Richard,
Thank you for your civil responses. I remember from an earlier post that you have benefited from Brinker's advice. I think that is great and I wish you continued success.
I respect that you validate my arguments and yet have made a decision that Brinker on balance is your best advisor. I do not have a problem with that decision. In fact, that is one of the reasons I continue to listen to him.
I don't understand why there are people on this thread that have the need to cover for Bob no matter what the blunder. This is a disservice to the listening audience. I believe when a guru makes forecasts/predictions there should be a track record. Ignoring the goofs and emphasizing the winners borders on the line of misleading the public.
Bob, is not the only analyst/advisor that gives predictions over TV, magazines, radio, etc. I think they should all have to show their track records or previous recommendations. I think it is disingenuous to trot out a so called expert on TV and have him give recommendations without showing his track record or previous recommendations.
For example, there is this one mutual fund manager that has been recommending REIT funds, notably his own, for years now. I believe his name is Ken Heebner(sp?). Every time I see him on TV he's calling for the bottom in REIT's. He's been wrong for years. Finally, I think the REIT's started to rally recently and this guy comes on TV and says I told you so even though anybody that took his advice over the last few years has gotten obliterated. (I heard Ron Insana (CNBC) touch on this fact in an interview recently, but most publications or shows would not have done that).
I believe this practice is wrong. Advisors on TV, radio, etc. carry a sort of perception that they are experts and have a high degree of accuracy with their advice. Nothing can be further from the truth. There should be some sort of monitoring of advisors, like "Morningstar" for mutual funds.
CNBC has started to show previous picks of guests and this is a start, even though sometimes I think its ridiculous how they grill the guest because the recommendation might be down 7% while the S&P was up 1% over the last 5 weeks. Hardly enough time, but like I said it's a start.
So please understand my comments regarding Bob are not directed at Bob the person they are directed at Bob the advisor over the radio. When people listen to Bob, especially new listeners, they should be able to access the facts of his past recommendations not just listen about his winners. If after hearing the facts, they decide he is their best advisor, fine. But I don't think they should be misled into thinking that Bob sidesteps corrections, calls bottoms "to the tee", only picks winning stocks, etc. And I believe that is the case when he ignores his blunders and tweaks his statements to give the perception that he is ahead of the curve when it comes to market timing.
I regret the length of this post, but I hope it was worth your time to read it as I think it was worth writing.
Best Regards.
Rillinois
P.S.
Re: One minor point regarding your statement that "He didn't have a clue about the Asian crisis": He did advise his subscribers to sell the only Asian fund on his recommended list in his July 7, 1997 newsletter. No explanation as to why, and when the Asian crisis became clear, he definitely did not anticipate the effect it would have on his UTEK recommendation. But the record is not quite as bad as you depicted.
This topic was discussed a while back in detail on the original Brinker thread. In short, the reason for the sale of the New Asia fund was for poor performance over a three year period before the crisis. It was completely coincidental that he got out before the crisis. |
