stockalot said:
<<Writing in the May 05 Hulbert Financial Digest Hulbert gave this information on Brinker's stock picking vs investing in the Wilshire 5000 using his timing.
"Consider the gain of a hypothetical portfolio that switched between shares of the Wilshire 5000 index and cash since the beginning of 1987 according to the market-vs-cash allocation of Brinker’s “Aggressive Growth” portfolio. This hypothetical portfolio gained 13.3% annualized through 3/31/05, beating the 11.4% annualized the Wilshire gained over the same period.
.
Brinker’s fund selections on average have lagged the Wilshire. The HFD reports a 12.1% annualized gain for his “Aggressive” portfolio, which is 1.2 percentage points per year less than what this portfolio would have made if each of its funds had performed as well as the Wilshire during the times they were owned. ">>
--OK. Now I see what you are saying. But the fact is, you are wandering way off the subject.
This all started with brinker's claim that hulbert had rated him the #1 market timer over the last 5 years, which you and your cohorts ERRONEOUSLY called a lie.
It turned out that brinker was telling the truth, and it also turned out that hulbert was using an index to rate market timers.
You then said something to the effect that he would not have been #1 if hulbert had used P1, because the indexes beat Bob's P1.
Then I told YOU that, according to Marketimer, Brinker's P1 and P2 had BOTH beaten the index handily over 5 years (roughly the same dates used by Hulbert in his market timing rankings--one was as of Jan., the other as of June).
Now YOU come back with a Hulbert story that says P1 failed to beat the indexes FROM 1987 THROUGH 2005!!!!!
This is completely irrelevant to the discussion we were having.
The whole point is, if Hulbert had used P1 for his 5-year market timing survey, instead of the index, brinker would have been #1 by AN EVEN WIDER MARGIN.
In fact, brinker might even have been #1 in hulbert had used the QQQs along with P1.
And if you have access to the July Marketimer, which I believe you do, YOU KNEW THIS ALL ALONG!!!!
The bottom line is, you MISSED THE WHOLE POINT because you preferred to latch onto the memory of some old, irrelevant story you had read, rather than actually "listening" to what I was saying, obviously because you did not WANT TO BELIEVE what I was saying. And you did not want others to believe it!!
You even fooled the piglet, I believe. -:)
One other point that you will ignore--It's not surprising brinker could not beat the indexes during any period that included the 1990s. If you recall, virtually NO ONE except S&P clones beat the index during that time period--when the whole market was driven by the largest of the large-cap stocks. If those kinds of stocks did not dominate your portfolio, you weren't going to beat the index,period.
Brinker, believing in diversification, effectively had NO CHANCE to beat the S&P in the 1990s. |
