Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : The Critical Investing Workshop -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: djia101362 who wrote (26319)	7/23/2000 6:03:56 AM
From: KM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35685

That is total BS. Get your facts right before you spout and malign the man in a public forum. He did NOT tell his listeners to go to 100% cash. I believe it was 40%. It was an extremely prescient call which, if followed, saved them tremendous grief in the months that followed. The call in late May to go long the QQQ was also extremely astute and has yielded something in the order of 25% since then. The whole problem with this market is that people think that 25% in two months isn't satisfactory and that preservation of capital is something to be sneered at. I thought by now that attitude would have been tempered by the staggering losses suffered by people, even some on this thread, but evidently not. I don't think Brinker is god but if he goes out on a limb and makes a bear market call, I'd take it quite seriously. He has been unusually accurate in the past and there is no reason to believe that will change. Money not lost in many cases through astute assessment of risk vs. reward based on valuation or other criteria and conservative capital management is sweeter than money gained through sheer luck, like your JDSU speculation.

To: djia101362 who wrote (26319)	7/23/2000 2:33:21 PM
From: Math Junkie	Respond to of 35685

I've been a subscriber to Brinker's newsletter for about five years, and listening to his radio program for somewhat longer than that, but I didn't really start taking his advice until about a year ago. I did so because I saw that over the previous four years I would have made more money, with less risk, if I had followed his recommendations instead of what I had been doing. This is in spite of the fact that I had made good money in the market during that period. His January call was 60% cash, not 100%, and not 40%. It is true that people who followed his advice sat out the March peak in the NASDAQ, but they also sat out the huge sell-off. It is true that the markets are close to even YTD. What his followers have gained is returns about even with the market, with a LOT less risk. If some sectors are higher, so what? No one is ever going to be able to tell you which way every sector is going to move, and that is in fact not necessary for those who follow his advice to invest in a diversified way. I agree that he comes across as arrogant sometimes, but I don't care, because he gives sound advice. It is true that he draws much praise from people who have benefited from his advice, and it is possible that some of them may have jokingly referred to him as a god at some point, but he has NEVER called himself a god, and in fact objects when others do so. I think Cramer overestimates Brinker's ability to move markets. To see this, you need only look at how the NASDAQ ignored his recommendations form January through March. Maybe there are some new listeners who have blind faith, but those of us who have been following his work for a number of years know both his strengths and weaknesses, and those of us who follow his advice have found that his strengths outweigh his weaknesses. It is true that valuations enter into Brinker's model, but they are not the only factor. Valuations have been at unprecedented heights for some time, but he continued to recommend a 100% invested position until there was clear evidence of too-rapid economic growth and an aggressive Fed. Your comparison to Elaine Garzarelli is interesting, because when she was making the bear call AT A BOTTOM, Brinker was declaring the market a raging buy. Responding to one of your later posts, it is true that some of his followers have suffered tax consequences, although the 60-40 allocation did allow those with tax-deferred accounts to concentrate their selling there. I will admit, however, that he should have coached his subscribers on mitigating the tax consequences when he made the call.