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

» _grasshopper_ - Re: Re: Liberty

Buffett purchased the Microsoft preferred shares. I assure you he's receiving his dividend.

-- posted by _grasshopper_

» Fahrenheit451 - Re: Re: Good New Year's Morning

"I want bonus points! I started the year off with a compliment to Bob and you all should read it again!"

Bonus points awarded. Score +10 for Kirk.

"Clearly he was wrong in the Bear front as we DID NOT have a bear market."

Oops, that factual inaccuracy just lost you your bonus points.

The fact is that it is currently UNKNOWN whether a bear market started in April. If you are using the definition of a bear as being a 20% decline in the S&P 500 over a period of six months or more, then it can only be known in retrospect, when that index either hits the 20% off point, or makes new all-time highs.

-- posted by Fahrenheit451

» Fahrenheit451 - Re: Re: Posting under aliases

"I don't trust the statements made by anyone that uses an alias, but I understand why do do use aliases"

That is really a very poor rule to use in deciding what to rely on. The ONLY assertions of fact that you should rely on are the ones that you can independently verify, and the ONLY arguments that you should rely on are the ones which make their case based on sound rules of logic, not according to who made them.

Furthermore, why trust someone solely because they have posted under what APPEARS to be a real name, when in most cases you have no way of verifying if it is a real name or not?

-- posted by Fahrenheit451

» Fahrenheit451 - Re: Happy New Year Liberty!

"Please do not take opposing views personally."

Hear, hear! Words to live by!

-- posted by Fahrenheit451

» Fahrenheit451 - Re: Re: Re: A Question

"If you're one of those investors who has a significant portion of your money on the sidelines waiting patiently for Brinker's MOABO call, are you unsettled by the recent QQQ trade?"

Of course.

"Specifically, do you worry that Brinker's eventual MOABO call might occur too early--well above the bottom of the market--just as occurred with his recent QQQ trade? As Will points out, you can't be sanguine about avoiding a 10% downturn in the market, only to get back in (even partially) and watch your investment slip 25-30%."

I will be sanguine as long as the ultimate re-entry point is significantly below the exit point.

"Let me (hopefully) preempt the argument that this QQQ trade was not part of his longer term timing model. That's like arguing that a wide receiver who regularly drops short passes is really quite skilled at catching longer passes into the end zone."

I don't know much about football - but doesn't the quarterback have the opportunity to take the strengths and weaknesses of the receiver into account in deciding what kind of pass to try? It is certainly possible, in the investment side of the analogy, to think about any specific recommendation, and make sure that I understand and agree with the reasoning behind it before taking action. That's what I did in January, and I felt it was a good rule to follow. I violated that rule in October, but I will not do so again.

"I'm primarily interested in knowing whether you have the same level of confidence in Brinker."

My confidence in his long-term outlook has not changed materially. My confidence in his short-term outlook has been pretty much eliminated. If the day comes when he makes his recommendations in such a way that I can't tell which is which, then I would be hard pressed to find a way to use his advice profitably. Hopefully, that day will not come.

-- posted by Fahrenheit451

» walkerman - Re: ACousins

-- posted by walkerman

» Rande - Re: Re: Did somebody mention Hulbert earlier?

gdmoffitt,

Good luck in your search. It's a good idea to evaluate ALL the gurus based on the numbers. Of course, the numbers themselves can be misleading at times. The Association for Investment Management and Research (AIMR) has set the industry standard for performance reporting. Not everyone complies with AIMR or has such compliance verified by independent examination, but most of the good outfits do. One of the requirements under AIMR reporting is that all portfolios since inception must be included. The reason is simple -- if you have a lousy performance or a lousy portfolio you can just start over at any point, or drop the portfolio from the composite. Some have critized Brinker for starting the performance measurement of his P1 and P2 as of 1/88 because he made such a bad call in 1987 by being bullish into the Crash and then going to cash after the fact. Obviously, not AIMR compliant. But, for what they're worth, here's the numbers. Numbers don't lie (though people sometimes do), and even with the disasterous 1987 removed it's plain to see that there is nothing special going on here. Especially if you were to tax-effect the active returns.

