Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
So you're not counting the 2003 call as correct?
It's an interesting blog, but people thinking of going there should know that its owner has defended blocking comments that cite information that she "knows" is not true, thus making herself the sole arbiter of what is true and what isn't.
In her own words: "But that does not mean that I will publish websites that contain information about Brinker if I know for a fact it is not true."
http://siliconinvestor.advfn.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=25285884
"Please drop by and say hello or join us. All are welcome."
In the interests of truth in advertising, that is apparently no longer true.
"GET LOST! You aren't wanted here."
http://groups.google.com/group/brinker-moneytalk-and-marketimer-discussions-with-the-beehiv/msg/d12907b6ad4536a9
Update on the QQQQ recommendation's effect on Portfolio I:
Kirk estimated the effect of the maximum recommended QQQQ allocation for October 2000 to March 11, 2003 to be about a 25% reduction in Portfolio I, and his numbers look reasonable to me. At the end of that period Brinker added enough of a QQQQ-equivalent fund to incorporate the QQQQ holdings, so the 25% balance reduction should be valid for all subsequent months.
The current Portfolio I balance shown on Brinker's Web site is $282,059 through June 30, 2007, and the balance that was shown in Marketimer for September 30, 2000 was $139,431. Thus the total reported gain for the period was 102.3%.
Reducing the ending balance by 25% gives $211,544.25, for a total gain of 51.7%
For comparison, Yahoo's historical returns page currently shows the price of SPY adjusted for splits and dividends as follows (these numbers will change as new dividends are reported, but the ratio should stay the same):
29 Jun 2007 - 150.43
29 Sep 2000 - 129.79
Gain = 15.9%
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=SPY&a=05&b=1&c=2007&d=05&e=30&f=2007&g=d
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=SPY&a=08&b=1&c=2000&d=08&e=30&f=2000&g=d
Thus, in spite of the QQQQ blunder, in a tax-deferred account Brinker's P1 would have had more than three times the gain of SPY with dividends.
Well, I'm glad we agree on something.
As for Dija, as you know, I disagree with you about him, but I don't think anyone who has been following that thread expects you and he to start liking each other.
"I pointed out that a few people, you in particular, prefer to run around the net taking a great amount of time to complain in multiple obscure forums where she posts to complain about her forum rather than simply post some balance in her forum."
There are three forums that I was already a member of, where someone other than myself brought up the subject of Honey's thread. Now I don't know about you, but when most people bring something up in a discussion forum, they expect that people will discuss it, and that's exactly what I did.
This is not an advertising forum; it's a discussion forum. Same for SI and Yahoo.
BTW, one of those so-called "obscure" forums happens to be a major source of material for Honey's blog!
"It appears you were trying to hassle her so she stops rather than any concern you have for balance."
Honey's FIRST post on this thread was TWO WEEKS after I posted my opinion of your links, one of which was to her thread. I think you're confused as to who is hassling whom.
I don't delude myself into thinking that I have the capability of stopping Honey from doing anything. In fact, I don't care whether she stops or not, but I promise that I will continue to tell the truth about it as I see it, whether you like it or not.
"Until today I thought you were literate. Where have I told you to not express your opinion?"
And yet you assumed, in the same message, that I am trying to get Honey to stop what she's doing with her thread/blog.
I think you're confused about the difference between a straw man and a hypothetical situation intended to illustrate a point. The point of my hypothetical was that the same principle would apply if the situation were reversed. That principle is that trying to improve someone's Web site for them is not a prerequisite for criticism of that Web site.
"That 'Pro Brinker Only idea' already been tried on SI and it was made quite clear that those who didn't like it were not allowed to post. Posts that complained were deleted and people who made them banned from particapation. You were a regular on that forum and I don't recall you objecting."
Are you saying that in order to criticize a Web site, a person must first criticize all similar Web sites? If so, I disagree. However, I support your right to post your opinion of Justa's board, and I insist that I have the same right to criticize your boards as you have to criticize his.
BTW, the only post that has been deleted on this thread so far was done by iHub management, not by me, nor was it done at my request. (For those who are wondering, it was an advertisement for a Russian Web site unrelated to the topic of this thread.)
