The problem with that investor's story is that he made three contradictory claims:
1. He followed Bob's advice,
2. He put half his stock market funds in QQQ, and
3. That is what ruined his retirement.
Brinker has been very consistent in advising people in or near retirement to adopt conservative investment objectives. The maximum his bulletin recommended for such people was 30%, and it was 30% of cash reserves, not 30% of stock market funds.
With 65% of the stock market funds in cash reserves, that means the most Brinker recommended was 19.5% of a retired subscriber's stock market funds into QQQ. Since Brinker consistently recommends only half of a retired person's portfolio should be in the stock market, that means the MOST he recommended for a retired person was about 10% of the portfolio in QQQ. At the time of that article QQQ was near the bottom, down about 70%, so it would have temporarily brought a retired subscriber's total portfolio down by about 7%. If that was enough to ruin someone's retirement, then they were playing it too close to the edge, IMO.
Based on what he says, he went way beyond what Brinker recommended for retired people. I don't doubt that there are people who did this, but blaming that on Brinker makes about as much sense as the other side claiming that the QQQ advice didn't matter because "very few" allegedly followed it at the highest levels. We should evaluate Brinker on the advice he gives, not what we guess his subscribers did.
As far as the info on Brinker's bio, Davidk555 provided that here last week:
Message 22638952 |
