Moneytalk Bob Brinker Summaries - Information ONLY

http://biz.yahoo.com/ms/010201/4151.html

Top 607. Oct 22, 2002 5:54 PM

» David_Korn - Commentary and Interpretation of Bob Brinker's Moneytalk

In response to message posted by Jonathon:

Jonathon, according to my archives the last time that Bob Brinker mentioned the business-to-business fund was during the February 24-25, 2001 Moneytalk broadcast. The b2b fund you are referring to is the e-commerce fund from Firsthand Funds (Ticker: TEFQX) which Bob recommended purchase of in the spring of 2000. Here is an excerpt from my newsletter where Bob last mentioned TEFQX:

Excerpt from DavidK's February 24-25, 2001 newsletter:

Caller: This caller invested $10,000 in the Firsthand e-Commerce Mutual fund (TEFQX) that Bob recommended at the beginning of last year. He has lost a lot of money in it and wants to know what Bob recommends at this juncture. Bob noted that he recommended investors put no more than 5% of their portfolio in that fund and that it is extremely volatile, but that he would hold it at this juncture.

EC: TEFQX lost 55% in calendar year 2000 and its having trouble this year as well closing Friday at $4.59. Thanks to my subscriber Ron for mailing me an article about the business-to-business sector which can be found in the February 13, 2001 edition of Investor's Business Daily. Worth reading if you are a holder of TEFQX or other b2b stocks. In addition, I found this review of TEFQX that came out a few weeks ago:

It bears noting that in the following month, James Cramer, of TheStreet.Com recommended holders of TEFQX sell that fund into the market's strength. That would have been good advice for Brinker to give, but instead he simply kept it on hold. Here are excerpts from my newsletters in the months that followed:

Excerpt from DavidK's newsletter of May 19-20, 2001

***********
TEFQX
***********

EC: I know that many of you probably own TEFQX per Bob's recommendation in 2000. Although he has stopped talking about it, and it has sort of disappeared from his newsletter, I am still keeping an eye on it. Not surprising, TEFQX bottomed on April 4th at $2.41 along with the Nasdaq, but took off as well since then, closing at $3.95 on Friday. James Cramer, of Thestreet.com, mentioned TEFQX in an article last week - unfortunately, it wasn't in a positive manner. He suggests that you sell out of TEFQX (and a few other dog funds) if you can get a decent rally in them.

http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/funds/sm...

Excerpt from DavidK's newsletter of May 19-20, 2001May 26-27, 2001

***********
TEFQX
***********

EC: Since I know that many of you own TEFQX per Bob's recommendation in 2000, I like to keep you informed of any news on the Fund. You may recall last week I provided a link to an article by James Cramer where he suggests selling TEFQX on a Nasdaq rally. I wanted to point out that given the incredibly high beta stocks and volatile holdings in that fund, you can expect it to rally significantly when the Nasdaq does rally. Indeed, the fund made news this week for posting a strong 7.22% gain. Of course, as the article points out, the fund is down significantly year-to-date, and even more so since the time daBrink recommended it. Here is the article:

http://biz.yahoo.com/smart/010525/200105...

To find out how to subscribe to my newsletter service and web site, just e-mail me by clicking on the following link:

mailto:davidk555@earthlink.net

-- posted by David_Korn

http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk...

Top 608. Oct 22, 2002 10:22 PM

» Kirk - QQQ Radio and Library Advice

.
From http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk...

To:Richard Palm who wrote (16923)
From: geode00 Wednesday, Oct 23, 2002 12:30 AM
View Replies (1) | Respond to of 16929

The disastrous QQQ "trade" was in the newsletter and not on the radio, so the facts are that his radio followers are not doing too badly, whereas those of his subscribers who took the QQQ advice are much worse off

The biggie, which took it from 83 down to 19 and change wasn't on the radio except when it was mentioned from time to time by accident and through the fault of the lackluster call screener. There was the original QQQ trade which was bizarre to say the least. In that one, it was ok to enter when Bob advised but you had to ignore the sell advice.

