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 (22812)	7/31/2006 9:37:00 AM
From: queenleah	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 42834

Stockalot said Oh btw Math, as to your take on Queen. Sorry bud but the difference is I was right and it has been proven. The latest jive didn't address at all your claim that her other alias that was banned 'peanut_butter" was a relative. Your theory has NOT been proven. I have said before that it was another member of the family operation. Why would I have to tell you who the person was or how we are related? What would that matter? You twist what you want to and ignore the rest. Silly nonsense that adds nothing and is more information than anyone needs. Just more of your making up your own story about what happened even though you wouldn't have a clue, and then ignoring the facts that don't fit your theory. The only truth that you know is that queen and PB came about the same time and were banished at the same time. That is the only truth. The rest of your construct is your biased and hate-filled fictional version. Did you ever get up in the morning NOT thinking about queen and your vendetta? Try it sometime. By the time I get to my computer in the morning, you've been here already starting in on queen again with your own constructed obsessive vision of what happened. You don't know any more about it than the truth that I've told you that you twist to your own vision. As for the parts you can't twist and misquote, you conveniently ignore them. Have you ever tried just not starting in on queen every morning with your lies? I think if you did, you might see that this ongoing nonsense would stop. Try it sometime. How about try it tomorrow? I was going to say that last night, but I thought why go into it again. Tomorrow, just try leaving your attacks on queen out for a day instead of making up lies and speculation, and ignoring the responses. You might like the effect. Are you capable of that?

To: stockalot who wrote (22812)	7/31/2006 6:02:45 PM
From: Math Junkie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

"The latest jive didn't address at all your claim that her other alias that was banned 'peanut_butter' was a relative." It wasn't my claim. Queen said three days ago, BEFORE I started referring to family members, that "There are several family-member employees here and they all have their jobs." See post 22663. "The facts make it very obvious" Opinion.

To: stockalot who wrote (22812)	7/31/2006 8:03:52 PM
From: dijaexyahoo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42834

stockalot said: <<Writing in the May 05 Hulbert Financial Digest Hulbert gave this information on Brinker's stock picking vs investing in the Wilshire 5000 using his timing. "Consider the gain of a hypothetical portfolio that switched between shares of the Wilshire 5000 index and cash since the beginning of 1987 according to the market-vs-cash allocation of Brinker’s “Aggressive Growth” portfolio. This hypothetical portfolio gained 13.3% annualized through 3/31/05, beating the 11.4% annualized the Wilshire gained over the same period. . Brinker’s fund selections on average have lagged the Wilshire. The HFD reports a 12.1% annualized gain for his “Aggressive” portfolio, which is 1.2 percentage points per year less than what this portfolio would have made if each of its funds had performed as well as the Wilshire during the times they were owned. ">> --OK. Now I see what you are saying. But the fact is, you are wandering way off the subject. This all started with brinker's claim that hulbert had rated him the #1 market timer over the last 5 years, which you and your cohorts ERRONEOUSLY called a lie. It turned out that brinker was telling the truth, and it also turned out that hulbert was using an index to rate market timers. You then said something to the effect that he would not have been #1 if hulbert had used P1, because the indexes beat Bob's P1. Then I told YOU that, according to Marketimer, Brinker's P1 and P2 had BOTH beaten the index handily over 5 years (roughly the same dates used by Hulbert in his market timing rankings--one was as of Jan., the other as of June). Now YOU come back with a Hulbert story that says P1 failed to beat the indexes FROM 1987 THROUGH 2005!!!!! This is completely irrelevant to the discussion we were having. The whole point is, if Hulbert had used P1 for his 5-year market timing survey, instead of the index, brinker would have been #1 by AN EVEN WIDER MARGIN. In fact, brinker might even have been #1 in hulbert had used the QQQs along with P1. And if you have access to the July Marketimer, which I believe you do, YOU KNEW THIS ALL ALONG!!!! The bottom line is, you MISSED THE WHOLE POINT because you preferred to latch onto the memory of some old, irrelevant story you had read, rather than actually "listening" to what I was saying, obviously because you did not WANT TO BELIEVE what I was saying. And you did not want others to believe it!! You even fooled the piglet, I believe. -:) One other point that you will ignore--It's not surprising brinker could not beat the indexes during any period that included the 1990s. If you recall, virtually NO ONE except S&P clones beat the index during that time period--when the whole market was driven by the largest of the large-cap stocks. If those kinds of stocks did not dominate your portfolio, you weren't going to beat the index,period. Brinker, believing in diversification, effectively had NO CHANCE to beat the S&P in the 1990s.