CLOSED Bob_Brinker_Discussion Site 43,700 Use New Thread!

Top 1337. Jul 8, 2002 1:51 PM

» Kirk - Re: My vent for the day

.
In response to message posted by Felipe:

My dog has more character than either of these guys. Both come across like sniveling, quivering little twerps.

Well, we have people on the radio....

Grubman reminds me of that sniveling twerp on "The Practice" who was a DA, shorter than Tiny Tim, and who made up for his lack of stature by breaking the law to get convictions.

Felipe.. I must remind you that the Anderson guy is an accountant (with all due respect to Rande) they push beans from one pile to the other. They are supposed to know which piles to put these beans in. To not know what the 8 people under you were doing is just nonsense. I've lead teams larger than 8 and you should understand what the people on your team are telling you.

Grubman is a salesman. A good one at that as he sold the public a bill of goods equal to the guy selling a newsletter that is about calling MOABOs one month and "not about callling the bottom" the next.

It turns out Grubman was allowed to attend WCOM board meetings when they had M&A business to discuss!

THe proper, non Brinker thread, for further discussion of this is here
http://www.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/i...

unless you want to remind people that how these twerps answer questions reminds you of how Brinker takes responsibility for his bad calls.

-- posted by Kirk

Top 1338. Jul 8, 2002 2:47 PM

» Will_L - Re: Re: My vent for the day

In response to message posted by Kirk:

"I can't recollect..ah I ah, It is my usual practice to"

"I didn't ask you what your "usual practice was" I asked you about this particular case.

"Yes Sir, I was just trying to recollect. Usually when I have such a conflict I mention it to those I am advising."

"Again I am not asking you what you "usually do", Mr. Brinker, I am asking you if you told your audience and subscribers that the only Stock you were recommending, UTEK, was paying you in an undisclosed relationship?"

It's "skerry" when I think Felipe listened to the same exchange that I did and had a similar transference while other's saw only Grubman. Great name for the guy. Wonder if Brinker will blast the conflict of interest component. I'm betting he does not, not wanting a "Bob I have another question--"About UTEK, Bob...." smile

The MO is indeed strikingly similar to the namesake here at this thread.

Only thing I can't see is Grubman using that "VEBO Moabo" crap. smile

-- posted by Will_L

Top 1339. Jul 8, 2002 2:51 PM

» La_la - Re: Re: to jonathon

In response to message posted by ACousins:

I do not understand why anyone would purposely hold onto stocks that he considered "crap."

Because it made them feel at home?

-- posted by La_la

Top 1340. Jul 8, 2002 2:53 PM

» SteveT - Re: Re: My vent for the day

In response to message posted by Kirk:

I happened to see part of the hearing today. One Congressmen said something about one of earlier witnesses did not lie today. He took the 5th. He kept his mouth shut so therefore he did not lie. NOW THAT REMINDS ME OF you know who.

-- posted by SteveT

Top 1341. Jul 8, 2002 3:25 PM

» ACousins - Re: Re: Re: My vent for the day

In response to message posted by SteveT:

Yep, very smelly stuff. That includes all those holier-than-thou pols. Saw a bit of Meet the Press or some show like that and could have sworn that Rep Tauzin of LA threatened Arthur Levitt. Something to the effect that Congress was going to look back and dig up stuff under Levitt's watch at the SEC. Seemed like he was going to blame everything on Levitt to save Pitt. Very ugly.

Cynics R Us (well, at least me smile )

-- posted by ACousins

http://stockcharts.com/def/servlet/SC.we...

Top 1342. Jul 8, 2002 3:32 PM

» ACousins - FWIW

As always, may mean absolutely nothing but Mo says the markets are closer to a bottom than a top and (is it really an island?) an island bottom was put in.

Seems iffy but also seems as if the MACD gave a slight positive divergence. Says that everyone is so negative that the risk of a decline (maybe another 20% in the NAS to the downside if that) is less than the risk of missing the rise. Expecting sharp tradeable rallies and sharp declines for the foreseeable future.

Gap needs to stay put tomorrow on the NAS. A gap to the downside tomorrow will cause an island top and create a wave to the downside with 1100 as a projected target off the September lows. If that happens then he'll rebuy the Rydex negatively correlated funds that he just got through selling out of (bought earlier this year for a nice gain).

-- posted by ACousins

Top 1343. Jul 8, 2002 3:57 PM

» dija - Re: Re: random walk from bob

In response to message posted by Will_L:

Will L said: "Brinker...(claims) that individual issues cannot be undervalued because of the efficient market theory..."

Will, I have not heard the show, but I seriously doubt that he said THAT!"

I hope you have the quote on tape so that you can listen again and then post a correction.

-- posted by dija

Top 1344. Jul 8, 2002 4:12 PM

» dija - Re: Re: Re: Brinker claims the market is in a SECULAR BEAR overa

In response to message posted by Will_L:

Will L. asked: "Why hype the buying opportunity and not the crash that he (BB) believes will bring it about?"

Will, I have tried to tell you, Brinker likes to HEDGE. He is NOT 100% certain that he is right and, contrary to your claims, he has NEVER even pretended to be 100% certain.

He is not about to tell everyone to sell everything now, even if he DOES expect a crash. He knows he might be wrong.

Hedging is the only explanation for a lot of your questions about Brinker's moves over the years.

Since he has usually been right on market direction, his hedging has REALLY hurt him so far. Some day it may help him though.

-- posted by dija

Top 1345. Jul 8, 2002 4:25 PM

» La_la - Re: Re: Re: Re: Brinker claims the market is in a SECULAR BEAR o

In response to message posted by dija:

he has NEVER even pretended to be 100% certain.

You're not kiddin.' I don't think he's ever said he was 100% certain of anything, unless he was speaking about events that had already passed.

So much of the discussion here, is in terms of "he said this would happen," or, "if he thought THAT was going to happen, why not go 100%!

The answers to these are obvious, and the anger of others here, clouds their ability to grasp your common sense.

-- posted by La_la