david k. said:
<<Leaving that aside, I realized that many casual listeners to Bob Brinker have the same impression I do. Bob is a master, a true master at spin. I don't think even you or Math would argue with that.>>
--I would not argue that, except to add that kirk and Will L. are almost as good! -:)
<< By way of example, a new subscriber of mine recently asked me how long Bob had been bullish on gold and gave him credit for telling a caller to invest up to 5% of a portfolio in gold. The caller didn't realize that Bob has been BEARISH on gold for as long as he as been on the radio and only heard Bob's comment in isolation that was meant to spin it to make him look good.>>
--The caller wasn't LISTENING. Every time I have heard Bob talk about gold, he has made it very clear he doesn't recommend it. But then he adds something like, "if you want to have 5% or so in your portfolio to protect against disaster, I have no problem with that."
Every brinker basher always wants to blame brinker for errors that his subscribers or listeners make!
<<Now as for Bob being correct from 1991 through 1999 that was a correct call. But another way to look at Bob over the last 18 years is that he has basically been a buy and holder with the exception of 2000-March 2003 during which time he went to 65% cash but then recommended that up to half of that be put into an investment that is still down close to 50% eight years later!>>
--The above is, of course, all correct, but to me it is big-time spin. "He has basically been a buy-and-holder" is a great way to downplay his great success.
From 1992 to my retirement in 2001 I read "everything." I KNOW there were very, very few pundits who stayed bullish all those years. I can't even count the number of times I read in Barrons or someplace else that some highly-regarded pundit "has been bullish all through this bull market, but has now turned bearish."
Many people forget that doomsayers were everywhere during that great bull.
I don't know of anyone other than Brinker, Abby Cohen and Battapaglia who were bullish the whole time, and Brinker was the ONLY ONE of those 3 who turned cautious in 2000!
For him to do all of that, and then turn bullish again at almost exactly the right time in 2003 is amazing to anyone who is not determined to criticize him. I certainly can't write it off as coincidence, or luck, or a "coin flip."
The QQQs obviously were a total fiasco. They came out of left field, for whatever reason. But I am convinced they had nothing to do with his long-term timing model. It was some kind of experiment that failed.
If he hadn't made that fatal error, he would be being hailed as a genius of geniuses for his amazing feat of staying bullish all through the bull, cutting back in 2000, and then going 100% bullish again in 2003.
To try to take away from his performance by saying he is "just a buy and holder," or "everyone was bullish then" (another favorite basher trick) is just plain nasty, or ignorant, or close-minded.
That's just my opinion. |
