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: shres who wrote (22515)	7/25/2006 10:17:40 AM
From: Honey_Bee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Bob Brinker's Marketimer is worse than a waste of money if you follow his so-called "model portfolios." And being a subscriber can open you up to all sorts of dangerous-to-your-financial-health recommendations. According to Hulbert's, Bob Brinker's Marketimer rates so far down on Hulbert's "top performers" lists, that in February 2006 Hulbert decided to create a special "Timing-only category" so Brinker could be rated "number one" on a "HYPOTHETICAL PORTFOLIO" created by Mark Hulbert. (Brinker NEVER rates higher than third place for his REAL portfolios.) In this same "timing-only category" Hulbert also rated Bob Brinker on his "bond-timing." Brinker scored number one there, too. Problem is, Brinker doesn't claim to time the bond market. Ya can't make this stuff up, folks. The third "timing only category" for which Hulbert created a portfolio was Gold. You guessed it--Brinker didn't make it on this one. ROFLOL... What a hoot both of these guys are--Mark Hulbert and Bob Brinker--two peas in a pod. . .

To: shres who wrote (22515)	7/25/2006 10:18:39 AM
From: Kirk ©	Respond to of 42834

shres liess: "No, in fact Kirk won't even post it," I know you monitor my site like clockwork. I posted the details there so some folks will have to go there to read it. Why should I post new information here when it was being discussed there? "he sends it to Hunny" We threw somoene off Suite101 who had the same very bad habit of making fun of people's screen names to "harass them." An email I got the other day suggests you are the same nasty person posting here with a name you use to attack not just me, but "Honey" also. Given a quick look at your posts that almost all have swipes at me even if the topic her is Brinker, lends validity to that observation. Please use people's actual screen names here. If you can't make your points without making fun of their names, then it simply shows you are too childish to make valid points on the merits of the points and you should be escorted out.

To: shres who wrote (22515)	7/25/2006 7:48:40 PM
From: dijaexyahoo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

<<Willy, Hunny and Kirk are all now fully aware that Hulbert Financial Digest ranks Bob Brinker's Marketimer number one for long-term stock market timing through January 31, 2006.>> --Thanks again for the info. As I have been saying all along, it was OBVIOUS to anyone with an OPEN MIND that no one could have beaten brinker in market timing over the past 15 years! With the Qs left out of the picture, he was virtually perfect. The question is, why were all these bashers in denial? I think we all know the answer to that one! -:) <<But do they acknowledge Brinker's outstanding rating? No, in fact Kirk won't even post it, he sends it to Hunny, who pooh-poohs it and Willy ignores it.>> --Of course. I "knew" that when the truth came out, they would just start attacking from other angles. It's what they do. The bottom line is, they wanted to make everyone think that Brinker had lied. When they found out he HADN'T lied, shouldn't they have just said "We were wrong?" Brinker was man enough to say that, but not our bashers. <<The rating was right there in HFD and these bashers were fully aware of it.>> --You could be right, but that is pure speculation. That's a basher trick. I suspect they just jumped to a conclusion off the ratings in the July HFD (which did not include market timing ratings) and then, after some of us questioned their conclusion, they didn't want to look it up for fear of finding out they were wrong. I'm kind of surprised that kirk apparently did eventually look it up. But maybe he didn't, and "many" e-mailed the info to him. -:) <<What Hulbert did was to measure the relative success of various market timers, NOT the performance of relative portfolios. Brinker came out way on top and the bashers just can't handle that fact even though it's right there in front of them.>> --It kills them. That's why they're spending hours trying to figure out ways to downplay it, and even turn it around and make it into a negative. Apparently, one thing they are doing is saying that his PORTFOLIOS did not do as well as the method Hulbert used, so that means Hulbert is in cahoots with him. What a joke! All they have to do is look in their July Marketimers, and they will see that brinker's portfolio I and II have BOTH beaten the Active/Passive portfolio over 3 years and 5 years. They both beat the A/P pretty substantially over 5 years. I've already posted this info here once, but they ignored it. I wonder why????? LOL