelines" for huge bets on this one--no more of that 100 share sissy plays that many used on the summer trade. The reason for the specific amounts based on what was taken out of the market in January? Obviously Brinker was going to use it in the performance of his portfolios as the QQQs took off.
As this one spun out of control the other contradiction from the first trade was he switched from
"The most important thing in a bear market is capital preservation" to
"We don't sell on weakness"
So what we have is a person who didn't understand trading or risk encouraging others who were clueless to follow his wild claims. It was a recipe for disaster and proved to be one.
Now he is trying to pretend it did not happen.
-- posted by Will_L
» Will_L - Oh BTW
Assuming they don't blow up a monument tomorrow, they don't impeach Bush for insider trading and John Bogle is not indicted for false accounting of index fund returns, I believe the summer rally may actually be underway.Send me 185 bucks and I will tell you what to buy and when to sell--it's too complicated to explain on the net.
Happy Fourth of July
-- posted by Will_L
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 Next »
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.