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.
"Maybe that has something to do with why Kerry didn't win?<G>"
In an election this close, you could point to practically anything as an explanation.
Kerry: "We need the electoral college to guard against the specter of a few dense population areas determining the direction of our entire nation"...We don't need the electoral college although Kerry does for sure.
Those two statements are contradictory, because dense population areas are where Democrats have the strongest support.
When I looked at this a while back it seemed to me that the times when happy family theory has been most likely to fail were at major turning points, which suggests that it is really just an expression of the fact that major turning points are connected by major trends.
In other words, new extremes in some averages being followed by new extremes in the other averages is an inevitable consequence of a major trend that hasn't run its course yet. No additional theory is needed to explain it.
Justa,
The Candlestick glossary I have access to doesn't describe the rescue stick. Can you elaborate on how you recognize one and what its implications are?
RP
On 10/6 you wrote that you removed the bear suit. I think that's why folks think you were bullish on that date:
"Mind you, I don't see us going straight up here, I have removed the bear suit since the downside risk I have right now has diminished."
Were you trying to say that you were neutral?
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=4225989
California voters might want to check out the Website of a friend who puts together very intelligent analyses and recommendations on the ballot measures each year. I don't always agree with every recommendation, but he provides a good grasp of what the issues are.
http://www.peterates.com/props-1104.shtml
I am particularly enthusiastic about Proposition 62, which ought to help reduce the incredible polarization that has developed, by making it easier for moderates of both parties to make it through the primaries.
I particularly like the fact that they provide links to the original source material, which facilitates dealing with the problem of its not being a neutral site.
You meant to say the known-by-all, historic flip-flops of President Bush, right?
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=118263
Thanks. There's just time to get some sell orders in. <G>
Looks like the NDX head-and-shoulders is toast.
July 10 was a Saturday.
Well, you sure nailed that one!
"it only needed to be at or near the lows at 3 and that condition was met"
Wow, that's a loophole as big as a barn door!
What are the implications of COTL hitting and then not coming to fruition?
Looks like you got your move to the SPX 1060-70 area, and that the support levels you identified in that area are now in play.
Brinker was using the S&P 500 as his yardstick, but he might have switched to the Wilshire 5000.
"I think this low in the making will have some staying power."
I agree with you, so you're almost certainly wrong. <G>
Thanks for the explanation.
Why do you consider the major support to be at 1060-1070? I would think that May's low of 1076 would be more important.
"It occured to me that it makes sense to add the level of the markets at the time he gave his buy the dip levels. For example, the recent 1100 dip level was only 2% or so below the level of them market while others I believe were from much higher levels."
Here's the data - be my guest!
http://table.finance.yahoo.com/d?a=3&b=1&c=1996&d=0&e=11&f=2000&g=d&s=%5...
"As for following all the forums about Brinker such as you do, I just don't have the time."
Did someone ask you to follow all of them? I don't follow all of them consistently. I go through periods of following them more, and periods of following them less. It depends on what else I have going on at the time.
LOL! I'd rather look in Liz Ann Sonders' eyes! (On now)
Uh oh, AJC alert!
"...relative to the June 8, 2004 buy level of below 1100, I remember at least one time in the past when he took credit for a buy level being triggered on an intraday basis...Of course, with TA enthusiasts Justa and ajtj finding reasons to expect new lows before then, that may become a moot point."
Well, that didn't take long!
(SPX close: 1093.88)
"This morning, sentiment gave as close to a sell as one can get...And so back down we go."
There are times I get the impression that the market is nothing more than one big game of "Chicken." <G>
I wrote something similar, but I notice that you have "sliced and diced" it.
Some corrections:
The first post you quoted contained no boldface in the original. (Yahoo does not have that feature.) It is conventional, in publishing, to include the note "[emphasis added]" in that situation. The post went on to say
"What does constitute timing, in my mind, is that he had to make a decision every month on whether to stay bullish or not, and he made that decision correctly every month for at least ten years. Unlike the bernardo, I believe he deserves credit for that."
It's interesting that you omitted the one part of the post that was favorable to Brinker.
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=4687942&tid=utek&sid=4687942&mi...
The "comments" that you quoted were not comments at all, but samples of language from old issues of the newsletter, since dija was suggesting that I was misinterpreting it somehow.
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=4687942&tid=utek&sid=468...
With regard to the material you added relative to the June 8, 2004 buy level of below 1100, I remember at least one time in the past when he took credit for a buy level being triggered on an intraday basis, because one could have gotten that price through an ETF, and I don't recall seeing language in the newsletter that would prevent buying in that manner, so if the market goes on to new highs, I wouldn't be surprised if he claims credit for the 1100 buy point. Of course, with TA enthusiasts Justa and ajtj finding reasons to expect new lows before then, that may become a moot point.
