Bob Brinker: Market Savant & Radio Host Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Bob Brinker: Market Savant & Radio Host

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Math Junkie who wrote (17471)	2/22/2003 7:58:49 AM
From: sat2000	Read Replies (1) of 42834

Richard nice catch on my typo Re: 1990, you are right. I am glad to see we do agree when as you put it. “I agree that his market timing has not been shown to add sufficient value to be worth the effort compared to buy-and-hold with asset allocation.”” Maybe all we disagree on is what is a “major allocation change”? If the QQQ buy with 20-50% of cash reserves in October 2000 was a major allocation change OK I agree with you on that. To me you have set the standard as a major allocation change to be in the 20-50% range. Actually total portfolio the percentages would be smaller since the October 2000 act immediately bulletin dealt with cash reserves. But I’ll agree to your threshold to define major allocation change. So now that we have that established. Was bob making a major allocation change in Feb 1989 to raise his allocation to 50% from 0%? Was bob making a major allocation change in November of the same year to raise his allocation to 75% from 50%? The DOW was 300 points higher. In February 1990 bob went from 75% to 40% after the DOW was down about 100 points. Was that a making a major allocation change? Slowly in 1990 bob went from 40% to 85% by July. Each time the DOW was higher than when he went to 0% in 1988. Are any of these making a major allocation change worthy of round tripper status? I say they go down in the scorebook as a K, not stacking the deck. He is 0 for 4 in my book since all those calls were wrong. Those three missed opportunities I mentioned in #17457 I still stand by. All three had the potential for gains of 29% to 52%. He was expecting gains in excess of 20% in October 2000 on QQQ. That is another 0 for 3 game. I disagree on the 1982 call due to incomplete information, more like a hit by pitch at best. The Late 1990/early 1991 right call you made I can’t agree with, see above) The Jan. 2000 call was right. Score one for dabrink. We do agree on the October 2000 QQQ call. Even if you disallow my three missed opportunity potential trades he is still hitting 1 for 6 or .166. That won’t earn you big league meal money for long. You say he is 3 for 5 and hitting .600. I say it is closer to 1 for 9and hitting a measly .111. BTW to make up for the 1982 call I disagree with I am willing to give bob a mulligan on the call when he panicked out entirely in 1988, hardly outstanding. Maybe since one of the higher rated timers according to Hulbert can’t add sufficient value to be worth the effort proves the point that nobody should attempt it with more than 5% or so of a portfolio. Steve Thompson

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next