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: Yogizuna who wrote (28362)	2/1/2007 7:09:20 PM
From: queenleah	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

If that is the way he [Hulbert] honestly "sees" it, then his "vision" may need some correction... Hulbert seems to have done quite well professionally for many years despite the recent outrage of BrinkerBashers Ltd., and most seem to have little problem with his honesty and ethics...most, other than the BrinkerBasher cultists, that is...and somehow, it seems only recently that they have their problems with Hulbert.

To: Yogizuna who wrote (28362)	2/1/2007 7:42:33 PM
From: dijaexyahoo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

yogizuna said: <<If that is the way he (Hulbert) honestly "sees" it, then his "vision" may need some correction...>> --Yogizuna, Hulbert is being objective about the issue. It is YOU whose "vision" needs correcting, because you are half-blinded by your brinker hatred! Anyone looking at it objectively understands that Hulbert did the right thing. He tracks the PORTFOLIOS of newsletter writers. Brinker,somewhat shadily, I agree, said the QQQ call was not a part of his portfolios. Hulbert, I guess, COULD have put them in there anyway, ARBITRARILY assigning a specific percentage to each portfolio. But if you think about it objectively you will realize that that solution would have opened a monumental can of worms. If he arbitrarily inserted QQQs into Bob's portfolios (even though Bob said they weren't included), how should he (Hulbert) account for TEFQX (shouldn't he have put a 5% weighting of THAT into Portfolio One)? How would he account for Microsoft? Multiply that times HUNDREDS of other newsletter writers, who no doubt recommend or mention things all the time that don't actually go into their portfolios. Try to be objective and look at this problem from Hulbert's point of view. I personally believe he handled it the correct way. He left the QQQs out of Bob's portfolios, but he DID use a footnote so that subscribers to his (hulbert's) newsletter would know about the QQQ call.