stockalot said:
<<He told the caller. "We had to stop the newsletter from going to libraries because we have "electronic enhancements" -and it would not be fair to those libraries not to have the electronic enhancements.">>
--OK. I will accept that, and the one about closing his message boards, as lies. I heard both calls, and thought at the time that he was lying. It's a real stretch to think he wasn't.
Unfortunately, they are lies that are not easily substantiated.
Therefore, I still believe his claim that his Marketimer was rated #1 by Hulbert for long term stock market timing.
I just do not believe he is stupid enough to lie about something that is so easy to verify.
Why is it so difficult for people to believe his newsletter was rated #1 for timing for 5, 10 and 15 years, considering the QQQ call is not included?
After all, the "timing" is perfect, as 15 years goes back to when he reentered the market after the 87-90 fiasco. What other timer stayed in the market all through the bull, got partially out in Jan. 2000, and got back in in March 2003, just one day before the market took off?
I don't see how any other timer could have beaten that record. If anyone did, I'd love to know who it was.
As for someone's ticky-tack complaint about the word "current" that bob apparently used on his website, all I can say is this:
If Hulbert, in his March newsletter, said brinker was #1 through Jan. 2006, then that means to me (and anyone who is objective) that brinker is #1 until such time as Hulbert releases new results for that category.
There is NOTHING wrong with brinker saying he is "currently ranked #1..." (assuming Hulbert DID rate him #1 in a newsletter this year) until such time as the ratings are changed. IOW, he's no. 1 until somebody else is deemed to be #1. |
