Bob Brinker Free Discussion Site 59,820+

Top 10. Jan 31, 2005 3:31 PM

» arommel88 - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If Only Brinker Had...

In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: If Only Brinker Had... posted by JIMMY62:

The implication is that investors did better in that time period than if they had been in equal quality corporates.

I think intermediate treasuries, not corporates are comparible on a risk adjusted basis. Bob did and still does recommend GNMAs to my knowledge. GNMA funds did well but did suffer from prepayment vs intermediate treasuries. Intermediate treasuries would have been the better investment considering the drop in rates. However I remember him talking about ignoring the volitility of +10/-10 and not discussing the timing GNMAs for fixed income types so I am not so sure he has been in the bond timing business. If you are bond timeing then GNMAs are betting on flat rates I figure.

-- posted by arommel88

Top 11. Jan 31, 2005 3:45 PM

» JIMMY62 - There you go again

In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If Only Brinker Had... posted by permabear:

around the time he went bearish on the market in 2000.

You say "Bob went bearish on the market in 2000" as if that tells the story.

Bob pulled part of the equities out of the market in 2000. Bob left part of the equities in the market in 2000. Bob put part of the equities that he took out of the market in 2000 back into the market in 2000.

Bob had less money in equities at the end of 2000 than he had at the start. In itself that make him less bullish and more bearish that before.

I characterize his position in the spring of 2000 as neutral or hedged, not bearish in the usual sence of the term.

Back on topic:
Bob has consistently advised against high yeild bond funds. Bob has consistently advised for Ginnie Mae mutual funds. Ginnie Mae mutual funds have higher yield than US govt bond funds. Ginnie Mae mutual funds are further up the risk curve than US govt bond funds. How far?

I am wondering where on the bond rating scales do Ginnie Mae plot? Are they equivalent to AAA or what?

If that question could be answered, the next question would be are Ginnie Maes a better bet than their equivalent corporate bond?

What is the alternative that Bob is using for comparison with Ginnie Mae funds?

-- posted by JIMMY62

Top 12. Jan 31, 2005 4:08 PM

» nomore9to5 - Saturday Caller re Private SS Accounts

Anyone hear the caller regarding using TIPS in the proposed private social security accounts? IMHO this is a great idea. If one was limited to only investing in TIPS in their private account, there would be no need for a "bridge loan", they would be protected against inflation, and they could count it towards their estate. Plus the money would be taken out of Washington.

Although I prefer equities, IMO this is a great first step.

Am I missing something?

Billy
Website http://www.geocities.com/ba264

-- posted by nomore9to5

Top 13. Jan 31, 2005 4:34 PM

» allancoleman - Re: There you go again

In response to There you go again posted by JIMMY62:

at the present time bob has the majority of his fixed income portfolio in GNMA's , the next weighting is the Short-Term Investment Grade , the next is High Yield Corporate , and the smallest allocation is the Inflation-Protected securities . the percentages really don't matter cause they have changed over time .

so the answer to your question is bob compares corporate , high yield , and inflation protected securities to gnmas for fixed income . and bob specificly has NOT recommended high yield for those that already have stock market exposure .

and to my knowledge , bob has been recommending gnmas since i've been listening to him in the mid 90's . and i would agree with aromme188 that bob hasn't been much of a bond market timer .

-- posted by allancoleman

Top 14. Jan 31, 2005 6:25 PM

» AL_W - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If Only Brinker Had...

In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: If Only Brinker Had... posted by JIMMY62:

About the Ginnie Mae funds recommendations, that is a topic that I have not noticed being evaluated here. Can you say when Bob first recommended buying Ginnie Mae funds and when he recommend selling?

Jimmy, in 2000, Bob sent the flock to CASH and missed near 1/2 the Bond Bull. Bob was in cash at first because he expected an inflationary recession, hence a Bond Bear. After it became real obvious that he was wrong and [ my guess ] needing a winning move, the switched to Ginnies.

So much for his ability to predict.

I think Bob's 2000 call, who some call great when looking back only at it's surface, was made for all for the wrong reasons. He just accidentally got a winning hand.

This was talked about a lot here.

-- posted by AL_W

Top 15. Jan 31, 2005 7:59 PM

» arommel88 - Re: Re: : If Only Brinker Had...

In response to Re: : If Only Brinker Had... posted by Kirk:

I think there is a nuance that a GNMA bond fund has over a typical bond fund. The pre payment risk along with the higher yield to compensate tends to take some guess work out of buying bonds. You do not find the people betting on falling rates buying them to drive up the price hence the shorter one may fall. A good investment for the uninformed perhaps. Anyway that is the argument for it.

-- posted by arommel88

Top 16. Feb 1, 2005 3:14 PM

» JIMMY62 - If Only Brinker Had a MOABO...

In response to Re: : If Only Brinker Had... posted by Kirk:

In 2000, he SPECIFICALLY recommended people holding cash reserves NOT buy GNMAs because he thought Greenspan was going to raise rates.

My recollection has turned to dry powder.

We had to keep that dry powder because a MOABO was just around the corner. Perhaps even in the next issue of the MARKETIMER NEWSLETTER. Or better yet, in the next BULLETIN.

WHEE! Keep your secret code secret and your powder dry!

-- posted by JIMMY62

Top 17. Feb 1, 2005 3:19 PM

» JIMMY62 - BULLETIN, BS

I just checked, rest easy, there is no bulletin posted.

-- posted by JIMMY62

Top 18. Feb 1, 2005 3:30 PM

» JIMMY62 - If Only Brinker Had...

In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If Only Brinker Had... posted by AL_W:

Bob sent the flock to CASH and missed near 1/2 the Bond Bull. Bob was in cash at first because he expected an inflationary recession, hence a Bond Bear.

One again Bob is less than remembered.

Remember when posters were fretting that Bob would retire?

Lest I go too far, Bob's January 2000 call reinforced an impulse for me. Having sold some growth funds during the week before the famous call, I was emboldeded to sell even more.

Happy for me I did not sell the value funds. I felt I was hedging--taking money off the table. I also thought that was what Bob was doing.

-- posted by JIMMY62