THREAD FULL!! Bob_Brinker_Discussion 49,710-USE NEW THREAD

» SteveT - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Special Bulletin:

Which rules did brinker write that only apply to him?

Oh that one is too easy. I'll be away from the computer this weekend so I won't be able to respond til next week but here it goes. brinker is so adept at manipulating his true performance record. You know the whole off the books accounting scam ala Enron, WorldCom, Arthur Anderson, and QQQ act immediately. I expect bob was one of those children that had to stay at bat until he got a hit. If he struck out you had to allow him to stand in there until he did hit the ball. If not he would take his ball and go home. Yep bob needs special rules that apply only to him.

-- posted by SteveT

» SteveT - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Special Bulletin:

special rules that don't apply to him but do to all others That is easy too, remember the whole censorship of his discussion boards? He and his minions could say anything about anyone they didn’t like or was a threat to old bob. But if someone asked a question he didn’t like or cast him in an unflattering light, poof the post disappeared and the "offender" was banished.

special rules to make up new rules or change existing rules as needed.

See above. BTW that last one was thrown in to add a little salt to old bob’s wound. If that makes me an anti-brinker poster, well. How perceptive of you.

I think I am being gracious not mentioning the UTEK conflict of interest scandal, opps I just did.

-- posted by SteveT

» Will_L - Re: Re: Dija Claims Following Brinker EXACTLY is Foolish

"I have told you many times that I have followed some of brinker's good advice, I have followed some of his bad advice, I have ignored some of his good advice, I have ignored some of his bad advice, and I have occasionally acted exactly OPPOSITE his advice. "

Then we can agree that paying for Brinker's advice would be rather foolish wouldn't it? I mean after all on the net and on financial TV these days there are all kinds of resources available for free, including Brinker's general stance.

With your agreement that Brinker's advice is as likely to be right or wrong, and it is just another idea to consider, why would anybody pay for the newsletter? It is an 8 page poorly constructed newsletter that gives a rerun of underperforming funds and a less than top notch financial economic discussion of about a page and a half?

By your own admission, one shouldn't take Brinker too seriously. He's wrong a lot, he's right often, you obviously can't tell the difference empiracally or you wouldn't have taken the "wrong advice". So if you are going to be able to be "your own financial advisor", using the plethora of free information would indeed make more sense wouldn't it.

In fact Dija, can't we agree that there is really no economic reason on earth for one to purchase Brinker's newsletter?

It would seem to me in fact that those that do are possibly damaging their ability to "be their own financial advisor" and give too much weight to a dangerous marketiming schemer. Sounds like that is what happened to this guy.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.as... C586}&siteid=yhoo&dist=&archive=true
OverviewDon't wait to break even. Put that money to work SEATTLE (CBS.MW) -- Every experienced investor has suffered losses, and most of us have wished at one time or another we could only get back to "break-even" status so we could start out "whole" again. But breaking even isn't what it's cracked up to be. In fact, it can be a trap.
Ernest of Eugene, Ore., may have a long wait ahead of him. He wrote to say that a year and a half ago, on the advice of a popular financial radio show host, he put one-third of his portfolio into the QQQ tracking stock, essentially an exchange-traded fund that invests in the Nasdaq 100 Index ($NDX) "I can't bring myself to sell this until I break even," he said.
In this case, breaking even is a pretty tall order. This reader's $400,000 investment in QQQ (QQQ) is now worth about $150,000. That means he has a 62.5 percent loss. To make up that loss and break even, his investment must go up by 167 percent.
Plenty of investors are in similar straits after two terrible years for technology stocks. Should they hang on and wait for their stocks to come back? Or should they take their losses and lick their financial wounds? Ernest said he invested in the QQQ solely on the basis of a radio show host's opinion that late 2000 was "the time to get back in" to technology stocks.
If an investor wants to rely on such recommendations for 5 to 10 percent of the investments in a portfolio, that's no problem. But it is reckless and irresponsible to commit a third of one's life savings on such a whim.
Perhaps the best advice I could give this reader is very ironic: Don't take my advice. By that I mean don't do something only because I say you should do it.
Don't make major investment decisions without knowing what you're doing, why you're doing it and what might go wrong. Don't invest until you can do so as part of an overall strategy -- and until you understand that strategy well enough that no radio show host can talk you out of it.

http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&act...

