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 (23149)	8/6/2006 4:18:36 PM
From: Math Junkie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Stockalot, trying to disguise opinions as facts, wrote: "Math trying to provide another alibi and being coy..." He goes on to write: "1) Brinker sold 65% of equity positions in Jan and Aug 2000. That included and indeed for most following Brinker's advice to the letter included the mutual funds in his model portfolios." Here Stockalot seems to claim that he knows what "most" did. Of course, what Brinker's subscribers did is irrelevant, because we are evaluating Brinker, not his subscribers. "2) Brinker called the monies raised by selling the equities in and out of the model portfolios 'cash reserves' ." Correct. Whether the equities were in or out of the model portfolios, he recommended selling part of them, and called the proceeds cash reserves. "3) Brinker sent this very unique one time only special bulletin to each and every subscriber sitting there with cash reserves from their model portfolios urging them to ACT IMMEDIATELY 'IF' they wanted to exploit an opportunity to make 20% or more in 2-4 months." Incorrect. The money didn't have to come from a model portfolio, because, as you acknowledged in 2) above, there was such a thing as equities not held in a model portfolio. Up to that time, he had never put anything in a model portfolio without explicitly saying so at the time of the recommendation. To ASSUME that this would be the only exception would be arbitrary, and, to use your word, "silly," given that the most recent example was TEFQX the previous January, and if that wasn't enough, the fact that he was constantly bragging on his MSFT and VOD calls that were not in the model portfolios certainly should have given people a clue. Brinker has always had a variety of recommended investments to go along with his market timing. Subscribers were not required to follow a model portfolio. For those who did, when the bulletin arrived, they had a choice to make: stay in the model portfolio, or deviate from it by acting on the QQQ recommendation. If you still believe that the QQQ "trade" had to be in the model portfolios, then why aren't you making the same claim for the initial MSFT and VOD recommendations? "QQQubbling about the semantics of this advice is beneath you." It's beneath you too. "Even Hulbert invested according to the advice among the model porfolios and sold the position in November after Brinker 'chose' not to put them in the model portofolios..according to CBS marketwatch." Hulbert made an error in failing to note that Brinker had NEVER put anything into the model portfolios without saying so AT THE TIME OF THE RECOMMENDATION. It's hard to blame hime, because he's only human and has over 180 newsletters to track. "So your alibi is clearly just that." Nope. I have said many times that the QQQ bulletin was a major recommendation, and that Brinker should have found a way of accounting for it in his advertised results. I think you would agree that he should have done that. The only thing we disagree on is the method of accounting for it. I think he should have left the existing model portfolios alone and published at least one alternate portfolio with the QQQ recommendation included. You apparently think he had to put it in his existing portfolios, even though it would be the first time he had done so without explicitly saying so at the time of the recommendation.