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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Bob Brinker: Market Savant & Radio Host -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Math Junkie who wrote (16574)	8/21/2002 3:43:14 PM
From: sat2000	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Richard I think ten people following one of Bob's model portfolios for the past ten years could very easily have ten different sets of holdings and allocations. Some would have gone to 100% cash in Jan 2000, while some went 60% followed by an additional 5% in August. Some may have played on the Spring QQQ merry go round. Then in October 2000 I am sure some never went any where near the act immediately QQQ special bulletin. Some at various levels from 20%-50%. Some even bet all their cash in QQQ. Mark Hulbert did not know how to score that one so he changed horses in the middle of the stream. None of the Brinker faithful has even been able to answer a few questions for me, maybe you will take a stab at it. If Mark Hulbert acted immediately and bought QQQ in October 2000 around $83 as per bob's instructions, how is it he sold them when the November newsletter came out and bob had them on hold? I don't see how this could be construed as following a model portfolio. If a guy who makes it his business to follow model portfolios can't figure out bob's model portfolio how can anyone else? Do you think IF QQQ had been at $100 when the November 2000 newsletter came out bob would have included it in all model portfolios?

To: Math Junkie who wrote (16574)	8/21/2002 4:04:54 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

The problem with this type of nonsense is that Brinker isn't: 1. just his model portfolios 2. accurate in his model portfolios (the %'s don't even match his $ amounts for goodness sake) If he were, I wouldn't have a problem with him because then he would be accurate and honest. He is neither. You keep wanting to cherry pick and ignore the remainder of the facts. That's just what Brimelow is doing. Hiding from the truth however won't make the truth any different. Do you honestly think that if the QQQ trade had been a success, Brinker wouldn't be using that as a reason to buy his newsletter or plunk money into his wrap accounts? It isn't ok to have two sets of books and use only the one set which makes you look good while ignoring the other set.