Bob Brinker Free Discussion Site 59,820+

http://www.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/i...

Top 111. Mar 8, 2005 5:54 PM

» honeyoneohone - Brinker and Montgomery Funds

.
I don't seem to be able to locate the post, but I'm sure that I recall Kirk mentioning the fact that Brinker was touting the Montgomery Funds when he was hoping to be hired to run a mutual fund for them.

I distinctly remember Brinker almost raving about the funds (there was one in particular that he pushed--I believe it was the Montgomery Growth Fund).

And I recall him praising callers who claimed that they had bought the fund on Brinker's recommendations.

Here is an example of some dialogue with Kangas on NBR where he is touting one of the now defunct Montgomery Funds:

NBR 1/24/97:

BRINKER: Yes, Montgomery Small Cap Opportunity Fund was up 37 percent it's first year 1996. I would buy that fund, and certainly I'd buy the small cap index as well. And small cap companies can be very attractive also.

KANGAS: So you favor the small cap in the future?

BRINKER: Yes.

KANGAS: Over the large cap.

BRINKER: Especially now. The disparity between large and small cap is quite wide at this point, and I would - I would look to include small caps here.

-- posted by honeyoneohone

Top 112. Mar 8, 2005 7:42 PM

» bob90245 - Re: Brinker and Montgomery Funds

In response to Brinker and Montgomery Funds posted by honeyoneohone:

One point worth making is that had viewers taken the opposite advice at that time (Jan 1997), i.e. favor large over small, they would have made much more money.

And from this chart, it appears small caps suffered similar bear market declines as did large caps.

-- posted by bob90245

Top 113. Mar 9, 2005 6:35 AM

» JIMMY62 - It is all about Bob

In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Max SS check posted by azxcvbnm:

I personally would like to see social security benefits severely cut rather than raise taxes trapping us further in a failed system. After driving the wrong way for 1 hour, you turn around and be glad that you didn't go futher. What you don't do is accelerate in the same direction in a futile attempt to drive around the world rather than turn back.

Somewhere I read that this is the Bob Brinker discussion thread.

-- posted by JIMMY62

Top 114. Mar 9, 2005 7:08 AM

» JIMMY62 - Re:

In response to posted by :

The funny thing is that there is no such thing as "my Social Security" for anybody in the current system. It's all just a future promise of the federal government, which the politicians can change any time it suits their purposes to do so.

You talk like Bob Brinker.

US Govt Bonds are just a future promise of the federal government, which the politicians can change any time it suits their purposes to do so.

The fact that they can default does not mean that they will, as you imply.

Bob is against higher taxes for Bob. What is good for the country is a secondary consideration.

Bob's mention of a maximum social security benefit was an arguement against raising the salary cap. Raising the salary cap would be more tax for Bob to pay.

A problem here is Bob does not confine himself to talking about money. He talks about politics, sports, weather, etc.

I like to point out when Bob is wrong and contradictory. If Bob's topic is politics, sports or weather and he makes a mis-statement, I still want to point that out.

Characterising the full faith and credit of the US govt as just a future promise of the federal government, which the politicians can change any time it suits their purposes to do so is scare rhetoric.

Bob is doing nothing to help reach a reasonable revamping of the the social security program when he broadcasts bad information about the program presently and makes wild statements about the impact of suggested changes.

[ Kirk's Editor Comment: I am NOT picking on you, but this is why I have to put an end to the posts here that debate politics. Go HERE if you want to debate politics. Any replies to the post that debate politics rather than discuss what Brinker said or recommended will be deleted. ]

-- posted by JIMMY62

Top 115. Mar 9, 2005 8:13 AM

» arommel88 - Re: Re:

In response to Re: posted by JIMMY62:

This is not Bob's opinion. It was legally determined that SS is an entitlement and not a liability. There is no legal right to the asset.

It really does not matter how the accounting tricks work. What is the reality? Instead of a few people hanging around a few years after retirement they lead a second life of about 30 years after retirement. To feed and cloth and care for these people through SS, we will have to pay taxes, future taxes or they will have to do it themselves.Bob seems to be for the latter. Full "faith and credit" means, taxing power. If the standard of living does not drop in retirement, it will mean a standard of living drops during the working years by high taxes. The only problem is that the current generation now collecting the benefit did not pay high taxes during their working years and instead ran up debt, a future tax on the working demographic to follow. It seems like having it both ways to me.

The politics around it is based upon "does a person have the right to stop working at 65 and collect benefits when there are only 2 workers supporting them?". Should we cut benefits, raise taxes, or both? My opinion is very simple. The benefit should be indexed to a sustainable worker to retiree ratio. That means the retirement age would need to float with the demographic.

-- posted by arommel88

Top 116. Mar 9, 2005 8:17 AM

» honeyoneohone - Re: Re: Brinker and Montgomery Funds

In response to Re: Brinker and Montgomery Funds posted by bob90245:

.
Interesting, Bob...

Brinker is now on record for promoting two fund families (that I know of--there may be more) that turned out to be disasters.

Montgomery Funds (Emerging Growth and others) and the funds that Kevin Landis ran into the ground.

Anyone remember the name of those funds? Anyone still holding any of them?

-- posted by honeyoneohone

http://www.montgomeryfunds.com/

Top 117. Mar 9, 2005 9:31 AM

» honeyoneohone - Brinker Touts Montgomery Funds

In response to Re: Brinker and Montgomery Funds posted by Kirk:

.
Brinker has recommended some very good funds. The Vanguard Funds are excellent and others that he has in his newsletter are also excellent. But the disasters are, well, disastrous.

Here is what happened to what was left of the Montgomery Funds in 2003:

Shareholder Notices:

All Montgomery Fund accounts have transitioned to Wells Fargo Funds or Gartmore Funds. Shareholders are required to reregister for online account access with the new firms. Please contact Wells Fargo Funds or Gartmore Funds to obtain online account access information.

It has been our pleasure to do business with you over the years, and we wish you continued investment success in the future.

-- posted by honeyoneohone

Top 118. Mar 9, 2005 9:40 AM

» honeyoneohone - Brinker and Firsthand Funds

.
The name of the Kevin Landis fund is Firsthand Funds. The one in particular that Brinker touted was TEFQX.

I see by looking at a chart that TEFQX topped out at about $20 per share about the time that Brinker was singing about it. It is now at $2.95...

-- posted by honeyoneohone

Top 119. Mar 9, 2005 10:15 AM

» arommel88 - Re: Brinker Touts Montgomery Funds

In response to Brinker Touts Montgomery Funds posted by honeyoneohone:

I remember Montgomery as a sponser and Bob as the spokes person. They were at least no load and that remains a positive about his advice.I had small positions in them and they did OK except for offshore fund they had. I already had Vanguard and consolidated away the Mongomery experiment after a year. I was in my late 20's and was still learning the basics.

-- posted by arommel88