Now if you can model Bob's good advice and bad advice and figure out a way to get the good and totally ignore the bad, you'd have something. Come to think of it, it may be best just to ignore all of it and do something proven over time like reasonable asset allocation or winning the lottery.

To:geode00 who wrote (16927)
From: Kirk Wednesday, Oct 23, 2002 12:42 AM
View Replies (1) | Respond to of 16929

Didn't he advise people to go to the Library to read the details of the QQQ advice? Plenty of time for people to get in then the plug was pulled on Library subscriptions... so those that were in had to subscribe to get follow-up advice. Could there be a plan there more than just a cover-up? If Hulbert wasn't going to include the QQQs in the portfolios, why did he need to cover it up? The Bulletin was undated with no prices... people might think it was from the bottom or brand new if they just happened to find it. Then again, the month after month of saying to average in as they dropped then pulling the plug without a sell at $40 is there in gory details.
Hmmmmm

To:Kirk who wrote (16928)
From: davidk555 Wednesday, Oct 23, 2002 1:07 AM
Respond to of 16929

Kirk, you are correct. For several weeks following the QQQ recommendation, Bob Brinker suggested that people go read his Marketimer in the library if they were interested in his short term trading outlook. Not too long after the QQQ trade went sour, Marketimer was discontinued to public libraries. I verified that with three libraries in my area.
As to the reasons why Bob didn't discuss QQQ on the radio? He has offered different reasons at different times. In the radio broadcast immediately following the "Act Immediately" bulletin, his reason was that he could "move markets."

I am not sure why he wouldn't have wanted to "move markets" in January, 2001 when he recommended the QQQ purchase for the second time after it had fallen quite precipitously! Here is an excerpt of my newsletter from the Moneytalk broadcasts following the Act Immediately bulletin in October, 2000

Excerpt from David Korn's Stock Market Commentary, Interpretation of Moneytalk (Bob Brinker Host), Financial Education, Helpful Links, Guest Editorials and Special Alert E-mail Service.

October 21-22, 2000 Edition (NOTE: Calendar Year 2000)

Caller: Right out the gate, the very first caller asked Bob about the Marketimer Bulletin he just received. The caller asked whether he should "act immediately" and purchase the QQQ shares Monday morning. Bob deflected answering the question saying that he would give follow up advice on that purchase in his November Marketimer newsletter and wasn't going to recommend it to his radio audience. The caller pressed Bob as to whether he should purchase the QQQs on Monday, but Bob said if he had questions, he should call the Marketimer office on Monday morning.

EC: As a refresher, QQQ shares represent the collective performance of all companies in the Nasdaq 100 Index. It works like an index fund, but trades like a stock which you can buy and sell anytime. You can also use limit orders, stop-limit orders. You can even short it and margin it. More from the Nasdaq site on QQQ if you are interested:

http://www.nasdaq.com/indexshares/nasdaq...

Brinker Comment: On both Saturday and Sunday's show, Bob commented on why he wasn't sharing the latest QQQ counter-trend rally trade advice on the Radio broadcast. Bob referenced his prior counter-trend rally call in the QQQs which he made in May. In looking back over that recommendation, Bob has concluded that due to his world-wide listening audience (5-7 million listeners), Bob can have a "significant impact on the market" by making a recommendation on the air. Bob noted that when he recommended the QQQ shares back during the May 27-28th weekend, the QQQ shares had a material "gap" to the upside when they started trading (Tuesday after memorial day). In addition to the gap up, Bob felt that the QQQ going down to $84 (where he recommended to sell at the market), only to rise back up immediately, was further evidence of Bob's influence on the market.

EC: During Bob's last recommendation of the QQQs, I provided links to articles written by James Cramer of thestreet.com where he mentioned Brinker's recommendation. Bob actually read from one of those articles on Sunday's show to further buttress his belief that he can move the markets through recommendations on the radio. Here is a link to that article:

http://www.thestreet.com/comment/wrongre...

