Dija chill out, you've called me a liar waaaay too many times on an issue I simply disagree with you on and have the documentation that says that Brinker's timing is better followed with the Wilshire 5000 than with his model portfolio. Now if Hulbert is lying. take it up with him, but you have to get a grip man. This is not life and death. One screen name, one person, one opinion, that is how it works here. This is not the Yahoo sewer and there is no reason to call me a liar as many times as you did. I get it, You doubed my veracity and your hate was boiling over. But you are simply wrong...again. Let's review your agnst filled tirades.
"First, do you ACTUALLY believe that brinker would print statistics in his newsletter that were flat-out wrong? I know you DID think he was lying about claiming to be the #1 long-term market timer, but you have already been proved WRONG about that.
The FACT is, his P1 and P2 beat the active/passive portfolio by a WIDE margin over 5 years. So you are flat WRONG in saying his P1 and P2 did worse than the index.
As math has reminded all of us (and you have ignored) Hulbert averages all THREE portfolios together. Obviously (to use your favorite word) that is why you apparently read a Hulbert article that said brinker's fund picks underperformed the averages. Maybe the Hulbert article also covered a different time period. But, obviously, including P3 would bring brinker's results DOWN."
"
stockalot said:
"LOL now that's funny. For a week the Brinker mafia has been bragging on his only top rating in Hulbert that was the result of pretending that Brinker did NOT RECOMMEND any of his UNDERPERFORMING MUTUAL FUNDS but recommended the broad index. He well UNDERPERFORMS the index when he is judged on his mutual fund picks."
--Why do you keep telling this LIE that you KNOW is a lie?"
"
I've already corrected you 3 or 4 times. You never dispute what I say, but instead just ignore it and go on and on posting your LIES."
"
If you have any sense of fair play whatsoever (which you don't), you will either show me where I am wrong, or quit telling this LIE.
Now Dija, if that isn't harassment, I don't know what is. Can you count the number of times there that you called me a liar? Then the new alias of shres picked up your hateful mantra.
The difference between the multi alias shills who are caught and me is that I don't lie.
I told you I would find the Hulbert quote where he said that Brinker's fund picks underperformed the Wilshire 5000 index when timing was applied that matched Brinker's moves in the market in the "aggressive portfolio"--that would be portfolio I.
Well now I found the article and it says exactly what I thought it said. It is in the May 2005 Hulbert newsletter. He gives Brinker credit for being better with his timing from 87 through 2005 when his aggressive portfolio timing is used to move between the Wilshire 5000 than when using the funds in Brinker's portfolio.
When just the timing was used and the hypothetical portfolio was moved between the Wilshire 5000 and cash according to Brinker's calls, Brinker actually slightly exceeded the Wilshrie 5000. When you used his portfolios it was about 2% lower and lagged the Wilshire portfolio for that period.
Now why call a man a liar when I told you I would find it. It was posted a few times when it came out last year.
Why don't you take a chill pill and argue the facts about Brinker ? Between multi alias shills who got caught and then getting all bummed out and harranging me, and Math coming up with far fetched alibis to cover up the multi-alias posting game, and you calling me a liar 30 times because I didn't have time to find the article I was basing my comment on; I am beginning to feel unloved. Now go look up Hulbert's comments about Brinker's timing in Hulberts May 2005 newsletter. |
