CLOSED Bob_Brinker_Discussion Site 43,700 Use New Thread!

» Will_L - Logic 101

Seems like some check their common sense while trying to make Brinker look like an astute --you name it. Stock picker,,,Fund picker,,,,marketimer,,,,

Let's see. If Brinker has a model that predicts the movement of stock market prices with accuracy what would you expect him to charge for that information?

If Brinker has a model that predicts the movement of the stock market with accuracy what would you expect his portfolio recommendations to have looked like form 2000 through today?

If Brinker made a call based on the model and then a few weeks later said the NASDAQ at the time was not part of his call even though it was about 40% of the entire market cap at the time, what would you think?

If Brinker made every call since 2000, going long in technology resulting in losses of 70 to 90% in his picks what would you think about his belief in that timing model? Of his ability to look at technology sector rationally?

If Brinker held VOD down 90% since he became "risk averse" what does that say about the Belief Brinker has in the model and his ability to make rational decisions in the technology sector?

If Brinker recommended purchasing up to a third of one's portfolio in the QQQs at 83 and has steadfastly held them down to 23, calling another buy at 52 (a dishonest second bite of the same apple) what does that say about his belief in his model? What does it say about his ability to make rational decisions in the technology sector?

Those will be stumpers for some of ya.

-- posted by Will_L

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Kirk - Re: Logic 101

.

In response to message posted by Will_L:

If Brinker has a model that predicts the movement of the stock market with accuracy what would you expect his portfolio recommendations to have looked like form 2000 through today?

Well, I bet he'd be 100% in until 3/21/00 then 100% out until 9/21/01 where he'd go to 100% in until 3/19/02.... then now is a stumper as we are between a correction and another bear.

From a post of Rande's here:

http://www.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/i...

Which is it? Are we still in a cyclical bull within a secular bear? Or was it a cyclical bear within a secular bull all along? Can we bear any more bull? All depends on how much bull you can bear.

VTSMX (Total US Stock Market Index)

(3/24/00 - 9/21/01) -38.2%
(9/21/01 - 3/19/02) +27.1%
(3/19/02 - 7/5/02) -14.7%

More importantly -- will it matter 10, 15, 20 years from now?

VTSMX

5/31/92 - 6/30/02: 10.87% average annual return

---

I think Rande's data that shows we had a 27% bull market in 6 months shows why Brinker made the cycle longer... likd 1 to 3 yrs rather than 6 months to 3 yrs... for a timing model that only looks ahead a couple of months.

-- posted by Kirk

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» ACousins - Re: Re: Logic 101

In response to message posted by Kirk:

I think Rande's data that shows we had a 27% bull market in 6 months shows why Brinker made the cycle longer... likd 1 to 3 yrs rather than 6 months to 3 yrs... for a timing model that only looks ahead a couple of months.

That's pretty funny, could be, could be.

September 01 MT:
"cyclical bull market with a minimum duration of six-to-twelve months"

October MT: missing, does anyone have this?

November 01 MT:
"cyclical bull market opportunity, which would prevail for a minimum of several quarters"

December 01 MT:
"cyclical bull market will last for a period of approximately one to three years"

He would also have to explain why:

1. CB and CTR are so similar, maybe a day or maybe (in the best case) 2 months off in length.
2. How the longterm model can track a six month CB while the longterm model is stuck in secular bear mode.

I'm sure Bob/Dija will be here to explain what the blooming heck is going on and come up with an explanation that will mangle the puzzle pieces just enough to have them fit....today. Harumph.

-- posted by ACousins

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Jonathon - djia or walkersad

In response to message posted by ACousins:

dija this question is for you. i don't expect walkersadman to answer it. as ac pointed out, brinker said cyclical bull lasts 6 months minimum. qqq trade gets put on a long term hold, and all of a sudden, cyclical bull now lasts 1 to 3 years. ac has been complaining that brinker's ability to call cyclical bulls and countertrend rallies is the same - nada. what do you say about all this?

-- posted by Jonathon

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» JIMMY62 - Re: Although the IMA MARKETIMER TOO's timing model is proprieta

In response to message posted by Will_L:

Inspirational!

As so many posters have their own timing models and newsletter to explain, I hope we all can join the parade soon.

-- posted by JIMMY62

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» JIMMY62 - Re: Re: Logic 101

In response to message posted by Kirk:

I think Rande's data that shows we had a 27% bull market in 6 months shows why Brinker made the cycle longer... likd 1 to 3 yrs rather than 6 months to 3 yrs... for a timing model that only looks ahead a couple of months.

