kirk said:
<<I never said it was catastrophic unless you lost confidence in Brinker as an honest advisor and did not add significantly to your holdings in March 2003.>>
--OK. That's fair. But a lot of bashers HAVE made it out to be catastrophic in itself, which is not true.
<< The KEY to MathJunkie's calculation is one MUST load up with something like 25% of the total portfolio with QQQQ AGAIN... after having a third of your portfolio (if you are a P1 subscriber) drop by 75%... how many loaded up again and still believed Brinker after he called for several counter trend rallies on the way down?>>
--I don't know. But I agree that it would have been very hard for most people to buy more QQQs. Maybe some followed the advice but bought the S&P or the W5000 instead of the Qs. I'm sure there were a significant number who had lost confidence in him though and stood pat.
<<You said you bought the QQQQ in October 2000 on Bob Brinker's recommendation. Did you buy the recommended amount in March 2003 as he recommended?>>
--Yes, I bought the QQQs, but I must repeat I only put about 5% of my total portfolio in them. Actually, about a month earlier, I had sold a tech fund which was about 3% of my portfolio, so I really only invested 2% "new" money in the Qs.
Being the honest person I am who never lies, I must admit I did not follow the March 2003 advice (I have stated this before on other boards).
One reason is that I decided to think about it first, and in a short time the market had already gone up so far I decided to sit tight. But the main reason was that I already had critical mass and didn't really need to put any more money at risk.
<<At least if he had the QQQQ on his official record and told his subscribers he was buying with his own money, as I do with my very volatile stocks that go down even more when they are out of favor, then people would have an easier time jumping in.>>
--I agree with that, 100%.
<< But, technically, you are correct.>>
--Thank you! That is a very unkirk-like admission! -:)
<<Not to forget, the real issue is properly accounting for QQQQ in his P1 means his P1 has 29.5% less money in it than he reports AND the annual return of P1 since inception underperforms the W5000 by 1.3% x nearly 20 years...>>
--Right. But once again, I don't think that's bad, considering that very few people have done better than that.
Thanks for writing a post with no insults. |
