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 (16681)	9/2/2002 10:01:59 AM
From: Kirk ©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

I have to side with you on this one Richard. Geode would do his cause better if he tried to be more factual than the opposition. Right now, they both are lacking here. Brimelow came out and said "don't follow the advice of ANY market timer" after devoting a full article telling how one "subscriber who followed Brinker's less than clear advice" got results that were FAR, FAR different than advertised. This is not a "free pass" as Geode says. Brimelow and Hulbert STILL have some of their facts wrong, but that is not surprising given how hard it is to get the truth from the source. The fact I can't reconcile is how Hulbert decided to ONLY track Brinkers portfolios where he sold the QQQs he purchased for them in his paper account (at about the same price he bought so he figured it was about a wash) all the while Brinker was using pages and pages of his newsletter for the next several months to ENCOURAGE his subscribers to Buy the Nasdaq 100 AND to average down or buy for the first time in the January 2001 newsletter. Hulbert has to draw the conclusion that the only way to get Brinker's advertised performance numbers is to IGNORE ALL of his written advice and to just mirror the model portfolios. He should make it CLEAR that following his WRITTEN ADVICE that is OFF THE BOOKS usually leads to SIGNIFICANT under performance. The footnote hints of this but he doesn't have that footnote in his monthly wrapup of leading market timing newsletters where Brinker is back in the top 5. What is upsetting is Brinker's advice, even with the QQQs fully accounted for, is not that different than what asset allocators or Wilshire5000 buy and holders get. All have beaten the average market timer.... but the hiding of Brinker's true record to make him look better than the average he is just stinks and discredits his work. Kirk

To: Math Junkie who wrote (16681)	9/2/2002 3:11:51 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Sorry Richard, you're still not getting the point. Brimelow has written three articles that I know of about Bob. Even in his most recent article, he has continued his original conclusion that Brinker's subscribers can't read properly. I referred to his original Forbes article because IMO Brimelow still hasn't come to what I think is the proper conclusion about this entire mess. He is getting closer to understanding it but only after getting more facts. (Why he was writing commentary without the facts in the first place is a head scratcher.) IMO, when he gets all the facts he has the ability (though maybe not the will, after all he's in the financial profession) to come to the proper conclusion. The reality is Brimelow was wrong in his original article. He's still wrong but less so. One of these days he may actually be right. It shouldn't be up to his readers though to make him right. He's a journalist and he should have done more DD and digging. cbs.marketwatch.com "It was because Hulbert caught the fact that QQQ had not been put in Brinker's model portfolio published in the letter subsequent to the Special Alert that he sold it out, and didn't take any more loss. Quite obviously, most readers and listeners are not so systematic." Hulbert smart, Brinker gets a pass because it wasn't in his model portfolios, subscribers idiots. OK, so he doesn't come right out and say idiots but his implication is clear to me. He has said it over the course of 8 months in 3 articles. Basically his admonition is not that Brinker's advice was incompetent but that his subscribers took too much risk because they didn't understand Brinker properly.