THREAD FULL!!! Bob_Brinker_Discussion_41,600 is CLOSED!!!!!

» Kirk - Duration

.
I had time today to hear one caller and it was classic Brinker Speak. (BTW, great wind once I left the windfest to sail a windier site and then the party after back at the yacht club was a blast... fun to see so many of us old farts dancing like kids!)

I had a laugh when Bob just couldn't say "I don't know what duration means..."

He CLEARLY did not know the answer when a caller asked.

He TRIED to talk on and on about what the easy question of "average maturity" meant while hoping the caller would forget he asked about duration. He almost got away with it but the caller brought it up later again.... Poor Bob... just couldn't admit he forgot or didn't know as can happen to even the best.

Did you hear how he "pretended" to answer the question buy saying "duration is less than average maturity.... except .... mumble.... strip zeros... because of coupon interest.... mumbo jumbo... " The idiot caller even thanked him for explaining it so clearly! I nearly drove my van into the water I was laughing so hard after that!!!

The definition is so easy and yet he faked he knew the answer which means anyone with a clue about investing had a good laugh at how he pretended to know something he didn't and his big, fat ego wouldn't let him say he didn't know the answer.

Here Bob... as a public service, here is a simple definition. I suspect you will say tomorrow or next week "as we discussed with a caller yesterday, duration is the change in value of a fixed income security that will result from a 1% change in interest rates."

Was that hard?

For example, a long term strip might have a duration of 20% meaning it will gain 20% in value for a 1% drop in interest rates.

or "a 5 year duration means the bond will decrease in value by 5% if interest rates rise 1% and increase in value by 5% if interest rates fall 1%."

Here is a link for your summaries
http://www.investorwords.com/cgi-bin/get...

oh yes... you are welcome.

And if anyone like dija wonders why some of us that might be considered as professionals or just intereseted in accuracy don't respect Brinker... this was a perfect example. He makes fun of others for being wrong or riding down a bear market and then he pulls stunts like this.

-- posted by Kirk

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Will_L - Yes Kirk, the same guy Bsing that answer is promising the follow

Yes Kirk, the same guy Bsing that answer is promising the following.

A) He claims that the market is in a secular bear and will be going down for the next several years--perhaps 15 to 20.

B) He claims that he can identify periods in that disasterous market like Japan has experienced to go fully invested and make a killing (those would be yer "cyclical bulls" according the salesguy.

Now fine and dandy. Notice that he doesn't talk about his model much anymore? Could it be that our discussion of what a bunch of crap that whole myth about the model, has caused him to not use it quite as often to justify his impossible claims?

But pretend there is a model that Brinker believes in (he doesn't and has proven that), does the model know we are in a secular bear market?

How does the model (or Brinker who is the only one to benefit by selling it's "proprietary" information) know that if it turns positive that the resultant gangbuster bull market will last at least 1 year and less than 3 years? The "model" we were told many times look out 1-3 months. How does it now predict a great market for 1-3 years? Or is this the proprietor's fantasy based on his crystal ball of what the market will do?

We've been there before recall "After the counter trend rally the market will "roll over" and then we'll have moabo". When his QQQs went down from his mid-80's purchase he said "The presidential election flap DELAYED the CTR and it will take a little longer for the QQQs to have their CTR, then the market will roll over and we will have moabo"

You see Brinker gets an idea--a sales scheme--a "game plan" if you will. He does the same thing with his football picks I believe. Remember he was bragging about going to "several casions" to pick up his winnings from the super bowl? Beyond why would he have bet the same game at "several casinos", his discussion of how sure he was of how the game was going to go, at the time was much like his "model" (read crystal ball) crap. I can see Brinker analyzing the game and looking at this and that and then thinking he can predict not just the outcome but the score with precision. (NOTE, people selling Sports betting "models" do exactly the same thing Brinker does with his "marketimer", -- play on people's belief that someone out there knows how to beat the system).

Anyway we were in May and Brinker was still talking about his Super Bowl win! Moabo Baybee!!
Well last year ole Bobby the Greek was every bit as sure of his "proprietary model's" prediction that the Giants would win. I forget now but I believe they lost by 30 points. We never heard one word about that game after the event. Certainly never heard 5 months later, that Brinker went down to several casinos where he dropped a bundle on the Giants, just to see what his money was doing.

Now last year he was just as sure he could "identify counter trend rallies" in a bear market.---That went like the Giants game and "we don't talk about that one"

His next super bowl prediction-- "Cyclical bull in Secular bear"-- The market is terrible but we will get in and out of it deftly and clean up.

You can bet one thing- It will never be as clean and clear as that promise. If there is anything done that can be spun to be close to right, he will talk about the positive aspects forever--just like visiting the casino's 5 months afterwards to pick up Brinker's money.

If it is another complete disaster like his "we have identified an OPPORTUNITY in the QQQs ACT IMMEDIATELY" --look for him to simply hide for a year and then say meekly "we were wrong" and began SELLING the next Super bowl. He hasn't tried as a major promotion "Shorting secular bears" . Maybe that's an idea for ya Bobby the Greek? No charge and please please don't thank me by sending me a free subscription.

