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: stockalot who wrote (22791)	7/30/2006 6:21:05 PM
From: Kirk ©	Respond to of 42834

You are correct. That "shres" alias has been caught lying several times in the few posts he has here. I say lie because he said he knows rather than admits he is guessing or making things up for attention, just like dija. As of the June 2006 HFD, Brinker does not make the top 5 newsletters when ranked with 115 others for the last 5 years, with or without risk adjustments AND ignoring his QQQQ advice. Now if you narrow it down by about 2/3rds to only 40 that do mutual funds (rather than stock picking which clearly is the winning method over the long term) then he gets a 5th place overall and 4th when adjusted for risk.

To: stockalot who wrote (22791)	7/30/2006 7:59:49 PM
From: dijaexyahoo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42834

"Brinker's #1 and #2 portfolios both trounced the indexes by a wide margin. IOW, Hulbert used the indexes and ranked BB #1 in timing, but if he had used brinker's model portfolios he (brinker) would have done MUCH better. So stockalot is just blowing smoke." stockalot responded: <<Yes because it is NOT TRUE. Indeed there is an article out there floating around by Hulbert himself talking about how you are better off using Brinker's advice applied to indexes than to apply it to Brinker's fund picks. So No dija's claim no matter how many times he makes it is NOT ACCURATE to what has been written by Hulbert. I'll find it for you when I get time.>> --OK. Do you want to know the actual facts, or are you simply going to keep being wrong because you don't like the facts? First, do you ACTUALLY believe that brinker would print statistics in his newsletter that were flat-out wrong? I know you DID think he was lying about claiming to be the #1 long-term market timer, but you have already been proved WRONG about that. The FACT is, his P1 and P2 beat the active/passive portfolio by a WIDE margin over 5 years. So you are flat WRONG in saying his P1 and P2 did worse than the index. As math has reminded all of us (and you have ignored) Hulbert averages all THREE portfolios together. Obviously (to use your favorite word) that is why you apparently read a Hulbert article that said brinker's fund picks underperformed the averages. Maybe the Hulbert article also covered a different time period. But, obviously, including P3 would bring brinker's results DOWN. The ONLY thing you are correct about is saying that brinker would not have been the #1-rated market timer if the QQQs had been included. And we don't even know THAT for sure. I would say he PROBABLY wouldn't have been #1. But it is certainly possible, given the performance of P1 over the past 5 years, that if Hulbert had used P1 INSTEAD OF the index, he could have included the QQQs and brinker still might have been #1. You need to try to look at things objectively and with an open-mind, instead of through the prism of your preconceived desires.