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: InvesTing who wrote (1762)	10/31/2007 1:56:12 PM
From: Math Junkie	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2121

Very creative. Have you ever considered writing novels? It's really very entertaining seeing people desperately trying to explain away inconvenient facts, LOL! and Math who's whole apology rests on making Brinker's adamant promotion of the QQQ debacle seem irrelevant said: It's not irrelevant and I never said it was. Here's what I REALLY said: "I still believe that Brinker should be reporting the results of his QQQ recommendation along with his other recommendations. I just disagree with you about how he should go about it." I've said this repeatedly, and you ignore it, just like you want to ignore Brinker's statements about the model portfolios in the Nov. 2000 newsletter. I also said: "The only thing I claim for Brinker that he never claimed for himself is that he should be reporting the results of the QQQ trade." and on another board I recently wrote: "The only dishonesty there is that he ONLY reports his model portfolio results. He should also be reporting results for the QQQQ buy. That was a major recommendation because of the percentage of one's portfolio that could be involved, so it should be reported one way or another." Well the "so what" is --that you claim Brinker's one of a kind, up to "1/2 all in" call was simply like his mention of a stock. So you think I said that, huh? Here's what I REALLY said: "Brinker has always had recommendations that were not in the model portfolios, and subscribers have always had the option of either participating in them, or sticking with what they had." Note that his recommendations that were not in the model portfolios have included more ETFs than anything else. That is like saying that recommending jumping off a two foot embankment is the same as recommending jumping off a 2000 ft cliff. The change in QQQ price between the bulletin and the Nov. issue is a lot more like a two foot embankment than a 2000 foot cliff. That, no doubt, is why you're trying to get us to ignore what Brinker wrote about his model portfolios in the Nov. issue! Now, some people say that not many people followed the model portfolios, based on their own circle of friends and acquaintances, and they could be right for all I know. Some of those same people say that few of the people they know participated in the QQQ trade enough to be significantly affected by it. Others say the opposite. Both groups suffer from having too small a statistical sample, and in some cases a self-selected sample as well, as is likely the case with people who send emails to Brinker detractors, for example. There is just too much arbitrariness and opportunity for bias for such discussions to be useful. That is why I much prefer to stick to what Brinker wrote and recommended. Brinker's published model portfolio results are nearly correct, with the exception of the small QQQ losses that occurred between the receipt of the bulletin and the receipt of the Nov. 2000 newsletter. People who try to deny this run the risk of being self-discrediting, as there is always the risk that the reader may find out that Brinker provided full disclosure in November 2000 that the model portfolios were not participating. The problem is that Brinker has been exclusively using his model portfolio returns to represent his results. As you rightly point out, his QQQ recommendations were enthusiastic and ran on for months. He should not be pretending it didn't happen when he advertises his results. I support efforts to get the truth out about Brinker's record, but I maintain that it is necessary to scrupulously stick to the facts when doing so. Writing these elaborate plausibility arguments to deny inconvenient facts serves only to make the writer look like someone with an axe to grind.