Obviously subscribing to Brinker would have been dangerous for one striving to be their own finanical advisor. Imagine the pressure of that "ACT IMMEDIATELY" bulletin. Who needs that since a brilliant guy like you admits to having been duped by Brinker.

-- posted by Will_L

» SteveT - Re: Re: Re: Dija Claims Following Brinker EXACTLY is Foolish

Will, would you say market timing is an art or a science? If it is an art, well you know the old saying about an artist has to suffer for their art to be good. Maybe bob hasn’t suffered enough? On the other hand maybe that mathematically challenged dyslexic bob thinks his subscribers need to suffer for his "art" to be better.

If it is a science and this is all a carefully crafted scam bob should be ashamed of himself. Course I guess after having Jr. nothing would bother him.

-- posted by SteveT

» Will_L - Re: Re: Re: Re: Dija Claims Following Brinker EXACTLY is Foolish

LOL Steve. It is interesting that Brinker wants to claim that his approach is scientific. It's a mathematical model that is "unique". He gives the impression that he is the only person in the history of the world who has fashioned a true working model that predicts the action of the stock market. If you don't believe that Dija, please tell me who Brinker points to as another advisor who has a model that predicts the stock market accurately. Please point out a book on Brinker's for profit to him reading list that tells about anyone's successful marketiming model.

So I think Brinker pretends that his is a model based on science, while knowing full well it is a sales tool. In a world as competetive and complex as the equity market, no combination of indicators is "unique" , nor likely to provide a way to outperform the market. Your post the other day from the author said it better than I ever could.

There are two kinds of investors, be they large or small: those who don’t know where the market is headed, and those who don’t know that they don’t know. This pertains to any market, be it stocks, bonds, Louis XIV chairs, or pork bellies. Then again, there is actually a third type of investor- the investment professional, who indeed knows that he or she doesn’t know, but whose livelihood depends upon appearing to know."

"Astonishingly, there is even a newsletter which ranks the performance of other newsletters; its publisher believes that he can identify persistently excelling advisors. The work of Graham and Harvey suggests that in reality he is the judge at a coin-flipping contest. When it comes to newsletter writers, remember the Malcolm Forbes’ famous dictum: the only money made in newsletters is through subscriptions, not from taking the advice."


Doesn't that just say it all????

-- posted by Will_L

» bernardo - Re: Re: forget newsletters

-- posted by bernardo

» shallam - Re: Re: Re: Dija Claims Following Brinker EXACTLY is Foolish

While agreeing with some of your criticisms of BB I wonder whether you are applying a fair standard of comparison. Surely all market prognosticators have made bad calls. Thus, the fact that BB has made bad calls is of no surprise and is of no real significance. We wouldn't compare anyone - BB or any pundit to perfection.
The only way to judge BB fairly is to mix in his good and bad calls and compare them to the overall market or to other pundits. Focusing on individual calls of any type is surely a poor method of evaluation.

-- posted by shallam

» furpaws - QQQ

-- posted by furpaws

» capran - Re: Re: Re: Re: Dija Claims Following Brinker EXACTLY is Foolish

-- posted by capran

» Kirk - THREAD FULL!! --- USE NEW THREAD

To keep the threads loading fast for those with dialup modems, we limit threads to 2000 posts then start new threads.

This is the URL for the new thread to "Bob Brinker Free Discussion Site 51,700": http://www.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/i...

Please subscribe to that thread with this URL
http://www.suite101.com/subscribe_discus...

so you can find it easily in the future

(You can find threads you are subscribed to by clicking on "WHAT'S NEW" at the top of the screen)

WARNING: All discussion posts after this one will be deleted to keep this as the last post in the thread so people can find the new thread using the above URLs.

Thanks

How would you like to support my work here as a thread moderator? Why not subscribe to my newsletter to show your support!

For information on how to get a free issue of my newsletter, Click this!

================== COMMERCIAL BREAK =================

Kirk's Newsletter performance vs the S&P500

  Date       Kirk    S&P500   Delta
2003 YTD    +17.4%    6.1%    11.3%  as of 5/11/2003
 
                                   Kirk   S&P500+   NASDAQ 
4+ Yrs 12/31/98 through 05/11/03   80.0%  (19.9%)  (30.7%)
+with dividends reinvested.

-- posted by Kirk