- David Korn, editor of http://www.begininvesting.com/

-- posted by Kirk

Top 609. Oct 25, 2002 8:51 AM

» Kirk - Aaron Task on QQQ "follow-up"Advice

.
In response to message posted by Kirk:

This is an interesting article from Aaron Task who summarizes the QQQ event pretty well.

Article: http://www.thestreet.com/markets/aaronta...

Key parts:

We last visited Brinker's world back in mid-October , shortly after he'd recommended that newsletter subscribers buy the Nasdaq 100 Trust (QQQ:Amex - news).
At the time, Brinker's expectation was for a "countertrend rally" within an ongoing bear market -- rather than the start of a new bull phase. But he recommended that aggressive subscribers use up to 50% of their cash reserves for the trade, predicting gains in excess of 20% over a two- to four-month period from the QQQs' Oct. 12 closing low of $75.13.
The QQQs closed at $86.19 on Oct. 23 -- a near 15% gain from the Oct. 12 lows -- but have been in a near uninterrupted descent since, closing as low as $55.73 on Dec. 20. Today, the QQQs rose 1.1% to $61.56, or 17.9% below Brinker's presumptive rally point.
Around the time of the mid-October "buy" call, Brinker announced he would no longer make short-term market calls on his radio show, apparently upsetting and confusing some listeners. Newsletter subscribers, who pay $185 per year for exclusive calls, did receive updates on the QQQ trade.
In the Nov. 6 issue, Brinker reiterated the initial recommendation, adding that "we would view any subsequent near-term resisting of the 2850-3075 zone [on the Nasdaq Comp] as an exceptional short-term entry point." This would correspond to a price range in the low-to-mid 70s for the QQQs.
Brinker also wrote he would provide an "exit point" for the trade in a future newsletter or on his Web site, where a special subscriber-only section was created. That move, I gathered, reflected a response to the challenge Brinker faced with the mid-October call -- a "special bulletin" rather than a regular issue -- of trying to provide real-time and simultaneous updates to subscribers who usually receive the newsletter via snail mail.
In the Nov. 4 newsletter, Brinker acknowledged that "events have carried the Nasdaq Composite lower than we anticipated in the short term, [but] they have not provided a basis for changing our short-term market outlook, which projects a major countertrend rally."
Evincing the courage of his convictions, Brinker predicted the Comp could rise 40% to 50% from its late-November lows around 2600, and the QQQs could reach $90 in the ensuing three to six months.
Despite his short-term optimism, Brinker remains "much less sanguine" about the market's long-term prospects.
Brinker wrote as much in the Dec. 4 newsletter and repeated the point in an interview yesterday, saying there is "no chance" major averages hit a "final bottom" in 2000. The newsletter writer reiterated a long-held view that the overall downward trend for stocks will not end until late 2001 or early 2002, noting that the Wilshire 5000 Total Market Index fell 20% below its all-time high -- and into official "bear market" territory, according to technical analysis -- just last week.
However, he declined to discuss the QQQ call, saying he didn't want to pre-empt his January newsletter.
As an aside, any previous mention of Brinker has generated some pointed and emotional emails -- both positive and negative. Clearly, the guy is a lightning rod. That he's currently short-term bullish but long-term bearish is no doubt going to inspire some and infuriate others.
In an attempt to (hopefully) pre-empt similar email responses this time around, let me say, for the record, that I'm an agnostic on the subject of whether Brinker is savior or evil incarnate.
All that really matters to me are the guy's market calls. And while Brinker's broader defensive call at the beginning of 2000 was prescient, his QQQ call has, to date, been an unmitigated bust.
Whether the QQQ call and/or Brinker's longer-term caution ultimately prove correct remains, of course, to be seen.

Hmmmm. I wonder if Aaron Task will update this someday?

