THREAD IS CLOSED! --- Bob Brinker Free Discussion Site 11K+

Top 5044. Jan 1, 2001 9:50 PM

» BillBowden - Re: Liberty

In response to message posted by Will_L:

Warren Buffet stumbled for a couple years--did he change--did he jump into dot coms and techs? Nope, he pretty much held the same portfolio

Didn't Warren Buffet recently add Microsoft to his portfolio in February 2000? Did he ride it all the way down from 100 to 43?

-- posted by BillBowden

Top 5045. Jan 1, 2001 9:51 PM

» NYBondBabe - Re: cancel that subscription, PLEASE

In response to message posted by Gadfly:

Dear Gadfly- I ran my numbers last week and came out about where you did. I called Vanguard last week and reinstated a 100% position of my MM in VTSMX & VFINX. Now all I have to do is get out of my shares of the Triple Q's which I hold in the mid 80.00 range since I was dumb enough to "act immediately." Once I am out of those, I will have that money put into the S&P as well. Wish us both luck!

-- posted by NYBondBabe

Top 5046. Jan 1, 2001 9:58 PM

» Felipe - BillBowden

In response to message posted by BillBowden:

Rest easy, Bill, knowing that Berkshire Hathaway shares are up about 65% since the low in February. So whatever he did it's worked out pretty well, wouldn't you agree?

BTW, Will's right. If you read some of his recent writings, he's sticking with what's worked for him throughout his impressive career.

-- posted by Felipe

Top 5047. Jan 1, 2001 10:11 PM

» ACousins - Re: BillBowden

In response to message posted by Felipe:

As I understand it, WB's record is reflected in the share price of Berkshire. He's selling actual performance not the illusion of a crystal ball.

I vaguely remember BB making fun of WB's purchase of coke I think it was. Anyone remember this?

-- posted by ACousins

Top 5048. Jan 1, 2001 10:29 PM

» Felipe - ACousins

In response to message posted by ACousins:

"I vaguely remember BB making fun of WB's purchase of coke I think it was. Anyone remember this?"

I don't follow Brinker...didn't even know he existed until about a year ago. But Brinker criticizing Warren Buffett seems analogous to a young little leaguer -- with a batting average of .080 -- finding fault with Babe Ruth's swinging motion.

-- posted by Felipe

Top 5049. Jan 1, 2001 10:38 PM

» dija - Re: Re: BillBowden

In response to message posted by ACousins:

I vaguely remember BB making fun of WB's purchase of coke I think it was. Anyone remember this?

I am almost positive that BB never made fun of Warren Buffett. He did refer to the fact he was underperforming in 1999 due to his lack of tech holdings, if I recall correctly. A few years ago, he went on and on about Coke being overvalued, which it was, but he never criticized Buffett for holding it. That's how I recall it, anyway.

-- posted by dija

Top 5050. Jan 1, 2001 10:55 PM

» dija - Re: Re: Re: Best market prognosticator

In response to message posted by Kirk:

Kirk, thanks for the tip on posting in italics. I did it and it worked!!! (see my previous post) -:o).

No, some of us kicked butt (vs. the market). Of course, I was mostly technology...

Kirk, how did you do in 2000? Are you still mostly in technology, or did you TIME the market and cut back on tech? If you didn't do some sort of timing (reverse momentum or whatever) you must have lost a lot of your 1993-1999 profits back.

Despite my admiration for Brinker's abilities, I must admit that I am not convinced market timing will beat buy-and-hold in the long run. So far, my feeble attempts at it have failed, but on those occasions I went AGAINST BB's advice. Brinker's timing record since 1990 would be very good right now, you must admit, if he hadn't recommended the QQQ trade and ruined it. But even in Jan. when he said to cut back, one of the funds I sold was Clipper Fund, which is up something like 30% for 2000. So, even though he was right about the direction of the market, it (following his timing advice) didn't really work for me.

PS: I will be clicking on your links in the future. No time right now..

-- posted by dija

http://www.fool.com/portfolios/RuleBreak...
http://www.fool.com/portfolios/RuleMaker...

Top 5051. Jan 1, 2001 11:00 PM

» Kirk - Re: Kirk, how did you do in 2000?

In response to message posted by dija:

I don't time MARKETS. I buy a business and often I can get more for the business than I might think it is worth compared to other businesses I might be interested in. Thsu, I might sell some or all of that business and buy another. Most often I just buy n hold, but I do take profits out of really good picks to diversify risk.

Tables are worth 1000's of words. To see what I own, you probably need to subscribe to my newsletter. I was selling technology as it peaked by taking profits as the values I could get were pretty good compared to how much money the companies were making. I then redeployed the assets into banks, bonds, etc. where I saw better PEG for the buck so to speak.


Kirk's Online               2000      1999     $100K
Newsletter                12/31/00              now
======================     ======    ======    =====
Stock Portfolio            -11.5%    +117%     $192.2
Mutual Fund Portfolio      - 7.7%    +21.9%    $112.6
Total of the two           -10.3%    +75.8%    $157.7
======================     ======    ======    ======
Benchmarks:
SPY                         -9.7%    +19.5%    $107.9
DJIA                       - 6.2%    +25.2%    $117.5
QQQ                        -36.1%     N/A
NASDAQ Comp                -39.3%    +85.6%    $112.7
 
Motley Fool Rulebreaker    -52.6%    +61.6%    $ 76.7
Motley Fool Rulemaker      -35.6%    +41.5%    $ 91.2
 
(Unaudited results)

What is instructive is we had a VERY good year followed by a VERY TOUGH year. This is really good for evaluating performance as it is the total you have left that matters.

Not bad. Stock portfolio was up much more than Nasdaq in 1999, almost by 50% . In 2000 it fell by less. Better performance with less risk or just luck? Who knows, but I'm pleased.

I am VERY proud of this performance. I beat the NASDAQ by a large amount when it was going up (1999) and I beat it by a factor of three in a bad year (2000). not bad...

-- posted by Kirk

http://www.fundx.com/9912fx.pdf

Top 5052. Jan 1, 2001 11:13 PM

» gdmoffitt - Re: Did somebody mention Hulbert earlier?

In response to message posted by Rande:

Good quote Rande, I'll have to look that article up. I bought a subscription to Hulbert's a couple of months ago just along those lines of thinking. Assuming Hulbert's analysis is objective and valid, there certainly other newsletters out there with not only better performance but better services to offer (access via internet, frequent updates, etc). I pointed this out to JustaBot, who was claiming that BB's newsletter was the only one with a web discussion site. Justa had no reply for that..

I'll also be looking for the Forbes annual January review of newsletters, which grades them according to performance in up *and* down markets. Forbes uses Hulbert data for that review.

It was interesting reviewing sample copies of some of the more highly rated newsletters. They do approach things quite differently. In fact, one of the top ones, No-Load Fund-X (see pdf link below), appeared to be merely ranking according to past performance, with a bias for consistency. Each fund's score was an average of it's 1,3,6 & 12 month return, plus points if they were in the top 15 of each period. So...correct me if I'm crazy, but in a long bull market they'd look great would they not?

But look at the "category 3" top funds, the ones labeled "Best long term record - Recommended", I noted they were all international or global funds! Huh? Some diversification. So closer examination is needed.

I think a lot of the people with that "cultlike" devotion are, to be honest, just too lazy to do a little research. Here's the link to that sample copy of the newsletter (it's their 12/99 issue).

-- posted by gdmoffitt