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: Henry L. Farmer who wrote (22338)	7/21/2006 1:06:52 PM
From: Kirk ©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Thanks You show he is not number 1 as people here have said. Can you also post page 8 of the June HFD that ranks all 115 newsletters Hulbert follows? You didn't mention your list gave the ratings for only a subset of newsletters where only 40 were ranked for 5 years and 23 were ranked for 15 years. BTW, if only the volatility of the QQQQ was added to the risk, I think his portfolio voliatility would have Brinker fall off the rankings... but I don't have hard data, just a hunch. Thanks again for posting the data.

To: Henry L. Farmer who wrote (22338)	7/21/2006 1:16:02 PM
From: Kirk ©	Respond to of 42834

Maybe Brinker got his 1250 level from this chart? From "Chart of the Day" Due in part to inflation, rising interest rates, and geopolitical concerns - the market has struggled since early May (Wednesday's 1.86% gain notwithstanding). In fact, the S&P 500 is down 5.8% since the recent peak of 11 weeks ago. With today's sell-off, the S&P 500 is trading below 1250 and is once again testing support (see solid green line). However, the long-term trend is still up (barely) until proven otherwise.

To: Henry L. Farmer who wrote (22338)	7/21/2006 1:30:11 PM
From: stockalot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Thanks Henry. That follows exactly with what was described on Honey's thread as to Brinker's ratings. He obviously is guilty of lying in his newsletter about his being ranked number 1 by Hulbert. That is disgusting frankly and goes right along with what I have observed. Indeed it seems the only one of many areas that Brinker ranks well in is the "risk adjusted performance". I seem to recall that you were first attracted by that trait seeing that he weathered the 2000-2002 (by deceptive tactics) better than some others. Of course the whole premise is a sham because in Oct 2000 Brinker sent that QQQ bulletin urging conservative and aggressive subscribers to "Act Immediately" for the opportunity of "up to 20% or more gains in two to four months" saying nothing about this was not to be part of his portfolios. So he had people using 13% to 32.5% of an entire equity portfolio to buy 80 plus $ QQQs. He NEVER CLOSED OUT THAT position. So if his total advice was reflected accurately his performance in the risk adjusted columns would obviously plummet. What would possess a person selling a newsletter to lie about it being # 1 by a ratings service when it is not? How would one trust such a person?

To: Henry L. Farmer who wrote (22338)	7/21/2006 2:48:53 PM
From: queen90700	Respond to of 42834

Yes, the record does speak for itself. Brinker's Marketimer is in the top five consistently over fifteen years according to Hulbert. Not bad! That's great, Brinker! Thanks for posting that Mr. Farmer.

To: Henry L. Farmer who wrote (22338)	7/21/2006 8:07:25 PM
From: dijaexyahoo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42834

Henry L. Farmer said: "For the record; Hulbert Financial Digest - June 2006 Leading Newsletters Risk Adjusted Basis:..." --Thank you, Henry, for letting us all know that brinker is in the TOP FOUR in that category for 5, 10 AND 15 years! That is quite an accomplishment by Bob! However, I'm afraid your "report" does NOT "speak for itself" as you claim, because brinker very carefully and very specifically said he was rated #1 for "long term stock market timing." Unfortunately, you reported on "leading newsletters risk adjusted basis." Apples and oranges. There is very little doubt in my mind that brinker would not simply put a flat-out lie in his newsletter. He is way too smart for that! His claim was very carefully worded, no doubt for a reason. If you, stockalot, honey and kirk are so certain that he lied, why don't you write to Hulbert??? Probably because you know very well that Hulbert will write back and say that brinker's claim was accurate. The worst he would say is that brinker spun it a little, but was essentially correct. Anyone who knows brinker knows in his/her heart that I am right.