An Open Letter to Bob Brinker

Self ^ | February 27, 2004 | Alberta's Child

[Alberta's Child]

That doesn't really surprise me. If I remember correctly, as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Florida case (the 5-4 decision), the official results were certified based on whatever the vote total was on December 12th or whatever date the state of Florida certified them. Basically, there was no way to contest these ballots without throwing Florida's participation in the December 18th Electoral College vote into jeopardy.

[aquila48]

His call on (I believe) Jan. 10, 2000 was extremely valuable. I don't know of anyone who timed the market as well as he did. I didn't get out as much as I should have, but I can't complain.

Just as amazing was his call last march to get back in. It was right at the bottom. I wish I had listened to him both times.

As for his politics, he seems to be all over the map - claims to be an independent. I heard him excoriating the democrats over Iraq a few months ago.

[expat_panama]

"Gridlock" is good, debt should be looked at as a percent of GNP, blames Greenspan for the depth of the recession, credit Bush with the tax cut-- sounds like my kind of guy.  But selling in fall 2000?  The Dow is already higher than it was in Oct. 2000- not even counting dividends.  A lot would depend on his 'buy' timing.

[KC_for_Freedom]

A lot would depend on his 'buy' timing.

Bob Brinker's timing model turned "favorable" based on the S&P 500 Index's close on March 10, 2003 and he recommended investors redeploy their cash reserves into a fully invested position by bulletin issued at 2:00 a.m. on March 11, 2003

Bob has been better at his "buy" recommendations than his sell recommendations. He believes we are currently in a bull cycle in an overall long term bear cycle. His followers are watching for another "sell" call sometime in the next year or two.

[Fury]

Brinkee was drinking the Kool-Aid this weekend. I had to turn him off on Saturday when he started to claim to a caller that drilling in ANWR would not make much of a difference in bringing new energy to the US - using the same sort of logic (I believe) that the Dems use, by claiming that all the oil, etc would be exhausted in a year - IF (and they do not tell you this) ANWER was the ONLY place where the US was getting its' energy.

On Sunday, I had my fill when he started to go on and on about how Gore won the 2000 election, except for the electoral college. He was going shrill, so enough was enough.

My best plan has been to catch his opening comments in hour 1 and 3, and then turn him off. He's going 'nutter on us.

[Alberta's Child]

Ironically, his comment that "drilling in ANWR wouldn't make any difference" would have been right, but for the wrong reasons.

Drilling in ANWR really doesn't do much for U.S. oil supplies because the cost of extraction and transportation of this oil is very high. In fact, I read somewhere last year that ANWR wouldn't be tapped for a single drop of oil unless the long-term forecast for the price of oil was in the range of $35 per barrel.

[Quix]

THANKS MUCH,

I'm copying and pasting into Word a handful of docs about the Gore election fraud and Kerry's treasonous, hypocritical hideocies

to hand out to reasonably fair-minded friends and associates who'd otherwise be destined to vote for Kerry.

I'm including your post.

Perhaps others would consider doing the same. I'm bolding and highlighting, sometimes in color various key parts.

Blessings,