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: octavian who wrote (1578)	10/13/2007 10:31:54 PM
From: Kirk ©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2121

<<Not to forget, the real issue is properly accounting for QQQQ in his P1 means his P1 has 29.5% less money in it than he reports AND the annual return of P1 since inception underperforms the W5000 by 1.3% x nearly 20 years...>> --Right. But once again, I don't think that's bad, considering that very few people have done better than that. Not true at all. ANYONE who followed the Wilshire5000 beat the market. There are probably many thousands of us in Los Altos, Atherton, Menlo Park, Portolla Valley, Woodside, etc. etc. etc. who "crushed" the total market by investing in tech in the 1970's, 1980's, 1990's through today... It sounds like there are some hedge fund managers in NY who are/were crushing the markets over the long term too... Warren Buffett and the thousands who invested in his company crushed the market over that period Brinker under performed if you include the QQQQ. The key is long term buy and hold, with some profit taking to diversify, usually crushes anyone who tries to time the market including Brinker. But when it comes to Brinker, what matters is he advertises himself as a market timer and hides the part of his record that shows over the long term, people would do better to ignore him and invest in the Wilshire5000. Did you hear Bill Sharpe tell Brinker that 50:50 was "too conservative?" Much of what I am reading now says 75% in equities is about right for anyone retired who wants to maintain a lifestyle... which is about what I have. About the complimenting me for not making insults. I usually don't insult anyone unless they insult me first, lie about me, ask questions over and over that I already answered, or get obtuse and spin like a top when caught making things up and stating them as facts. I treat reasonable people with respect and expect it in return. I ignored your insult of calling others "bashers" but do you really want me to go back to calling you a shill?

To: octavian who wrote (1578)	10/17/2007 3:06:28 AM
From: Math Junkie	Respond to of 2121

"<<Not to forget, the real issue is properly accounting for QQQQ in his P1 means his P1 has 29.5% less money in it than he reports AND the annual return of P1 since inception underperforms the W5000 by 1.3% x nearly 20 years...>> "--Right..." No, that's not right. Brinker announced in the November 2000 newsletter that the model portfolios were not participating in the trade. That means that properly accounting for QQQQ in his P1 would only include the relatively small losses that occurred from the week the bulletin was received to the week the Nov. issue was received. The P1 calculation I did is an EXAMPLE of how QQQQ could have affected a portfolio. The reason I used a model portfolio was that its published data include dividends and interest, which would otherwise be rather time consuming to calculate. I do not agree that my calculation is the correct way for P1 results to be reported. It is ONE way, and I hope a valid way, that worst-case QQQQ results can be estimated. As for his results since the inception of his model portfolios, Brinker had a lot of recommendations that were not included in them over the years. Ignoring all of them EXCEPT QQQQ seems rather arbitrary to me, especially when one is looking at a time frame that includes one of Brinker's major winners, his initial MSFT recommendation. QQQQ is significant because of the magnitude of its potential effect on one's portfolio, but the same reasoning applies to MSFT. "<< The KEY to MathJunkie's calculation is one MUST load up with something like 25% of the total portfolio with QQQQ AGAIN... after having a third of your portfolio (if you are a P1 subscriber) drop by 75%... how many loaded up again and still believed Brinker after he called for several counter trend rallies on the way down?>> "--I don't know. But I agree that it would have been very hard for most people to buy more QQQs. Maybe some followed the advice but bought the S&P or the W5000 instead of the Qs. I'm sure there were a significant number who had lost confidence in him though and stood pat." I thought our goal was to evaluate Brinker, not his subscribers. The trouble with the "how many loaded up" argument is that it applies equally to the question of how many subscribers took the maximum QQQQ plunge in the first place, and we all know what a fruitless argument that is. The only objective way to handle it is to evaluate the advice as given. This business of taking him literally when it makes him look bad, but switching to what someone thinks his subscribers did when taking him literally works to his benefit, is all too transparent.