"I think he said 3 to 1--he tripled the market return!"
kirk said:
<<Do you know what the numbers are or are you going to hedge on this also? Also, if it is something like 45% vs 15% over a period Brinker advertises he got out at the top and back in at the bottom... it is hardly much at all, especially after taxes. It is easier to beat a benchmark when you ignore the first 13 years of under performance and only count the last 7 years when you've done well which is what this analysis since 2000 does.>>
--No, I don't remember the numbers. I tried to find math's post but couldn't find it.
However, I'm not ignoring "13 years of underperformance." I'm saying if he beat the W5000 by 3-1 from 2000 through 2006, then it seems reasonable to assume that he "crushed the market" from 1991 through 2006.
In otherwords, 7 years 3-1 outperformance + 9 years slight underperformance should equal "crushing the market" for the entire 16 years, it seems to me.
Do you or math have figures to the contrary?
<<Triple the market return over a fairly short period vs 17 years is a rather large "mistake" but I'll concede you simply spoke about something you didn't understand rather than lied. Mark this down.. I was WRONG... you didn't lie.>>
--Well, thank you very much for THAT! You might find if you continue to open your mind that I NEVER lie on these boards.
But, again, it's not 3-1 over a short period vs. 17 years. We are talking about 3-1 over 7 years vs. a total 16 years (91-06).
<< You simply stated something as true that wasn't and were wrong.>>
--How do you know it wasn't true? All you know is that I made an assumption based upon KNOWN facts. MAYBE I was wrong. I doubt it, but it's possible, I suppose. Now YOU are making an assumption that I was wrong.
<<I guess what bugs the heck out of me about you is you speak in absolutes as if You KNOW for a fact something is true... But when we investigate, usually you make terrible errors that favor Brinker and terrible errors or outright lies that put others, such as myself, in a bad light.>>
--What you say above is simply not true. In this particular case, you didn't "investigate." You simply said I was wrong, with no evidence.
|
