Joe, I've answered all those questions before, not that it matters what I did. I'll try to be brief.
In January 2000 Brinker recommended selling 60% of stock holdings. Did you follow that recommendation?
No, I was out of state for a time in December 1999 and January 2000 and didn't even hear about Brinker's very successful call until later, to my dismay. Obviously, I personally lost a whole lot more of my portfolio by not hearing and following Brinker's advice.
That would leave you with 60% cash reserves. If only. Didn't happen. The October bulletin recommended that subscribers with conservative objectives use 20 to 30% of cash reserves. 20% of 60% would be 12% of the total portfolio based on the January values. Did you put in the minimum % recommended or a lesser amount?
No, I didn't have 60% in cash reserves, so I put in what I decided to put in. So I heeded the advice, but on my own terms, which is what I usually do.
And I'll say it again. I suspect that a whole lot of people got in trouble because they overextended themselves, blew past the guidelines and did things they should not have done, entirely on their own decisions. I can understand that too. Brinker was so brilliant on the Jan. call that I can see some people deciding at that point he could do no wrong, and being so excited with the Oct. bulletin that they decided to blow right past what he recommended. We don't know that, but we don't know a lot of it, most of it is speculation. What I don't understand is the years-long blaming and moaning process.
To me, it's all about percentages. If the percentages were followed, yes, painful. But nobody's portfolio was "ruined" even if they lost a percentage of their cash reserves. Even if they invested 50% of cash reserves, the Qs never went to zero, so even they lost less than 30% of their portfolios. (50% of 60% is 30%). Painful, yes, but not ruinous. |