"I think enough complained that eventually Justa took it to Brinker's web site where he was allowed to delete any and all who posted anything critical of Brinker. Again, I don't recall you complaining."
I didn't know that Justa was deleting posts on Brinker's boards. However I have in fact complained about the way the Brinkers ran their discussion boards, beginning with Rande's expulsion, and as I have said several times, it's a good thing they discontinued them, because they were no good at it.
"The fact is I have not acted like you and complained about whatever you want to post in your own Blog."
And yet you're here right now, complaining about something I posted on my own thread. What's the difference?
You have the right to complain about anything you like. If you choose not to exercise that right, it does not alter the fact that you have that right, and it does not alter the fact that I have that right.
"Your argument is as silly as telling the NY Times that they should not post so many Liberal articles. It is THEIR CHOICE to post what they want."
That's funny, because I know people who complain constantly about the NYT's slant, and it never occurred to me tell them that there was something wrong with their posting their opinion of it.
And, for the record, I am NOT telling Honey what to post. I am only calling a spade a spade.
So far, you haven't claimed that I have said anything untrue about Honey's board. Do you object to the truth being posted? If you think anything I have said about it is untrue, tell me what it is.
"OTOH, you are on the record of supporting a Forum moderated by Justa on SI then on Brinker's own web site that kicked people off simply for posting things the Brinker's didn't like such as complimentary words to David Korn."
I'm not sure what you mean by supporting, but it's true that I did post on those boards for a while. Eventually, I got bored with Justa's board and went elsewhere, which has been my pretty consistent reaction to all one-sided boards. The Brinker boards always seemed to have a variety of opinions on them in spite of whatever censorship was taking place, so I continued to read and/or post there until they were closed.
The fact is that I ALSO support Honey's right to have a one-sided thread or blog, just as I have a right to express my opinion of it.
I must say, it really takes hubris for you to tell me that I shouldn't express my opinion of links that you post on my thread. Who the heck do you think you are?
Even if you hadn't posted those links here, I have the right to express my opinion. You will never succeed in your attempts to silence me.
"You are the one running around saying you answered some question already on some obscure message board few read. It might have been easier to simpy answer it again here."
Luckily for me, I'm free to post where I like. However, based on volume, or rather lack thereof, I don't think any message board is as "obscure" as this one right here.
BTW, I don't know what question you're referring to. If you'll tell me what the question is, I'll be happy to answer it here.
"But I expect you to have to get in some sort of last word."
Would you prefer to have the last word yourself?
Personally I would prefer that there not be a last word. This thread's been pretty dead for quite a while, and I would be just as happy to see ongoing activity. I believe there's some number of posts per day that people can post for free if they don't mind the ads. As far as I know Yahoo management is neutral on the issues, but they seem pretty ham-handed in their handling of the Yahoo UTEK thread. I think iHub management is much more intelligent about it, in addition to being neutral.
"Honey's board and posts are read by thousands."
Why should I care?
You're always entitled to post your opinion, as am I. That's one of the wonderful things about this great country of ours!
"Do as you like, Math Junkie. But since YOU and YOU alone have decided that you do not want to present your viewpoints at the Beehive, then the least you can do is to stop trying to make it appear like you are not allowed to post them."
I don't know what I have written that might make anyone think I am not allowed to post on your board. For the record, as far as I know I am allowed to post on your board.
What I reject is the notion that there is something wrong with my expressing my opinion of your board if I am not interested in posting there.
Suppose the situation were reversed. If you were to criticize this board, its contents, or the way I run it, I would not dream of claiming that you had to post here in order to have the right to criticize it.
It strikes me as very peculiar that you seem to want to make me responsible for the shortcomings I have pointed out in your board. You are responsible for your own actions, and you are the person who has chosen to copy only one side of a debate from another board.
If I were to start copying only pro-Brinker posts over here from the Yahoo UTEK board, you would be entirely justified in pointing out that I was building a one-sided thread, and if you didn't want to take the time to copy the anti-Brinker posts over here yourself, or to write rebuttals yourself, that would not make you any less justified in criticizing what I was doing.
"Even Math Junkie admits that Brinker's (ongoing) QQQQ-trade cover-up is not right."
I have said so numerous times without anyone pressing me to say it. Why you characterize that as an admission is a mystery.
