"Repint is prohibited without proper atribution."
I'll drink to that! <G>
Seriously though, I hope you'll forgive my legalistic language, since I've been watching court hearings all week, but my response to your contention that Bob's long term model for the broader market is no longer useful can be summed up in one sentence:
Assuming facts not in evidence.
The evidence so far shows that his model is only useful for tech investors in a broad brush stroke sort of way. But that is far, far different from saying that it is not useful at all. For example, in January I had already gotten out of the majority of my semiconductor equipment holdings for diversification reasons. But I still had a block of KLAC that I had bought through the employee stock purchase program. I had not sold it because I had not met the holding period for long term capital gains treatment. Nevertheless, I remembered Brinker's oft-repeated comment, that when the market sells off, high beta stocks like tech stocks sell off even more. So I gritted my teeth and took the tax consequences. A lot of the sales proceeds were gain, so the tax consequences were heavy. In spite of that, as a result of Brinker's supposedly obsolete model, I am currently well ahead of where I would have been, on an after tax basis.
It seems to me that for investors in high beta sectors, insight on the general direction of the market, rather than being irrelevant, is crucial. There's always new technology, and there will always be stock market bubbles, but the laws of economics have not been repealed. |
