"duh.. I was leaving it for the reader...
but since YOU insist..."
Are YOU looking to trade insults?
I prefer not to guess what's going on in other posters' minds.
"Did Brinker say he was "bearish" in the Jan 2000 MT or that he was going to capture 70% of the upside with far less risk?"
You're right that Brinker didn't say he was bearish in January of 2000, but Brimelow didn't claim that he said that. Calling 60% cash a bearish stance hardly justifies characterizing the article as "full of inaccuracies." Brimelow clearly stated that he doesn't listen to the radio program, so criticizing him for inaccuracies about what was said on the radio doesn't make sense. Except for the one gaffe about the level of the Nasdaq, his statements about the newsletter are reasonably accurate.
"No doubt about it the move to 60% cash was brilliant in timing... but EVERYTHING after it including what he kept in the portfolios, holds on VOD, MSFT, buys of TEFQX and QQQ were total disasters and Hulbert gives him a free pass on it."
What he kept in the portfolios was a total disaster, when they outperformed the S&P by 30 percentage points? What planet do you live on, Kirk?
The holds on VOD and MSFT would not have prevented subscribers from selling off 60% of them (and later 65%), because the January 2000 newsletter stated that the items on hold were not to be excluded from the asset allocation guidelines.
In any case VOD, MSFT, TEFQX, and QQQ were not included in the model portfolios, so they actually support the conclusion of the article that one is better off sticking with the model portfolios.
By the way, you ought to be careful about shouting that word "EVERYTHING." It can get you into trouble. |
