Dines lied today on the Nightly Business Report. The interviewer said that Dines had gotten out of some internet positions with good profits by using stops, including CMGI. Dines agreed.
That was not true. Dines is still in CMGI and has taken a bad hit.
I say this because I previously have praised Dines. But in the last several months I have closely examined his "lucky shots" and found he is not telling the truth. Careful review of what he says about his previous predictions reveals he is full of BS. If you just read along in his newsletters you get the feeling he's a genius, but if you go back and really look at what he said, you find he was all over the place and is simply pulling selective quotes to show he was right.
A CLASSIC Dines BS was when he told investors on a Friday this year that it was difficult to make money in current markets and suggested they maintain good cash positions. The following week the markets make a huge, huge gain.
His next newsletter claimed he had predicted a big more. Well, true, but he predicted a big move that might be up and might be down, told people it was hard to make money under current market conditions, and recommended they maintain large cash positions.
The BOTTOM LINE is he told people to be OUT of the markets. Yet in his next newsletter he claimed this as another "lucky shot" because he predicted the markets would make a big move.
Please notice he does not publish his yearly annual percentage record. WHY NOT? Because his record is pretty bad.
I would urge anyone who subscribes to his newsletter to search the web for "Mark Hulbert" who publishes a column every other Sunday in the Business section of the New York Times. From Mr. Hulbert you can order a review of all newsletters, including Dines. You'll see that Dines' record is pretty poor.
Exactly what is Dines' 5 year and 10 year average annual return?? If you follow him, or subscribe, you should know. Dines won't tell you because it's not that great.
1992: -11.2%
1993: +16.0%
1994: -12.6%
1995: +4.30%
1996: +2.30%
1997: -16.4%
1998: +23.30%
1999: +89.80%
According to Hulbert: "Dines' portfolios on average have lagged the market." "Since the mid 1980's, the newsletter has obtained 7.2% annually, in contrast to 16.0% for the Wilshire."
Dines is fun to read, but he is full of BS. |