Although I cited the predominance of mutual funds in Brinker's portfolios as my reason for using closing prices, on reflection I realize that a bigger reason I didn't look up the intraday prices was that it would have been time-consuming, and it looked like it would have been unlikely to change the overall picture significantly, if at all.
For completeness, I will add the following post from the same exchange:
___________________
"Plus, you didn't answer my question. Can you name even ONE individual who was bullish from 1993 through 1999, bearish from 2000 through 2002, and bullish again from March 2003 until now?"
I didn't answer your question because I agree with your point that Brinker deserves credit for remaining correctly bullish during the '90s, while many others jumped ship at various points, and I agree that this constituted correct market timing. The only point I disagree with is that the identification of lump sum buy levels constituted timing in and of itself, because the fact is that, from the time I subscribed in 1996 until his model turned unfavorable in 2000, he published buy levels in nearly every issue of the newsletter. The best one can say is that those buy levels reinforced his timing, because as you correctly pointed out, they probably helped subscribers stay the course during periods of great fear.
Incidentally, I see that Brinker's below-1100 target got triggered yesterday, at least on an intraday basis.
"Yup, I blamed the French intransigence at the time as well."
That's why I mentioned it.
This morning C-Span 2 was giving live coverage to Tony Blair on the floor of the House of Commons, defending the decision to go to war. Pretty riveting stuff. The quality of their political debate really puts ours to shame. They said it would be taped and played again in its entirety later in the day, but they didn't say when.
I noticed that he mentioned the French position of not permitting any resolution that contained consequences for Iraq.
Stockalot, you implied that Larry wants to hide the truth about QQQ, and yet he has a listing of the QQQ calls in the thread header.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=1832
So how do you reconcile your claims with the truth? (This should be good.)
And everyone knows, if Richard Palm said it, it must be true, right? <G>
Marketimer Model Portfolio Performance in Recent Years:
10 years ended 6-30-04 for all Model Portfolios:
Portfolio I: 367%
Portfolio II: 278%
Portfolio III: 166% (balanced portfolio with 50% fixed-income position)
versus Wilshire 5000: 195% (VTSMX)
5 years ended 6-30-04 for all Model Portfolios:
Portfolio I: 98%
Portfolio II: 64%
Portfolio III: 47% (balanced portfolio with 50% fixed-income position)
Active/Passive: 53% (this portfolio started March 1997)
versus Wilshire 5000: (5%) (VTSMX)
3 years ended 6-30-04 for all Model Portfolios:
Portfolio I: 46%
Portfolio II: 43%
Portfolio III: 32% (balanced portfolio with 50% fixed-income position)
Active/Passive: 36%
versus Wilshire 5000: 2% (VTSMX)
1 year ended 6-30-04 for all Model Portfolios:
Portfolio I: 23.8%
Portfolio II: 23.1%
Portfolio III: 13.4% (balanced portfolio with 50% fixed-income position)
Active/Passive: 21.7%
versus Wilshire 5000: 20.7% (VTSMX)
Source: http://www.bobbrinker.com/portfolio.asp
NOTE: None of the above accounts for the Oct. 2000 QQQ buy recommendation. A member of Silicon Investor posted what Portfolio I would have done since Jan. 2000 with that included:
Performance of BB portfolio 1 (aggressive), from 1/5/00 to 7/2/04 and with the QQQ trade included, relative to two relevant benchmarks:
BB Portfolio 1 +2.2%
NASDAQ Composite -48.3%
Vanguard Growth Index -32.4%
Source: http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=20277483
The author states that he obtained the above numbers by tracking P1 on a weekly basis with and without the QQQ trade for 4 years.
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=20278161
OK, I understand now.
Your quip about his being indicted for parking in the janitor's space implied that you thought his transgressions, if any, were minor. If that is an erroneous interpretation, then I am at a loss to decipher what you meant to convey by that comment.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=3504981
I take it you think Ken Lay is being lynched?
Justa, last night you wrote:
"Looking at my sentiment polls tonight and there are just too many bears."
This morning, you're saying:
"Short term sentiment has me thinking run will be limited."
Has sentiment changed that much since last night?
Now that I think about it, a more plausible explanation for the terminology would be that 7/8 of an iceberg remains hidden from view.
Maybe it just "melts" into the market?
I would argue that what we have really had is a 15 month uptrend off the Oct. '02 bottom, followed by six months of minor downtrend. I don't think that proves anything about where the market is going in the next few months, however.
Yes, but they're only paper losses unless you capitulate and sell them before expiration. If QQQ were to get enough above 37 before expiration to cover the time value premium that was paid, then call buyers who were still holding them would end up in the black.
Isn't it true that the only call holders who get "screwed" are the ones who panic out or bought on margin?