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 (17471)	2/21/2003 1:34:56 PM
From: Kirk ©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

You left off much. Use Steve's summary here suite101.com 1982 right ???(what newsletter did he publish then? Hulbert only gives him credit back to 1986.) 1986 underperformed a great deal so started a new portfolio according to Hulbert. 1987 wrong Missed a 30% decline... pretty bad for a marketimer 1988 WRONG went to 100% cash 1988 to 1991 messed around with allocation. Late 1990/early 1991 right HUh? He got back in 100% just before the gulf war bear. Early 2000 right Late 2000 (QQQ) wrong 2002 Wrong. Market drops over 20% and he is still in it. His OWN WORDS say he would not keep any money in a bear market if his model was bearish. Why Keep QQQ & TEFQX as it fell another 50%? Again, measure him on his claims. I thought how he missed the 20% drop in 1998 and how he handled it was the first big clue it is just showbiz. Or how about this summary tinyurl.com Every month he says "Hold for future recovery" as QQQ falls. I make that a new call each month. Buy and holders or asset allocators, we invest that way, but a market timer should be able to know if the market is going down 50% and then tell you to get out.

To: Math Junkie who wrote (17471)	2/21/2003 3:14:00 PM
From: Tim Bagwell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

I see I gave him too low a batting average; it was actually 0.600. Fictitious numbers aside, Brinker dropped his bat at home plate and ran away mad like some little kid swinging wide at his first pitch at T-ball. Now all the coaches and parents have to go console the poor little guy to get him to go back and try again. But quitters always make good losers.

To: Math Junkie who wrote (17471)	2/22/2003 7:58:49 AM
From: sat2000	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Richard nice catch on my typo Re: 1990, you are right. I am glad to see we do agree when as you put it. “I agree that his market timing has not been shown to add sufficient value to be worth the effort compared to buy-and-hold with asset allocation.”” Maybe all we disagree on is what is a “major allocation change”? If the QQQ buy with 20-50% of cash reserves in October 2000 was a major allocation change OK I agree with you on that. To me you have set the standard as a major allocation change to be in the 20-50% range. Actually total portfolio the percentages would be smaller since the October 2000 act immediately bulletin dealt with cash reserves. But I’ll agree to your threshold to define major allocation change. So now that we have that established. Was bob making a major allocation change in Feb 1989 to raise his allocation to 50% from 0%? Was bob making a major allocation change in November of the same year to raise his allocation to 75% from 50%? The DOW was 300 points higher. In February 1990 bob went from 75% to 40% after the DOW was down about 100 points. Was that a making a major allocation change? Slowly in 1990 bob went from 40% to 85% by July. Each time the DOW was higher than when he went to 0% in 1988. Are any of these making a major allocation change worthy of round tripper status? I say they go down in the scorebook as a K, not stacking the deck. He is 0 for 4 in my book since all those calls were wrong. Those three missed opportunities I mentioned in #17457 I still stand by. All three had the potential for gains of 29% to 52%. He was expecting gains in excess of 20% in October 2000 on QQQ. That is another 0 for 3 game. I disagree on the 1982 call due to incomplete information, more like a hit by pitch at best. The Late 1990/early 1991 right call you made I can’t agree with, see above) The Jan. 2000 call was right. Score one for dabrink. We do agree on the October 2000 QQQ call. Even if you disallow my three missed opportunity potential trades he is still hitting 1 for 6 or .166. That won’t earn you big league meal money for long. You say he is 3 for 5 and hitting .600. I say it is closer to 1 for 9and hitting a measly .111. BTW to make up for the 1982 call I disagree with I am willing to give bob a mulligan on the call when he panicked out entirely in 1988, hardly outstanding. Maybe since one of the higher rated timers according to Hulbert can’t add sufficient value to be worth the effort proves the point that nobody should attempt it with more than 5% or so of a portfolio. Steve Thompson

To: Math Junkie who wrote (17471)	2/22/2003 9:57:15 PM
From: BigShoulders	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Re: I agree that his market timing has not been shown to add sufficient value to be worth the effort compared to buy-and-hold with asset allocation. Richard: What do you consider to be sufficient value? Here are Brinker's portfolios with the QQQ trade included compared to staying fully invested (since 1/5/2000 when he shifted 60% equity to cash) Portfolio 1 50% of cash reserve in QQQ +15.7% 30% of cash reserve in QQQ +25.6% Portfolio 2 30% of cash reserve in QQQ +21.0% 20% of cash reserve in QQQ +26.0% Here's the comparison had he not made the QQQ trade: Portfolio 1 +40.6% Portfolio 2 +35.9% Regards BigShoulders