Bob Brinker: Market Savant & Radio Host Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Bob Brinker: Market Savant & Radio Host

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: dijaexyahoo who wrote (22846)	7/31/2006 9:36:30 PM
From: stockalot	Read Replies (2) of 42834

You have been caught once again calling me a liar to shill for Brinker and shown to be simply wrong Dija. The CLAIM Brinker is currently making is that he is rated # 1 for long term marketiming. Is that true or is that not true? I do NOT believe that any of Brinker's current claims say anything about a 5 year window--which is NOT what most would consider "long term". I believe the ONLY thing that Brinker is claiming to be # 1 in is based on how he would have done if he had been investing in the broad market instead of using his own picked funds. Is That true as I said or NOT TRUE. If any of the above you dispute please cite me the link where I can see for myself. Assuming you agree to these facts then my point is two fold. 1t is TOTALLY MEANINGLESS on two fronts. 1) First and foremost it does not count the huge long term holding in the QQQQs that Brinker placed in the "aggressive" Portfolio # 1. 2) Brinker never recommended timing his aggressive portfolio between the Wilshire 5000 and cash. My take was that I recalled that Hulbert said that when you apply Brinker's portfolios to his timing, it UNDERPERFORMED applying his timing to the broad index, making it obvious that Brinker's stock fund picking ability was not adding value. Thus if the ONLY thing that Brinker can claim as # 1 in a timing sense is based on what would happen if you applied his timing to an index rather than his funds, it does NOT ACCOUNT FOR HIS LONG TERM SIGNIFICANT UNDERPERFOMANCE in picking funds over applying his timing to the Wilshire 5000. Thus it renders the only thing that you shills claim as a big deal and a number # rating--if true--meaningless, because, 1) We know Brinker NEVER recommended his aggressive portfolio to be 100% in the Wilshire 5000 2) We know that according to Hulbert that Brinker's timing if simply PRETENED to be invested in the Wilshire 5000 outperforms his portfolio picks by about 1.5% <<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. ">> Deal with it Dija, and go call somebody else a liar 18 times when they know the facts and prove you the shill you are.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next