I am not surprised by Queen's reaction to the deception on Brinker's site or in his newsletter anymore than I am surprised that another screen name that appeared the other day when Queen did tried to downplay an obvious "whopper" by Brinker on STII.
I admit that I am a little disappointed in Math, though I believe he felt picked on by Kirk and had a right to feel that way on the name flap. Totally silly imo. But it has to be obvious that Brinker was embellishing his resume. Does anyone believe that Brinker has made any "mistakes" in his advertising that makes him look worse than he is? Of course not.
I was unaware of the ratings of Brinker's letter in Hulbert's accounting when he leaves out the QQQ fiasco (a totally bogus approach btw). But others obviously had the goods. Brinker claimed in this month's marketimer to be rated number 1 by Hulbert. It was a present tense statement. Hulbert's current publication says that number 3 is the highest Brinker is rated in any category. Oops.
More incriminating I believe is the revealing results of the posting at 101 as Fahrenheit layed out here this morning. While Math credits Brinker for responding to criticism, Queen seems to claim it is a lie or much ado about nothing. Hmmm.
What it shows is that the Brinkers monitor these sites with great vigor. Don Lane became "mistertopes" within hours of the discussion on 101 about the connection with Brinker. Jr's profile was deleted within minutes of posting about it on 101.
So we have Brinker claiming through July 16, that he is rated number 1 by Hulbert in 5, 10 and 15 yr categories. Now there is a "different" story there that has a date on it.
We can safely assume that the claim that was there prior to July 16 is not true. Time will tell if the latest version has any validity.
Having watched mistertopes through the saga of STII, when caught red handed try to weasel and not let go of the lie, I have little confidence that the "fall back postion" will turn out to be accurate but it will come out.
The only time I recall anything at all like the jabbering on Brinker's site prior to July 16 was when Hulbert was showing that Brinker's fund performance was significantly below just using the index on his timing calls. I believe if it were that discussion of Hulbert, Brinker had to do some serious editing and pulling out of context to come up with the claim.
Looks to me like he was caught speeding with the facts again. We'll see.
investment.suite101.com
Author: JeffChristy Email Print
Discussion: Bob Brinker FREE Forum: 61,408+ Posts and growing!
Date: July 16, 2006 4:42 PM
Subject: Bob Brinker's Hulbert Rating
In response to Bob Brinker's Hulbert Rating posted by honeyoneohone:
Honey
I went over to Bob Brinkers website and found this statement under Portfolios.
"Hulbert Financial Digest ranks Bob Brinker's Marketimer number one for stock market timing for the past five, ten, and fifteen years."
Based on what you and Kirk have said this appears to be questionable advertising at best. Don't be too hard on Allan Coleman. He isn't the first person here to fall victim to Bob Brinker faulty advertising. He suggested Kirk take this up with Brinker. I would suggest that Kirk take this up with Mark Hulbert. It is his reputation that is being harmed if the above statement proves to be false.
Reply Post top
Hulbert Financial Digest ranks Bob Brinker's Marketimer number one for stock market timing for the past 5, 10 and 15 years. Marketimer stock market timing applied to the Wilshire 5000 Index has generated a compound annual return of 15.9% for the past 10 years, versus 10.8% for the Wilshire 5000 Index. Marketimer's timing for the past 15 years has generated a compound annual return of 13.8%, versus 10.2% for the Wilshire 5000 Index.
web.archive.org |
