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: ZinDenver who wrote (41959)	1/7/2009 12:23:46 PM
From: Honey_Bee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

ZinDenver, Here are the 2008 numbers that I posted yesterday in the comments section of my Blog. You can bet your next year's salary, that the elan person read it, he just wanted to give himself an excuse to call me names. I wrote: "Brinker does include the one year numbers in the January issue of Marketimer. However, it seems obvious that he doesn't want those numbers setting there on his website. Who in their right mind would subscribe to a newsletter if they can go to the website and read that Portfolio I lost 39.7%; Portfolio II lost 37.4%; and the Active/passive lost 37.8% in 2008. The Total Stock Market Fund (VTSMX) and the S&P 500 Index Fund lost 37%." (However, to avoid any further misunderstandings, I will post these numbers on the blog front page.) . .

To: ZinDenver who wrote (41959)	1/7/2009 3:57:38 PM
From: BFree	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Let me see if I understand. Mark Hulbert says Bob Brinker is worthy of marketiming honor roll after he rode the bear market down. Bob Brinker alters the way he reports his results to avoid making the embarassing disclosure that he missed the bear market. Bob Brinker for years claimed that California General Obligation Bonds were totally safe. Then 3 weeks ago he for the first time said that only those like he owned were safe and said that those were backed by the treasury. He told the caller that she was on her own and couldn't give an opinion as to whether her California GOs were safe or not. Last weekend he went back to the all California GOs were safe because the state was too big to fail. I see that some of you will do anything to attack those reporting these shortcomings and inconsistancies. My question would be why? Is there a thread where you do the same fronting for Maddoff's irregularities? The desire to hide poor performance or dishonesty is beyond contempt.