CLOSED Bob_Brinker_Discussion Site 43,700 Use New Thread!

Top 1267. Jul 5, 2002 11:18 AM

» walkerman - Hey Bullrun

Where are ya hiding???????

-- posted by walkerman

Top 1268. Jul 5, 2002 11:54 AM

» Will_L - Re: Nasdaq bottom

In response to message posted by 750a:

"Does any one recall a bottom figure for the Nasdaq that Brinker may have called? I thought I remembered him saying the 1500 level should be about the bottom. When he said this the Nas was around 4200 back in Sept 2000. I thought he was high on Ecstasy. Has he revised this number recently or given an idea of when a buying opportunity might come around? Thanks. "

Yes, he changed his mind. In fact he called the "low" back in mid-October 2000. At that time he said to buy the NASDAQ 100 the QQQs at 83. Therefore he obviously didn't think they would go down.

Since then as they have went down he has said to HOLD AT 70. HOLD at 60. He said that 52 on January 3 O1 was another "benchmark" low. He obviously didn't think the Nasdaq was going lower. He then has said that Nasdaq was a "hold". Obviously a smart guy like Brinker who could predict what the QQQs would do when they were 4300 would not have told people to "buy and hold" these QQQs for over a 70% downtrend.

Or else you were right and he was high on Ecstasy. No one can get credit for calling the Nasdaq low when they were beating the drum to buy and hold the Nasdaq all the way down. But nice try 750. smile

Perhaps you would like to subscribe to IMAMARKETIMERTOO's service. We'll give you the straight skinny here at IMA's.

-- posted by Will_L

Top 1269. Jul 5, 2002 2:26 PM

» ACousins - Marketimer subscribers vs BJGroup clients

Someone said that the BJGroup contract (prospectus?) said they don't do short term trading. I was wondering, if this might be part of the problem with the QQQ trade.

1. Bob stated he saw market internals pointing to a 2-4 month CTR.
2. Come November, those positive indicators had turned south. Hence his incessant yammering about the Florida election mess up.
3. Bob couldn't state that the trade was over in a couple of weeks because the BJGroup was in the same pickle and they don't do short term trading. A couple of weeks is pretty short term trading.
4. Bob would rather let things slide rather than be on the wrong side of the BJGroup clients.

I dunno, whereas I suspect gross incompetence on his part, I'm wondering if there might be another motive. Just conjecture but it's a head scratcher to be sure.

-- posted by ACousins

Top 1270. Jul 5, 2002 2:49 PM

» Kirk - Re: Marketimer subscribers vs BJGroup clients

.
In response to message posted by ACousins:

dija is right about some things..

Why look for motives other than what he wrote? The BJ Group is a real pickle as they probably have a legal gripe that he did a short term trade and they advertised on their web site that they don't short term trade client money... but

He kept seeing potential rallies as it fell like a rock.

I saved this compilation you wrote and added some hightlights.

2001 Counter trend Rally Advice

Someone wrote a summary of what Bob has been saying by month. http://www.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/i... You sound like you missed it. 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:

Aggressive investors told to put 30 to 50% of cash reserves into QQQ.

Conservative investors recommended to put 20 to 30% of cash reserves into QQQ.

The Bulletin: http://home.ix.netcom.com/~mlee1984/Brin...

Son of QQQ or 2nd subscriber QQQ Counter Trend Rally Cry:
January's 2001 MT; QQQ=$62.44; "We continue to view short-term price weakness in Nasdaq 100 shares...Clearly, the Nasdaq indexes have moved lower than we anticipated in recent weeks. However, this has not altered our expectation that a major bear market rally will develop going forward.... recommended within guidelines listed on pages one and two (20 to 50% of cash reserves)."

February 2001 MT: The timeline for the Nasdaq led countertrend rally remains three to six months as measured from the starting point on January 3.

March2001 MT: In our view, the probabilities favor a three to six month bear market rally phase beginning shortly.

April 2001 MT: We expect the Nasdaq Composite and Nasdaq 100 index to stage a significant recovery over the next several months.

May 2001 MT: We continue to believe the Nasdaq has the potential to recover in the months ahead.

June 2001 MT: For subscribers with a position in Nasdaq 100 Index (QQQ) shares, we recommend holding these shares for future recovery...

July 2001 MT: We also recommend subscribers with a position in Nasdaq 100 Index (QQQ) shares hold for price recovery...

August 2001 MT: We also recommend subscribers with a position in Nasdaq 100 Index (QQQ) shares hold for recovery...

September 2001 MT: "Making this transaction in taxable accounts for tax purposes is consistent with our recommendation to hold QQQ shares for price recovery over time...The switch into XLK...is solely for the purpose of realizing short-term tax losses for current or future use..."

October 01: "We continue our long-standing policy of not selling into weakness and we recommend subscribers with a position in Nasdaq 100 (QQQ) shares hold these shares as we expect them to trade at much higher levels..."

December 01; QQQ=$40.83; "...we recommend holding in anticipation of higher price levels during the next cyclical bull market..."

January 02; QQQ=$41.67; "we prefer to hold existing positions in the expectation that the next cyclical bull..."

February 02; QQQ=$36.92; "..hold these shares for recovery during the next cyclical bull..."