(IN ORDER by total return and avg. annualized rate)

 
1/1/88 through 9/30/00: 
                                   Total   Average 
                                   Return   Annual 
                                            Return 
Nasdaq Composite --               1011.30   20.79% 
Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth Avg.    995.68   20.65% 
S&P MidCap 400 --                  887.92   19.68% 
Morningstar Large Growth Avg.      777.88   18.58% 
S&P 500 --                         706.05   17.78% 
Wilshire 5000 --                   665.07   17.30 % 
"Portfolio I" --                      597   16.45% 
Wilshire 4500 --                   595.71   16.43% 
"Portfolio II --                      485   14.85% 
_ 
3/1/90 through 9/30/00: 
_ 
50% Morningstar Large Growth Avg & 
50% Intermediate Government Avg.    319.38  12.99% 
_ 
50% S&P 500 and 50% Lehman Bros. 
Aggregate Bond                      291.15  12.82% 
_ 
"Portfolio III"                        187  10.5% 

BTW -- AIMR is also the sponsor for the Chartered Financial Analyst designation (CFA). Here's a link to their website:

http://www.aimr.org/

I like their home page:

KNOWLEDGE...STANDARDS...PROFESSIONALISM...ETHICS...

-- posted by Rande

» Kirk - Re: No Bear yet.

I wrote: "Clearly he was wrong in the Bear front as we DID NOT have a bear market."

You wrote: Oops, that factual inaccuracy just lost you your bonus points.

No, YOU are wrong. IF you use the definition of a bear market that Brinker uses.. that ALL stocks go down, that there is NO place to hide, that "even the piano player is taken when they back up the truck to the house of ill repute" THEN we DID NOT have a bear market as several sectors of the market have gone up and hit new highs.

SeCTORS have had bear markets, but they have been doing this for ages. Remember MOST stocks had a bear market while the large cap technology stocks were the ONLY stocks going up. Now this is unraveling. You really need to open your mind and let opinions in that are counter to Brinker. I remeber saying on SI that Brinker had lost his credibility with me in early 2000 as he was ONLY reporting news on his show that supported his beliefs. People like Justa and other bots that don't openly post here were quite upset with me but the facts supported (and continue to support) my statements. Remember how Bob was so sure that we'd get high inflation that he went to cash and not bonds? Even GNMA's with his dry powder would have made him look a hero with their 10% plus 2000 gains. I made a little over 30% with strip zeros I bought in early 2000 when I took profits in technology... Sector rotation my friend, not a bear.

He MAY be right in the long term. Actually, his CAUTION may be right in the long term. He ONLY said the odds for a 20% or larger decline are larger than a 5% or greater gain. We got the 5% gain (and a tad more) but never saw the 20% decline in the S&P and only ended down about 10% for 2000. Perhaps we will get a further 10% decline in the S&P500 this year, but this will decimate those holding QQQ so I would either expect him to bail in the Jan MT or hold and realize the downside is probably less than the upside in the S&P500 these days.

Visit my pay-per-click sponsors ------ PLEASE -----------------\/

-- posted by Kirk

» Rande - Re: Re: No Bear yet.

Bear market? What about financials, utilities, healthcare, energy, mid-caps, value in general? Take out techs and telecoms and the overall market did better than last year. 2000 was about as sector-specific as it gets. But after the runup of the previous years, led by only a handful of large tech stocks and a bunch of pie-in-the-sky Net stocks, the indexes were skewed to the group that got hit the worst in 2000. If last year showed anything, it showed that the market could survive a bursting of the tech bubble without a massive market-wide selloff. That should be cause for encouragement, not despair.

-- posted by Rande

» Kirk - Re: Re: Re: Posting under aliases

That is really a very poor rule to use in deciding what to rely on. The ONLY assertions of fact that you should rely on are the ones that you can independently verify, and the ONLY arguments that you should rely on are the ones which make their case based on sound rules of logic, not according to who made them. Furthermore, why trust someone solely because they have posted under what APPEARS to be a real name, when in most cases you have no way of verifying if it is a real name or not?

No, I think it is a VERY good rule for me.

One of the reasons for trusting people is that you can depend on what they say and DO NOT have to go back and verify it. Perhaps you have not experienced this and the concept is foreign or perhaps I am unusual in this?

People with an alias can send me a valid email address and converse with me so I know who they are and then I will trust them...more. Many do this and people can tell you that I don't give out the information. I have a VERY large email data base just for subscription requests....

Of course true trust takes years to earn and minutes to destroy. Some that I ONCE trusted, like some old friends on SI, have destroyed their trust and will NEVER earn it back but I can always be civil. In others, like Rande, my trust grows daily.

Lastly, some people never trust anyone as they are not themselves trustworthy or have had mental trauma that they have not dealt with properly. Sadly, they miss out on the joys of trusting people.

-- posted by Kirk