-- posted by Kirk

mailto:davidk555@earthlink.net

Top 610. Oct 27, 2002 12:17 PM

» David_Korn - October 19-20, 2002 Moneytalk Commentary

Excerpt from David Korn's Stock Market Commentary, Interpretation of Moneytalk (Bob Brinker Host), Financial Education, Helpful Links, Guest Editorials and Special Alert E-mail Service.
Website: http://www.begininvesting.com/

October 19-20, 2002 Edition (This is only an excerpt of my newsletter. If you would like a complimentary copy of the entire newsletter, e-mail me).

BOB BRINKER'S LONG TERM STOCK MARKET TIMING MODEL

Caller: This caller asked an interesting question. He wanted to know if Bob's long term stock market timing model would give the same kind of "robust" buy signal for a cyclical bull market within the context of a secular bear market, as it did during the secular bull market. Bob responded to the question by delineating what kind of buy signal he is expecting his model to generate. Bob noted that he is still predicting that a cyclical bull market will begin sometime down the road because in his opinion, at this juncture, his long term stock market timing model is not in a position right now to make that call. Bob noted that his long term stock market timing model is based on the price movement of the S&P 500 Index. Bob added that his model will attempt to identify a "sustainable move" in the market -- one that Bob expects to last over a one to three period. During this time frame, Bob expects a cyclical bull market which will produce gains in the S&P 500 Index in excess of 25% and possibly "much more" than 25%. How much more? It depends on the nature of the cyclical bull market. Bob noted that the greatest cyclical bull market of the modern era occurred during the 1966 to 1982 secular bear which produced a 76% cyclical bull market move.

Bob paused for a moment to see if the caller was satiated; however, the caller reiterated his question which was whether Bob's model would have the same predictive power in a secular bear market trying to forecast a cyclical bull market which is contrary to the secular trend. Bob took a deep breath deciding whether he should give the caller a peak into the inner-workings of the coveted model. Perhaps he was in a good mood, because Bob decided to give the audience what they wanted. Bob told the caller in no uncertain terms, that the answer to his question was yes. His model's would generate the same "type" of signal in forecasting the cyclical bull market even though it was contrary to the secular trend. How could this be? Bob pointed out that the secular trend has already seen a huge downward movement. Currently, the S&P500 Index is down around 40% from its highs, and was down 49% just seven trading days ago. We are already working in a market that has lost half of its value from where it was in the first quarter of 2000. This has caused a landscape change in the market due the incredible amount of price degradation that has already occurred.

Editorial Comment ("EC"): Wow. That was a pretty good call. Bob's response solidifies something that I have believed for a long time relative to the output of Bob's timing model. Notice how Bob used the phrase "in his opinion" when he discussed analyzing his timing model. If the model simply generated a number which would automatically trigger a buy or sell signal, than it wouldn't need an opinion, or the subjective view of the reader of the model to know what it meant. I have long suspected that Bob looks at the indicators he follows, and then makes a subjective judgment call on whether the model's indicators, in globo, are sufficient enough to make him feel comfortable with recommending a fully invested position, or something less as he did in January, 2000.

EC#2: The other issue raised by this call, is the viability of Bob's timing model in predicting cyclical bull markets in general. During the 1990s, Bob didn't really time the market in the sense of adjusting his asset allocation. He basically just stayed fully invested, which was a good thing. In the late 1980s, he tried timing what some might call a cyclical bear, but was not successful. It remains to be seen how Bob's model performs in timing cyclical bull markets in a secular bear over the coming years.

MARKET TIMING v. BUY & HOLD

Caller: This caller mentioned that he had read most of the books on Bob's recommended reading list. Before he could ask his question, however, Bob got all excited, and asked which the caller's favorite book was, to which the caller replied "Common Sense on Mutual Funds" written by John Bogle. The caller then pointed out that most, if not all of the books, on the reading list said that market timing can't be done successfully.

WOAH NELLIE. Stop the presses. Back the train up. Put on the breaks. Hop on the bus, Gus.