March 02; QQQ=$35.74; "...can hold these shares in anticipation of much higher prices in the next cyclical bull..."

April 02; QQQ=$36.06: "We are also retaining our hold rating..."

May '02; QQQ=$31.56: "We are also retaining our hold rating."

June '02; QQQ=$30.04: "We are maintaining a hold rating."

-- posted by Kirk

Top 1271. Jul 5, 2002 2:55 PM

» ACousins - Re: Re: Marketimer subscribers vs BJGroup clients

In response to message posted by Kirk:

It's just that I have a hard time thinking that Bob is this grossly incompetent and this stubborn in the face of overwhelming evidence that the QQQs were going to go lower. Add in that he THOUGHT they could go lower in the longer term (or at least not much higher) and this whole thing is absurd.

Considering that he puts, IMO, much more stock in his image and himself than what he does to his customer's portfolios, and I wonder if he and Sheldon had strong words in November of 00. True, Martha could have been grossly mistaken about a verbal stop-loss or totally uninformed (HA!) about insider trading OR she could simply be lying to save her hide.

True, Bob could be this grossly incompetent but I wonder if they've heard anything from any BJGroup customer since the inception of the trade (surprise!).

-- posted by ACousins

Top 1272. Jul 5, 2002 4:15 PM

» Will_L - Re: Re: Re: Marketimer subscribers vs BJGroup clients

In response to message posted by ACousins:

"It's just that I have a hard time thinking that Bob is this grossly incompetent and this stubborn in the face of overwhelming evidence that the QQQs were going to go lower. "

Well let me go on record as saying Brinker is grossly incompetent. Did he not prove it on that radio QQQ propaganda?

He told everybody in the world that he could pick out a buy and a sell that would result in a 20% gain in 2 to 4 months. That was bullchit. Pure D BS.

Now he learned from that experience that he had absolutely no ability to do short term trading. The panic "sell at 84!!" voice was all one needed as evidence that he didn't have a clue.

Brinker is a one tune wonder. If the bull market can bail him out, he's fine. If not he's in deep trouble along with his subscribers.

The only reason he called that ACT IMMEDIATELY thing in the fall is the fact that Abby Cohen and others had came out a few days before he sent it and said there would be a powerful end of year rally. Brinker didn't want to see the market go up and have people again on his ass as they were in the spring. Sooo he figured the Nasdaq had gone down the most so if Abby was right, it would go up the most.

There were no technical indicators at the time to call such a trade on. There was a lot of folks calling for the end of the year rally. Brinker in a panic just like the sell at 84, decided to make a big bet on the QQQs and gave guidlines that he could include in his performance, so he would maintain his hulbert ranking. Hulbert in fact bought QQQs in the Brinker portfolios just as he thought Brinker was going to claim.
It is so obvious with the 20 and 30% and 50% of the money taken out in January, that he was going to use those amounts on the QQQ trade.

When the trade immediately headed south, Brinker left them out of the portfolio but he remembered what had happened in August and on all of his bullchit "gift horse calls". The market bailed him out.

When you issue a buy signal in a bull market--you are always going to be "right". Look at what Brinker learned in 98. If you go back and look at his alias postings, he was bragging about calling the bottom at 8650 within 1% of his model. The market fell, he went quiet and when the market got under 7500, he took another bite of the apple and just like my call today, he was fortuitous in that it was indeed a bottom.

So Brinker kept yammering and spinning about the "ctr" being delayed etc as the Nasdaq plummeted. He was not using technical analysis or fundamental. He was simply hoping that Abby Cohen was right and recalling that in all previous buy signals the market had bailed him out.

He even tried the same thing he did in 98 by taking that second bite of the apple in that Feb 2001 newsletter. He acted just like he did in 98 that he had not called a buy at 83 and instead had the "we expect a move of up to 50% or more from the benchmark low of 52 on Jan. 3rd". It was the same bogus move that worked in 98.

This time it only made him look more foolish.

So AC--there was no reason for that trade than Abby Cohen and Brinker's desire not to see the market pass him by. So I don't believe the BJ or anyone else made him make or hold the call.

Never ascribe to malice what can be more easily explained by incompetence.

-- posted by Will_L

Top 1273. Jul 5, 2002 5:18 PM

» ACousins - Re: Re: Re: Re: Marketimer subscribers vs BJGroup clients

In response to message posted by Will_L:

Never ascribe to malice what can be more easily explained by incompetence.

Yeah, youse guys are probably right but I'll ponder my idea anyway smile . I wasn't thinking about malice so much as possible legal issues with BJGroup customers and short term trading.

-- posted by ACousins

Top 1274. Jul 5, 2002 6:39 PM

» ACousins - More frequent market timing

Merriman's timing. You mean there are other timers out there? You mean Bob's not the lone voice in the wilderness?

Geez. Imagine that.

-- posted by ACousins

Top 1275. Jul 6, 2002 4:49 AM

» Will_L - Preview

Probably won't be hearing from Brinker this weekend so the update will be uncesssary. If he fools you and shows up--look for no discussion of the QQQs. No talk about yesterdays big move. No talk about my timing model that called it (I'm beginning to sound like the dearly departed Liberty) and he will talk about secular bears and cyclical bulls always in the same thought and right before a pitch to buy Marketimer. smile

-- posted by Will_L