"It is not a flaw as it prevents some writers like Brinker from having so many portfolios that they can always advertise one that is doing well."
I think it's a mistake to think that there is a way to prevent investment letter writers from finding ways of making themselves look good that others might not think is Kosher. I especially think it's a mistake to compare apples to oranges in such an effort.
I agree that having a lot of different things in a newsletter, without having them in the Hulbert ratings, gives its author a better chance to have something to brag about. There are some things in this world that it's just not practical to fix. That's why I have long said that if a subscriber wants to get results comparable to what is advertised, then they need to stick to the advertised portfolios. For one thing, as I have said before, I think we can expect newsletter writers to put the recommendations they have the most confidence in into their model portfolios, because they know that's what they are going to be measured on.
Brinker's Portfolio III is not an attempt to have it both ways, because it is described, in EVERY issue of the newsletter, as being for people in or near retirement.
If some of Brinker's competitors lack a model portfolio designed for retired people, that means they will get a higher rating because of that, yet the lack of such a portfolio is *not* an advantage for the subscribers.
On the other hand, the fact that the QQQQ bulletin is only represented in a footnote is obviously to Brinker's advantage, so it's not a case of systematic bias. I take it for granted that Hulbert is doing the best he can, but we need to be clear on what his ratings really mean. |
