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

http://www.af.mil/news/n20020531_0879.sh...

Top 1613. Jun 4, 2002 12:17 PM

» Kirk - An Example of good timing

Time out from the daily food fight to read this most excellent example of good timing from the Air Force.

"We have a saying in the Air Force that 'timing is everything,'" Thornton said. "We are thrilled that our flights, although inadvertent, were able to help the police restore order and prevent further violence."

I wonder if anyone will say next week "as we talked about before, figher planes are most excellent tools to restore order in a riot" ?

-- posted by Kirk

Top 1614. Jun 4, 2002 12:18 PM

» shallam - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Model Debate - LaLa and AC

AC:? I still think he was expecting a short 20% bear followed by a new bull. He used to say over and over that he had put money into short term MMFs so as to have it available to go back to work in the stock market.

SH: I think the MM recommendation was based on safety and perhaps tax simplicity. He clearly didn't see the bull market in bonds coming. He really would have had Coup had he recommended subscribers go into bonds.
Going into the MM makes sense if you want safety (no share price fluctuation) and no capital gains tax paperwork to wrestle with (assuming taxable accounts).

AC:
I do not believe he had any idea that the market would fall this far or this long although I do give him credit for mulling the possibility of a Nas return to 1998 panic bear levels. However, I give more weight to his ACTIONS vs his WORDS as words are cheap. His ACTIONS belie his words and shows that his longterm model wasn't sufficiently sensitive to or was confused by this bear.

SH: Perhaps. I think he expected more of a choppy up and down, but mostly down market as opposed to the almost straight down market the we've had. I believe that he expected to see more significant CTR's and that he would be able to identify several of them. I do remember him say at one point that could be a "big deal," stated in an ominous tone. On the other hand the 40/60 hedge does suggest some doubt in his mind of a full on big ole nasty bear.

-- posted by shallam

Top 1615. Jun 4, 2002 12:28 PM

» JIMMY62 - Model Debate - LaLa and AC

In response to message posted by shallam:

Bob must keep some crucial event just over the horizon. This to hold subscriptions.

If Bob had said something like Buy a lot of bonds with your reserves because this bear thing is going to last a while he would have hurt newsletter sales.

-- posted by JIMMY62

Top 1616. Jun 4, 2002 12:36 PM

» Kirk - Re: Model Debate - LaLa and AC

In response to message posted by JIMMY62:

J62:
1: Bob must keep some crucial event just over the horizon. This to hold subscriptions.

2: If Bob had said something like Buy a lot of bonds with your reserves because this bear thing is going to last a while he would have hurt newsletter sales.

J62-1: Agree. He was planning to do the CT rallies with the more volatile QQQ index. The summer CT rally that he botched the buy AND the sell on (but still made a slight profit) were the "free crack samples" to hook the masses.

When I was a kid, they used to give out free cigs downtown and the Cancer stick companies were even kind enough to send free smokes to the soldiers on duty so they were not bored... don't want to have our 18 yr olds bored, do we?... but that is another issue...

J62-2: False. Not saying I did this any better, but he COULD have put the whole thing in STRIP Zeros then sold those after about a year for a 33 to 51% gain. I did this with SOME of my money in my newsletter and personal accounts.

He CLEARLY had plans to make short term gains during the bear market and he said he wanted the cash liquid. He gave one free example for a CT gain where people made $2 on an 82 investment. This got them ready to lose big time on the next two. It seems he has given up on that and is now trying to sell "intermediate term" market timing as true long term is 5 or even 20 years.

-- posted by Kirk

Top 1617. Jun 4, 2002 12:37 PM

» ACousins - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Model Debate - LaLa and AC

In response to message posted by shallam:

I think the MM recommendation was based on safety and perhaps tax simplicity. He clearly didn't see the bull market bonds coming.

I remember Bob saying that he was in MMFs in lieu of other types of cash or bond alternatives in order to have cash reserves available to put back to work when the longterm model said to buy. He said that repeatedly and even quite recently.

Apparently, the longterm model is sitting down and can't figure out if the market is going up or going down. That's because, Bob, the market is going up and down. Revise that model will ya?

=============

He could always have said, the bear is going to be a long one so put your cash reserves into CDs! Remember those days of 8% CDs?

