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: Kirk © who wrote (16933)	10/23/2002 12:47:28 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Respond to of 42834

kirk, busta bob seems appropo (sp??)... busta dat bank account. imho, bob doesn't even have a model like he leads people to believe... he just checks rates and some technical jargon and goes from there. he's a joke, imho. a bull market genius and a bear market doofus...

To: Kirk © who wrote (16933)	10/23/2002 3:53:19 PM
From: Math Junkie	Respond to of 42834

"That is not true." It is true. "He has a track record of calling counter trend rallies, but it is not good." I know of no evidence that he has called any cyclical trends unless you count the fact that every secular trend begins with a cyclical one, which I think would be giving him too much credit. I guess you're equating counter trend rallies with cyclical trends, but if that's what you're doing, then I think you're weakening your argument. Readers who notice that you are ignoring the distinction between time frames, and that you insist on analyzing Brinker's work using different definitions of terms than he uses, might consider those reasons to conclude that you are biased. However, in this case it is a moot point, because he has never SUCCESSFULLY called both ends of a EITHER a cyclical trend, OR a counter trend rally, unless you count the first QQQ trade, where the gain ended up being too small to justify the risk. "So I felt I have CONCLUSIVE PROOF that his model does not work for calling cyclical bears during a secular bull." Conclusive might be too strong a word. Remember that he changed his model in 1988. I would think that 14 years would be too small a statistical sample to be conclusive proof of anything. That having been said, I think the burden of proof is on the market timer to show that his model can add value, and so far, Brinker has not done this regarding cyclical trends. He hasn't even shared the results of whatever back-testing he may have done, and he certainly hasn't demonstrated it through actual forecasts. "What is left?" Well, he had the market as a buy at the beginning of the secular bull, and he went 65% cash near what may turn out to be the top of the secular bull. If so, then he has done no better than Graham and Buffett, plus the latter have had the added advantage of not offering to forecast cyclical trends. "I have him missing a cyclical bull already that started in Sept 01 and finished in early '02." I agree (and have said so previously). In fact, since inception of his current model in 1988, there have been four cyclical bears and four cyclical bulls, and he has not called both ends of any of them.