Bob cleared his throat, wishing he hadn't asked the follow up question and casually replied, "well, that's THEIR opinion." Bob then realized it was time for some damage control and sarcastically pointed out that there aren't too many "buy & hold" investors who are happy to have their accounts down over 40%.

EC: I wish a caller would follow up with Bob on this issue. I would like to hear someone explore with Bob his reasons for believing that he is able to successfully time the market. I imagine Bob would point to the fact that he is the number one timer over the last 10 years according to Hulbert. However, if you go further back to the inception of his model portfolios, Bob has under performed the market mostly by virtue of his failed market timing efforts in the late 1980s. Moreover, his excellent recommendation in January, 2000, has been offset largely by the QQQ market timing recommendation. This is frankly in my opinion, THE topic I find most interesting on the show, but Bob usually skirts the issue. Ironically, Bob mentions Bogle's book Common Sense on Mutual Funds more than any other book. However, in that very book, Bogle makes the following statement about market timers:

"The idea that a bell rings to signal when investors should get into or out of the stock market is simply not credible. After nearly fifty years in this business, I do not know of anybody that has done it successfully or consistently. I don't even know anybody who knows anybody who has done it successfully and consistently. Yet market timing appears to be increasingly embraced by mutual fund investors and the professional managers of fund portfolios alike."

Caller: This caller pointed out that too many investors believe the "buy & hold mantra." Bob agreed and likened it to a religion that many investors share. It is a strategy that has been promoted by money managers and others in the financial industry. The caller referred to an article in Barron's which discusses the long-term trends in the market. The article references 9 bullish time frames averaging 10-1/2 years, and 8 bearish time frames averaging 14-1/2 years. Bob pointed out that he has been discussing secular trends on his program every weekend. Bob congratulated Barron's for publishing that article so that investors could read about that history.

Caller continued (The Money Question): Bob, do you think you can help people preserve money when they should not be in the market, and help them make money when they should be in the market? Bob said he thinks you can do that if you focus on the primary long term trend. Bob said you can get tripped up if you try to call short term rallies within a cyclical trend. Bob noted that we have been in a cyclical bear market since the first quarter of 2000. The key has been to focus on that major cyclical trend. The most difficult thing is trying to trade within that trend and if you try to do that, it may be impossible because of the power of that trend.

EC: I think it is pretty clear Bob was obliquely referring to his attempts to trade the QQQ against the cyclical bear market trend. Bob's acknowledgment of how difficult it is to trade against the trend begs the question of whether he will be able to consistently time cyclical bull markets, which goes against the long term secular bear market trend. Stay tuned.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO LEARN HOW TO RECEIVE MY NEWSLETTER WEEKLY, OR TO RECEIVE A COMPLIMENTARY NEWSLETTER, E-MAIL ME:

DISCLAIMER: I am not associated with ABC Radio Networks, Moneytalk or Bob Brinker and this service is neither sanctioned by, nor written under the auspices of ABC Radio Networks, Moneytalk or Bob Brinker. This e-mail is not a substitute for listening to Moneytalk. It is only my interpretation and commentary of some of what is discussed on Moneytalk, along with additional educational information that I include, editorial comments about the market, helpful financial links, guest contributors and even humorous remarks. I also provide Special Alerts to my subscribers as part of my e-mail service and give them access to my web site, www.BeginInvesting.com. If you want to know what was actually said verbatim on Moneytalk, listen to the show live. The web site www.bobbrinker.com has all the links to the ABC Radio Network Stations that broadcast the show live and via the Internet. There used to be free summaries of the Moneytalk shows on that web site. The information contained in this e-mail is not intended to constitute financial advice and is not a recommendation or solicitation to buy, sell or hold any security. This article is strictly informational and educational and is not to be construed as any kind of financial advice, investment advice or legal advice. Copyright 2002 David Korn, L.L.C.