-- posted by ACousins

Top 1618. Jun 4, 2002 12:51 PM

» shallam - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Model Debate - LaLa and

SH1:
I think the MM recommendation was based on safety and perhaps tax simplicity. He clearly didn't see the bull market bonds coming.

AC:
I remember Bob saying that he was in MMFs in lieu of other types of cash or bond alternatives in order to have cash reserves available to put back to work when the longterm model said to buy. He said that repeatedly and even quite recently.

SH2:
I guess that are two issues with regard to time here. First, how long the money will be sitting in bond or MM before going back in. The shorter this period the more MM makes sense since short term fluctions and tax nuisances may apply. Longer time frames would suport bonds since the yield is larger. Secondly, how quickly and easily one can take the money out might be an issue (i.e., liquidity). Sounds like your quote is more focused on the latter. Do bond funds have restrictions that make them less liquid than MM funds? I don't own any bond fund so I don't know -- but my impression was that they were pretty similar. If they are essentially the same it's hard for me to understand BB's point.

-- posted by shallam

Top 1619. Jun 4, 2002 1:00 PM

» JIMMY62 - Model Debate - LaLa and AC

In response to message posted by ACousins:

Apparently, the long-term model is sitting down and can't figure out if the market is going up or going down. That's because, Bob, the market is going up and down. Revise that model will ya?

Bob is marketing a long-term stock market timing model.
Strictly speaking and by Bob's rules,
carping about it not emitting a
safe to return to fully invested position
reading since January 2000 is not right.

Perhaps you can tell us, even using 20/20 hindsight,
on what day since January 2000 would it have been
safe to retrurn to a fully invested position
in VFINX or SPYs .

Remember the model is calibrated and thereby limited to the S&P 500.

No fair jumping in and out of the market.

-- posted by JIMMY62

Top 1620. Jun 4, 2002 1:01 PM

» shallam - Re: Re: Model Debate - LaLa and AC

J62:
If Bob had said something like Buy a lot of bonds with your reserves because this bear thing is going to last a while he would have hurt newsletter sales.

SH:
Strongly disagree. BB would have made significant returns and shown timing prowess. The former is more important since the best way to sell newletters is to make money. I think even critics would have raised an eyebrow had he pulled that off.

-- posted by shallam

Top 1621. Jun 4, 2002 1:02 PM

» Will_L - You realize that none of this "calling a cyclical bull in a secu

You realize that none of this "calling a cyclical bull in a secular bear with my long term timing model" makes a lick of sense. People are falling all over themselves to do what Brinker is trying to do--make that seem soooo different than his CTR fiasco. It is not. There is no evidence whatsoever that it is different.

Ok-the "long term model is going to pick out a "cyclical bull" in this secular bear. Does the model and it's owner not know that this is a long term bear market if they are calling "cyclical bulls"-essentially Counter trend rallies?

Let's say there is a model. Let's say it gives a buy signal. Now Brinker is telling you that signal will get you in to a bull market that will last 1 to 3 years and then the bear will resume.

Who told Brinker that? Who told the model it had to find a situation that would last between 12 and 36 months. When after the model gives it's signal does one expect this bull to begin? How much downside would one expect and tolerate before the cyclical bull begins. Will Brinker recommend "selling on weakness" or "capital preservation" should he again screw the pooch? These questions would be necessary since the man has a very consistant record of inconsistancy.

The model he claims looks out 1 to 3 months--never has claimed to look out any longer than that to my knowlege. It gives a signal. Let's say people buy. Let's say the market goes down 10%. Brinker says "Our model is predicting a cyclical bull market. We recommend that subscribers stay fully invested awaiting the cyclical bull market which we expect to begin immenently."

Let's say the market goes down another 10%. "Our cyclical bull market has been delayed. We recommend subscribers remain full invested. We expect the the cyclical bull market to begin over the next few months.

Let's say the market falls another 10%. "We recommend subscribers remain fully invested in order to take advantage of the cyclical bull market which we expect to begin over the next several months.

The market falls another 10%. We recommend subscribers retain their fully invested position awaiting the next cyclical bull market. We do not sell on weakness.

The market hangs. Talk of the "cyclical bull market", totally disappears.

"We recommend subscribers pay particular attention and accumulate cash reserves. It is our feeling that there will be a tremendous buying opportunity in 2006, the 'off presidential' election year. We feel we will be able to identify a singularly great buying opportuinty. We are calling that opportunity MOABO.

-- posted by Will_L