I do really think Math owes him an apology. If there was any mistatement in Brimelow's piece it seems to me that Brimelow translated 50% of portfolio cash reserves to mean 50% of a portfolio.
Brinker is the only person I know who recommended use of "50% or 30% or 20% of cash reserves" to invest in other positions. It would be unlikely that Brimelow knew anyone else who used that terminology. As far as I know Brimelow did not read the ACT IMMEDIATELY bulletin--to his detriment. Thus it is entirely logical that the gentleman from Prescott did explain his 50% of stockmarket cash reserves and Brimelow interpreted that as 50% of his stockmarket monies. It is stilted and confusing and Brinker is the only advisor I have ever heard base investments on stock market funds that are not invested. When you think about it, it is very poor communication to do it that way. As was pointed out on 101, Brinker told some people that going to 100% cash --after the dotcom meltdown in the spring of 2000 was just fine. He told people he was holding MSFT, he was telling people to buy TEFQX up to 5% of a portfolio-- Likely the amount of "cash reserves" thus would be all over the map. From 100% of a portfolio to much less than 65% for others thinking they were following his advice. Why tell this diverse group to invest a certain % of cash reserves rather than a % of a stock market portfolio in the idea? Totally incompetent.
The most conservative person I would think would have went to 100% cash. If he trusted Bob brinker's advice and again went for the most conservative allocation of QQQs he would have 20% of his entire portfolio in the QQQs. That is not conservative.
Remember there was a lot mistated about this in the few articles written. I believe once Hulbert stated that he didn't count the QQQs "because Brinker chose not to include them in the model portfolios in the bulletin". That was not true as no one could have complained if weeks later when they got their newsletter to have seen a 50% of cash reserves in Portfolio I QQQs, 30% in Portfolio II QQQs and 20% in Portfolio III QQQs.
Indeed in other references Hulbert claimed that is what he did--purchase the QQQs in the model portfolios and sell when he got the November newsletter. All one can say is that Brinker was silent about the model portfolios and he had NO TRACK RECORD of handling a huge bet based on monies removed from portfolios. No one other than Brinker knew what he would do--I think Brinker wanted it that way to see how the wind was blowing before the next newsletter.
On Suite 101 Prescott seems to give an account that rings true. Although you or I might find something strange about a person who has retired at 52 taking a 50% of cash reserves swing at Brinker's great idea, it is unfair not to look back at the times.
Geezers on Brinker's site were "exploiting the opportunities" in the "b2b space". It was a frickin zoo of idiocy if you recall. They were extremely excited about Bob "giving them another counter trend rally just for subscribers". Many were claiming that Brinker was absolutely a genius for the first radio trade and if he gave them one "just for subscribers" they would be thrilled. You idiots that follow Brinker and alibi for his shinanigans helped fuel the fires of greed and trust. Bob on the radio always pretends to be infallible. Remember Justa and Pete from Stamford and Poobah, Betsy somebody--all posting about the genius of Brinker and how they could play the market along with Brinker and make money on counter trend rallies.
Is it not likely that someone who bought this crap of Brinker and his syncophants, who had retired early but filled with trust and reading NOT A SINGLE MENTION OF RISK, but repeated mentions of OPPORTUNITY for 20% OR MORE gains in just TWO TO FOUR MONTHS, and no DOWNSIDE WARNING might just want to "exploit this opportunity" with 50% of cash reserves rather than 30% ? I don't find that unlikely at all.
Yes there is blame to go around. I'm telling you that anyone who invests along with some marketimer as his guru is an idiot. Anyone who invests along with someone proven to be dishonest is an idiot. Anyone who becomes a cult member and alibis for a dishonest guru and thus hooks other more naieve people on a get rich quick scheme like the QQQs are contemptable idiots. However like many things in life at the time of idiocy it seems like a good idea.
So retired in Prescott got carried away. In animal house lingo he f-up, He trusted Brinker. I suspect in this instance Brimelow misunderstood the amount of Prescott's allocation.
But the biggest IDIOT is the guy who sent this ill concieved, poorly written, undated, unpriced ACT IMMEDIATELY with no stops or discussion of suitability or risk, advice. The rest of the culprits were common garden variety idiots in comparison. He is hiding his idiocy to this day and claiming to be a genius.
"Bob Brinker's MARKETIMER
"SUBSCRIBER BULLETIN
FROM MARKETIMER
MARKETIMER is projecting a significant countertrend rally which is expected to be led by the Nasdaq 100 Index. We expect this rally to persist over a period of approximately 2-4 months, and to generate Nasdaq gains in excess of 20% from the vicinity of the recently established Nasdaq closing low point.
We view this projected Nasdaq rally as a significant trading opportunity for MARKETIMER subscribers seeking potential short-term capital gains. Our clear vehicle of choice for this opportunity is the Nasdaq 100, which is traded on the American Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol QQQ.
We recommend MARKETIMER subscribers with aggressive objectives invest 30% to 50% of existing CASH RESERVES in the QQQ shares in order to exploit this opportunity. Also, we recommend subscribers with conservative investment objectives invest 20% to 30% of CASH RESERVES in the QQQ shares in order to take advantage of this opportunity.
MARKETIMER will provide follow up guidance for this short-term opportunity in regular monthly editions, and, if necessary, in follow up bulletins.
We recommend subscribers interested in taking advantage of this recommendation act immediately." |