"I DO CARE that you complain 'They don't post my side of the story' then when you are invited to 'post your side of the story' you refuse."
First of all, my side of the story is already posted on the Yahoo UTEK thread. Why should I waste my time copying it all over to Honey's board?
Secondly, I'm sorry if it upsets you, but the fact is that I don't like the way you run your boards, and I'm not obligated to come over there and help you improve them as a condition of expressing my opinion of them.
Would Brinker be justified in telling you that you shouldn't criticize his investment letter unless you were willing to help him write it?
"Perhaps the reason the forum is 'unbalanced' is nobody can defend Brinker reporting his results without including the QQQQ advice?"
It's much worse than unbalanced. Honey's board is one-sided, because she copies pages and pages of posts from a dedicated anti-Brinker propagandist on the Yahoo UTEK thread, without letting people see the arguments that are posted on the other side. It's like listening to one side of a phone conversation.
(For those who are interested, both sides of these arguments can be found at http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=topics&board=4687942&sid=4687942&type=r )
BTW, I agree with you about the reporting of QQQQ results.
"For the record here, do you think Bob Brinker honestly reports his investment record?"
I think that completely excluding the results of the QQQQ advice, and failing to list TEFQX in the newsletter in spite of its still being on hold, are dishonest. Other than that, I haven't seen evidence of a problem.
"How would YOU report his investment record?"
As Honey graciously pointed out, I already covered this in post #23 here.
"FWIW, I don't own Suite101... so it is NOT my site. I moderate one of over 200 topics there, a topic I have some passion for."
Good point. I don't have any beef with the portions of it that are not subject to your control.
"So the personal attack continues."
If you continue to tell me that I ought to post at your site, you can expect me to continue to explain why I am not interested in posting at your site. It's your choice.
"Why don't you trust me?"
If I answer your question you'll just accuse me of continuing a "personal attack." So make up your mind. Do you want to have a discussion about this or not?
"Do you think I will make your computer explode if you post your side of the debate on Honey's forum?"
Nope.
"Are you afraid your arguments will look foolish and you can't trust me to not point this out?"
Nope.
"YOU have been specifically invited to post your side of the issues but YOU have refused, usually followed by some personal attack on me or some silly claim you don't trust me...."
It's not a "claim." I really don't trust you.
"yet you have zero evidence I've ever deleted any posts other than a post you made that you asked me to delete. You dishonestly left that part out once when attacking me saying you knew I had deleted one of your posts..."
My lack of interest in posting on your boards is not based on that incident. And oh by the way, I didn't ask you to delete it.
"So.. the ONLY reason either of the Bob Brinker Message boards
http://investment.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/8
and
http://investment.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/7
are not 'balanced enough' for you is your own refusal to participate."
I didn't say that the board at the second link above was one-sided, because I haven't paid enough attention to it lately to be able to give an opinion. I said that about Honey's board (the first link above), and about the "fan (and critic)" club. I'm not sure why you're blaming me for their being one-sided. I'm not obligated to help you improve your site, and the fact that I expressed my opinion of parts of it does not create such an obligation.
BTW, most people consider the posting of links on a board as an invitation to discuss what's at those links. You're free to disagree with any opinions expressed here, of course, but you shouldn't be surprised to see opinions expressed.
I certainly have no objection to your posting those links here, but I will also state that in most contexts, a critic writes about the good as well as the bad. Honey's board has been pretty one-sided towards the negative every time I've looked, which is inconsistent with her claim that she wants to be fair and balanced. Same for the "fan (and critic)" club.
Are you still a buyer in the 2180 to 2230 area?
"Since this is the most hurricanes since 1933, I wonder if there's a supercycle for hurricanes like the stock market 70-year supercycle"
These guys say there is:
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/09/13/Worldandnation/Storm_frenzy_is_not_a.shtml
Ouch! I hope your eyes get better soon.
"INTC has not had a close above the 50SMA since the first week of the month. Today it was tested, and price reversed:"
Where do you see a test of the 50SMA yesterday?
http://stockcharts.com/def/servlet/SC.web?c=INTC,uu[w,a]daclyiay[da][pb50!c13!f][vc60][iLa12,26,9!Lh...