-- posted by David_Korn

Top 611. Oct 29, 2002 7:30 AM

» jwright48 - Where are the web site summaries?

It appears the Bob Brinker web site does not have the summaries anymore. I travel a bunch and I'm not able to listen on the radio every week.

Is his weekly talk show located on some archives that I can access?

-- posted by jwright48

mailto:davidk555@earthlink.net

Top 612. Nov 3, 2002 3:45 PM

» David_Korn - Re: Where are the web site summaries?

In response to message posted by jwright48:

Bob Brinker announced the summaries were being discontinued, and all previous summaries were deleted from his web site. Their is a multimedia service that is anticipated being offered soon.

If you are interested in my commentary on Moneytalk hosted by Bob Brinker, just e-mail me:

-- posted by David_Korn

http://table.finance.yahoo.com/k?s=vfiix...

Top 613. Nov 3, 2002 4:20 PM

» David_Korn - Brinker's Stop-Loss Recommendation on GNMAs

This weekend, a caller asked Bob about the recommendation he had made to a caller to institute a "mental stop loss" in the Ginnie Mae shares of 10 cents below the current NAV, and if the NAV declined 10 cents, the caller should liquidate his Ginnie Mae shares, convert it to cash, and place the proceeds in a money market account until it is deployed for stock market investing. Recall that this recommendation was in response to a caller who had already earmarked his Ginnie Mae funds for stock market investing, not for fixed income. When Bob gave this advice a few weeks back, the Vanguard GNMA Fund Investor Shares (VFIIX) were trading at $10.74. Therefore, a stop loss of 10 cents below that price would be $10.64. This weekend, Bob patted himself on the back on how the stop-loss was not triggered, and the funds have returned back up near their highs. Bob was incorrect. The stop-loss recommendation he made was triggered on October 22nd when the share price closed at $10.63. The shares also closed at $10.63 the next day giving ample opportunity for the stop-loss to be executed.

- David K. editor of

http://www.begininvesting.com/

-- posted by David_Korn

Top 614. Nov 4, 2002 8:18 AM

» Erik75 - Re: Brinker's Stop-Loss Recommendation on GNMAs

In response to message posted by David_Korn:

IIRC, in the past, brinker has repeatedly told people that they should not even be in GNMA funds if they can't tolerate changes in their principle of a few percent over time. Now he is having them use such tight stop loses ( <1% !!!) on GNMAs that normal short term fluctuations all but guarantee them a 1% loss in short order?

If only the moron had known about stop losses when he gave his infamous "act immediately" QQQ advice in October 2000.

-- posted by Erik75

mailto:davidk555@earthlink.net

Top 615. Nov 4, 2002 8:58 PM

» David_Korn - Re: Re: Brinker's Stop-Loss Recommendation on GNMAs

In response to message posted by Erik75:

Erik75, sadly Brinker knew about stop losses when he gave issued his "act immediately" bulletin In October, 2000 when he recommended to his subscribers with aggressive objectives that they invest 30% to 50% of their cash reserves in the Nasdaq 100 (QQQ shares). Indeed, he had used a stop-loss in the May, 2000 counter-trend rally.

Why didn't he use a stop-loss the second time he made that recommendation? I have thought long and hard about that question. The only reason that makes any sense, is ego. Brinker went out on a limb making a HUGE bet on the QQQs which applied to all subscribers in the first ever act immediately bulletin. As the QQQs went south, if Brinker instituted a stop-loss, it would have meant booking a losing trade, and I don't think Brinker wanted to have a losing trade on his record. He has acted this way in the past when he made a bad call (i.e. UTEK which he held even after it was clear he was wrong). If you will indulge me for a moment, I would like to reprint the "quote of the week" in my newsletter this weekend which is apropos to this topic:

"A good trader has to have three things:
a chronic inability to accept things at face value,
to feel continuously unsettled,
and to have humility."

- Michael Steinhardt

To learn about my service, just e-mail me:

-- posted by David_Korn