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 : Stock and Bond Market-Timing: Can it be Done? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Math Junkie who wrote (114)	1/22/2009 4:33:54 PM
From: BFree	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3605

Math making the ever so weak case for Bob Brinker's Marketiming said: <Note that in my initial post I said "The surprising thing is that market timing doesn't have to be all that good to beat the market." It's not necessary to reply on Brinker's reported results to make that point. One can come to the same conclusion even if his reported results are completely ignored. As an example, if the only equity one were invested in were an S&P 500 fund, and one were partially out of the market during one bear market, fully invested through another bear market, and fully invested the rest of the time, one would still outperform that index for any period that included both bear markets. And yet the above example of market timing would still qualify as not "all that good." In Brinker's case, he was also completely to partially out of the market for part of a bull market from 1988 through 1990, so whether he beat the index or not for the past twenty years would depend on whether the performance penalty from that error was larger or smaller than the performance bonus from being partially out of the market during the one bear market.>> So we know that the only time Bob Brinker was truly bearish and went to 100% cash he was wrong. We know that when he was not bearish but not bullish in 2000 he removed 65% from the market and then recommended in a special bulletin that people take up to half of tha money and buy QQQs. That advice given in Oct 2000 stands to this day. And we know that Bob Brinker is on record as an absolute bull today. He said that the secular bear market ended on June 13, 2006. He was bullish at the 1565 top. He has called a buying opportunity at 1450, at 1380, at mid 1300s, at mid 1200s and at mid 800s for you subscribers. He claimed that the only reason the market was not going straight up in May 2008 was becaue of oil prices. Oil was 130.00 then. It's around 40 now. He doesn't talk about the market or his QQQ call or his end to the secular bear market or his myriad of bottoms that he has called since fall 2007. He doesn't mention marketiming or his marketiming model. But you are here pushing his approach to investing? Now that is truly NOT amazing.

To: Math Junkie who wrote (114)	1/23/2009 6:37:53 PM
From: Kirk ©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3605

Thanks. That makes sense. I'd still like to verify Yahoo's numbers. Also, using VFINX is not standard because there is a 0.2% a year expense drag which becomes significant over 20 years. The expense ratio has come down over time to only 0.15% now but I think it was significantly higher 20 years ago. I'd like to find an accurate source for the S&P500 return by year going as far back as possible. I could not find it on Vanguard or S&P's site but I only had a short time to look. The numbers I calculate for five, ten, and fifteen years are the same as the ones Brinker shows. What about his reported 3-yr return? What did he show and what did you calculate? He gave those numbers last year in his January 2008 Marketimer.

To: Math Junkie who wrote (114)	1/23/2009 7:50:52 PM
From: joefromspringfield	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3605

Math Can you explain why the performance numbers Brinker reported for 2008 are different than the numbers Hulbert reported? Here are the numbers Brinker reported: P-1 = -39.7% P-2 = -37.4% P-3 = -23.9% Here are the numbers Hulbert reported in Jan. HFD: P-1 = -38.5% (timing only? -37%) P-2 = -36.9% P-3 = -18.1% Since Brinker didn't report his one year 2008 numbers on his website, I calculate his returns. My number agreed with what Brinker reported above. It looks to me like Hulbert is grading on the curve. No wonder Brinker made his honor roll.