It's sad that people fall for such stuff, but I suppose the average person doesn't have enough training in science and technology to spot the specious plausibility arguments.
For example, the guy makes much of the fact that steel frame buildings had never before been brought down by fire. Well guess what? Steel frame buildings had never before been hit by planes that large, carrying that much fuel. Does the guy think that steel can't melt?
Who are you trying to kid? You right-wing fascists HATE EVERYTHING AMERICA STANDS FOR. You trashed the Bill of Rights the first chance you got.
I wonder how the illegal leaking of information from Clinton's deposition in the Paula Jones lawsuit compares, morally and legally, to what Felt did.
It's amazing how, when you see that the name of something starts with the word "truth," it's anything but.
Justa,
I will miss your posts. You have been very generous in sharing what you have learned over the years, and I, for one, appreciate it.
Richard
Does filling this morning's gap have any implications one way or the other?
Thanks.
Do you see meaningful support on the KLAC chart anywhere?
http://stockcharts.com/def/servlet/SC.web?c=KLAC,uu[h,a]daclyyay[df][pb50!b200][vc60][iUb14!La12,26,....
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=klac&time=13
Sorry, I have no expertise on that subject.
Looks like you were right about the chopping around.
Do you think QQQQ has much chance of testing $36 between now and Op-ex?
So far so good!
Recognizing that there are no guarantees, how much upside do you look for in order to qualify as a good entry for a trade?
It's not just iqAuto we're talking about, because they are using the same methodology as the trademarked Max Pain site of BCA Software.
http://www.ez-pnf.com/cgi-bin/maxpain.cgi
The reason I say that is that the BCA site is where I went for the explanation of the methodology, and when I applied it to one of the price points on the iqAuto site, I came up with exactly the value that iqAuto displayed on their chart for that price point. (IqAuto has a page where you can access their raw source data which makes it possible to do this.)
"In other words, the iqauto system counts QQQQ May 52 puts even though it is quite unlikely the index will trade at that range between here and May expiration."
I thought you were concerned about far out-of-the-money options. If you want to talk about deep in-the-money ones, then the fact that the index is unlikely to trade at that strike does not mean that they don't affect the option writers' bottom line. On the contrary, they have an immediate effect on their unrealized gains or losses every time the market moves by even a penny. Here's why:
The current financial liability to writers of in-the-money options at each strike price is determined by taking the difference between the strike price and the current market price of the underlying security, multiplying by the number of options outstanding at that strike, and multiplying by 100 (since each option is for 100 shares of the underlying security). The implication of this is that every time the market price changes by one dollar, the financial liability to the writer of that option changes by $100 times the number of options written at that strike. Thus, the far in-the-money options have a very real effect on the bottom line for options writers as the market price moves, creating an incentive for them to try to do something about it.
If you find that you get better results in your market prognostications by eyeballing the raw number of options near the crossover point, I'm certainly not going to challenge that. All I'm saying is that it is an empirical observation, and is not explained by the use of deep in-the-money options in the Max Pain calculations.
OK, I've looked at the methodology, and it turns out that options are only counted for those prices that put them in the money. That means that options that are $20 out-of-the-money are not going to affect the results at all, unless the underlying stock price moves by $20 or more.
I'll have to study the methodology some more.
How do you figure that the 20 bucks out-of-the-money options are affecting the results on iqAuto? If you look at the way the chart is drawn, the location of the minimum is only affected by the outstanding options immediately adjacent to it. The way out-of-the-money stuff is plotted, but it has no effect on on the location of the minimum.
I see that max pain is till at 36 for May. (The official Max Pain page is still showing April options, so I used the maximum pain calculator at the following link, which is based on CBOE data from about an hour ago.)
http://www.iqauto.com/cgi-bin/pain.pl
Do you still have buys on the averages here?
A small body refers to the distance between the open and the close, as displayed on a candlestick chart.
A doji occurs when the open and close are nearly the same price.
http://stockcharts.com/education/ChartAnalysis/candlesticks.html
http://stockcharts.com/education/ChartAnalysis/candlesticks2.html
I always read your posts with interest, even when I don't think I have anything intelligent to say. I think there are others too. You do have 172 people-marks, after all.
Looks like my theory of max pain causing a rally today was all wet.