-- posted by Will_L

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Kirk - Speaking of Models

.
that used to be based on the DJIA

To:da_cheif who wrote (2755)
From: Rich1 Sunday, Jun 2, 2002 7:38 AM
View Replies (1) | Respond to of 2757

Cheify interesting facts...
Wonder where the Dow Jones Industrial Average would be if the Dow Jones people hadn't changed the Dow Jones Industrials in November of 1999 by replacing the "old economy" (Chevron, Goodyear, Sears and Union Carbide with the "new economy" (Microsoft, Intel, Home Depot and SBC Communication)? Since that date the stocks added are, on average, down 32% while the stocks removed are, on average, up 18%. Along those lines, note that HD is down 20+% and Sears is up 100%! (thanks to Dorsey Wright for this data)

-- posted by Kirk

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Will_L - Re: Speaking of Models

In response to message posted by Kirk:

Thanks Kirk,

I've often guessed that if the dow had not switched horses that it would be up since Brinker's move. What is funny is that Brinker used to bash the valuations of the Nasdaq atocks. But since he made his biggest play ever in them, he went silent. He want's to act like it is the "broad market" that has fallen. In truth the "broad market" has been taken down by overinflated technology and telecom companies. The "old economy" has not done badly in aggregate.

Brinker knows this but it doesn't fit with his bogus claim that his model measures the whole market. The funny thing is that he for years up through 98 in fact used the Dow as his basis.

The other "funny" thing is that he claimed at the time that tech and telecom (the entire Nasdaq market) was NOT a part of his model. He must have beleived that because he kept holding his VOD, MSFT and UTEK (that company he didn't disclose was paying him when he had it as his ONLY Buy). Those were the only stocks he had as a hold. The only fund he recommended to purchase--in Jan. Feb March 2000 newsletters was a race horse tech B2B fund called TEFQX. Brinker moved it to a hold after it fell 90 percent and then in a sneaky move --dropped it from mention.

So that model used to be about the DOW. If the dow hadn't added tech, it would be up from his call. Brinker said that his model wasn't about the Nasdaq (thus technology), yet it is tech and telecom that is responsible for the bear market. The rest of the market has simply been normal rotational activity.

Claiming that Brinker's model is a valid investment tool, is like a neophyte magician claiming to be levitating the comely lady when you can see the wires. The hoax is obvious.

-- posted by Will_L

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» AL_W - Re: Re: Speaking of Models

In response to message posted by Will_L:

"The only fund he recommended to purchase--in Jan. Feb March 2000 newsletters was a race horse tech B2B fund called TEFQX. Brinker moved it to a hold after it fell 90 percent and then in a sneaky move --dropped it from mention."

Will, I suspect this got dropped because it has become insignificant part ( $ wise, that is ) of one's portfolio.

-- posted by AL_W

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» KLR - Re: Re: Re: Speaking of Models

In response to message posted by AL_W:

...Will, I suspect this got dropped because it has become insignificant part ( $ wise, that is ) of one's portfolio...

Hell, Al, if Brinker's long term secular bear comes 'round the QQQs may be dropped for the same reason.

-- posted by KLR

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Will_L - Re: Re: Re: Re: Speaking of Models

In response to message posted by KLR:

"Hell, Al, if Brinker's long term secular bear comes 'round the QQQs may be dropped for the same reason. "

I guess I had you measured a little high KLR. I thought you were nearly Walmart Greeter material. I was gonna put in a good word for you real soon and get my recruiting bonus. But now you go and say something silly.

It's not "if" . Brinker said his secular bear began in March 2000. Nuff Said.

Now the only question is if the market pays any more attention to Brinker's secular bear than it did to his CTR.

-- posted by Will_L

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Kirk - Re: Speaking of Models

In response to message posted by KLR:

Would we be in a "secular Bear Market" if Brinker had stuck to the DJIA and if those tech stocks had not been substituted for those value stocks back in Nov. 1999?

DJIA vs SPY vs QQQ since 10/16/00 when Brinker "Act Immediately"
<img src=http://cbs.marketwatch.com/charts/int-ad... width=452 height=366>

Wonder where the Dow Jones Industrial Average would be if the Dow Jones people hadn't changed the Dow Jones Industrials in November of 1999 by replacing the "old economy" (Chevron, Goodyear, Sears and Union Carbide with the "new economy" (Microsoft, Intel, Home Depot and SBC Communication)? Since that date the stocks added are, on average, down 32% while the stocks removed are, on average, up 18%.

DJIA vs SPY since 1/5/00
<img src=http://cbs.marketwatch.com/charts/int-ad... width=452 height=366>

BTW, I doubt anyone in the mainstream media is too anxious to point this out....they blew the switch to value so bad while only a few of us were warning about sector rotation.

-- posted by Kirk

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» walkerman - Re: Walkerman's a glutton for punishment

In response to message posted by Felipe:
So, Felipe, you're buying into the Clinton explanation that he was never alone with Monica, because there were always other people somewhere in the White House while Monica was on her knees, playing
a tune on his skin flute? As for the basketball game...you can describe it anyway you want. Unfortunately for you, you are losing on the scoreboard. Now, I know that all of the lemming-like brinkerbasherbots are behind you, but that just shows how much I am winning by.

-- posted by walkerman

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Kirk - Caller who followed Bob down 33%?

.
I actually heard another caller after the "duration caller."

I believe she said she follwed and subscribed to the newsletter and was thanking Bob for helping her?

She said her conservative portfolio WAS worth $1.2M and it is now only worth $800K. Seems odd that someone would be down more than the S&P500 by following the advice Brinker implies he gives.... I bet she blames herself for not interpreting the good advice correctly, eh?

She was near retirement and was using the portfolio for income to live on while following Bob's advice so perhaps she spent some of it???

What a shame to have been so aggressive when she was close to retirement and she needs the money... I guess she learned that from listening to Money Talk?

-- posted by Kirk

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions