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, Moneytalk and Marketimer -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kirk © who wrote (1437)	10/7/2007 8:36:18 PM
From: yaetmo	Respond to of 2121

Where's the Rec Button?

To: Kirk © who wrote (1437)	10/7/2007 9:55:38 PM
From: octavian	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2121

"I think he said 3 to 1--he tripled the market return!" kirk said: <<Do you know what the numbers are or are you going to hedge on this also? Also, if it is something like 45% vs 15% over a period Brinker advertises he got out at the top and back in at the bottom... it is hardly much at all, especially after taxes. It is easier to beat a benchmark when you ignore the first 13 years of under performance and only count the last 7 years when you've done well which is what this analysis since 2000 does.>> --No, I don't remember the numbers. I tried to find math's post but couldn't find it. However, I'm not ignoring "13 years of underperformance." I'm saying if he beat the W5000 by 3-1 from 2000 through 2006, then it seems reasonable to assume that he "crushed the market" from 1991 through 2006. In otherwords, 7 years 3-1 outperformance + 9 years slight underperformance should equal "crushing the market" for the entire 16 years, it seems to me. Do you or math have figures to the contrary? <<Triple the market return over a fairly short period vs 17 years is a rather large "mistake" but I'll concede you simply spoke about something you didn't understand rather than lied. Mark this down.. I was WRONG... you didn't lie.>> --Well, thank you very much for THAT! You might find if you continue to open your mind that I NEVER lie on these boards. But, again, it's not 3-1 over a short period vs. 17 years. We are talking about 3-1 over 7 years vs. a total 16 years (91-06). << You simply stated something as true that wasn't and were wrong.>> --How do you know it wasn't true? All you know is that I made an assumption based upon KNOWN facts. MAYBE I was wrong. I doubt it, but it's possible, I suppose. Now YOU are making an assumption that I was wrong. <<I guess what bugs the heck out of me about you is you speak in absolutes as if You KNOW for a fact something is true... But when we investigate, usually you make terrible errors that favor Brinker and terrible errors or outright lies that put others, such as myself, in a bad light.>> --What you say above is simply not true. In this particular case, you didn't "investigate." You simply said I was wrong, with no evidence.