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: fahrenheit451 who wrote (22496)	7/24/2006 9:22:47 PM
From: peanut_butter	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42834

I am not calling retired in prescott a liar. He may FEEL that his retirement is ruined, but that's his opinion. I repeat: No one was "ruined" financially if they followed the guidelines. They lost a percentage of their portfolio. I personally doubt that very many put 50% of their cash reserves in, certainly not many retirees. But we'll never know that so what good does it do to go over the same old six-year-old mistakes. Same old article, same old saw. Prescott didn't even say that he PUT 50% of his "stock market funds" (whatever he means by that--does he mean portfolio, or cash reserves?) into the market. If he's retired, then he should not be considering himself an "aggressive" investor so I sure hope he didn't put 50% of cash reserves in. But even if he did, he was and is in no way "ruined" financially by that one call, no matter what he says and no matter what he feels. I can understand that he's dismayed, but he's not ruined. And neither was anyone else. What more do you want? I understand they don't do burning at the stake much any more, or even tar and feather in the public square.

To: fahrenheit451 who wrote (22496)	7/24/2006 9:59:31 PM
From: Math Junkie	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 42834

The problem with that investor's story is that he made three contradictory claims: 1. He followed Bob's advice, 2. He put half his stock market funds in QQQ, and 3. That is what ruined his retirement. Brinker has been very consistent in advising people in or near retirement to adopt conservative investment objectives. The maximum his bulletin recommended for such people was 30%, and it was 30% of cash reserves, not 30% of stock market funds. With 65% of the stock market funds in cash reserves, that means the most Brinker recommended was 19.5% of a retired subscriber's stock market funds into QQQ. Since Brinker consistently recommends only half of a retired person's portfolio should be in the stock market, that means the MOST he recommended for a retired person was about 10% of the portfolio in QQQ. At the time of that article QQQ was near the bottom, down about 70%, so it would have temporarily brought a retired subscriber's total portfolio down by about 7%. If that was enough to ruin someone's retirement, then they were playing it too close to the edge, IMO. Based on what he says, he went way beyond what Brinker recommended for retired people. I don't doubt that there are people who did this, but blaming that on Brinker makes about as much sense as the other side claiming that the QQQ advice didn't matter because "very few" allegedly followed it at the highest levels. We should evaluate Brinker on the advice he gives, not what we guess his subscribers did. As far as the info on Brinker's bio, Davidk555 provided that here last week: Message 22638952