1. The timing model is fiction.
2. It don't look ahead. It is like a themometer in that it tells what is happening now, e.g., It is/isn't safe to be fully invested right now.

Well, I suppose it must look ahead a month or so with the reading (is/isn't) persisting, otherwise the output data would be worthless as it could switch back the next day. Myths can bogle the mind.

Here is how Bob explains it:
MT July 2001
"We expect the next cyclical bull market to produced gains in excess of 20% for the broad market, with a minimum lifespan of six to twelve months.
.....
We plan to return to a fully invested position when our long-term indicators suggest a sustainable broad market rally is likely over a period of six to twelve months or more."

I just love the vauge way Bob writes:
1. Indicators
2. Suggest
3. Likely
4. Six to twelve months or more

-- posted by JIMMY62

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» JIMMY62 - Re: Re: Logic 101

In response to message posted by Kirk:

I think Rande's data that shows we had a 27% bull market in 6 months shows why Brinker made the cycle longer... likd 1 to 3 yrs rather than 6 months to 3 yrs... for a timing model that only looks ahead a couple of months.

Rande has his historical data;
Bob has his historical data.

Bob's historical data changes from month to month.

MT May 2001
"The 1966-1982 secular bear market included four cyclical bull market opportunities with gains of 32% to 76%, lasting from 21 to 38 months."

MT July 2001
"The secular bear market from February 9, 1966 throught August 12, 1982 included four cyclical bull markets with gains of 22%, 50%, 52% and 22% respectively. Each of these cyclical bull markets lasted from six to twelve months."

Maybe it was not the same 1966 and 1982.

-- posted by JIMMY62

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» JIMMY62 - Off-presidential MOABO

There are those who say Bob did not predict the October 22, 2002 MOABO. Here from yellowing MTs is proof that he did, almost.

Notice that this is not model data; it comes straight from WE.

MT February 2001
"The resumption of the primary bear market trend is likely by summer, and has the potential to continue into late-2001 or possible into 2002. In the event this projection proves correct, we expect to see an extraordinary stock market buying opportinity develop most likely between fourth quarter of 2001 and the fourth quarter of 2002.

MT March 2001
"Following a bear market rally of three to six months duration, we would expect to see renewed weakness in the overall market. At the time , a resumption of the primary bear market trend could cary the general market to a final long-term bear market bottom next year. ..., we anticipate an extraordinary stock market buying opportunity will develop."

MT May 2001
Secular bear market identified

MT June 2001
"In summary, we continue to await suffucient imporvement in our long-term stock market timing indicators to justify a fully invested position. We expect this to occur no later than next year, however we believe it is too early to speculate on the timing of the next major stock market buying opportunity."

MT July 2001
"In, sum, we believe the best opportunity to make money in the stock market will occur whenteh next cyclical bull market commences. The probability is very high that the next cyclical bull market will begin later this year or during 2002."

MT August 2001
"In summary, although we have seen some improvement in our long-term timing model inidcators, we do not believe the conditions are in place that would suggest a low-risk opportunity to return to a fully invested position at this time. However, it is our opinion that such an opportunity will develop sometime between the fourth quarter of this year and the fourth quarter of next year."

You can see clearly now that Bob always had the fourth quarter of 2002 in mind. It takes just a little reading betgween the lines to see that realy means October 22, 2002.

-- posted by JIMMY62

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Will_L - Re: Re: Re: Logic 101

In response to message posted by JIMMY62:

"Bob's historical data changes from month to month.

MT May 2001
"The 1966-1982 secular bear market included four cyclical bull market opportunities with gains of 32% to 76%, lasting from 21 to 38 months."

MT July 2001
"The secular bear market from February 9, 1966 throught August 12, 1982 included four cyclical bull markets with gains of 22%, 50%, 52% and 22% respectively. Each of these cyclical bull markets lasted from six to twelve months."

And of course it changes year to year.

This month he'claiming that the historical experience during secular bear markets is a series of cyclical bulls with a 'typical' duration of "One to three years".

Of course he goes on to say that "we" will do the best to identify the next cyclical bull for subscribers. (an obvious newsletter sales tool)

And conveniently follows in the next thought with the "We don't sell on weakness line" and encourages folks to hold those QQQs ( he says it in such a manner that it was some independent decision the subscriber got from somebody besides Brinker LOL) until the next "cyclical bull" that he will of course idenify for subscribers.

Now he has turned the QQQ debacle into a newsletter sales scheme. He recommends buying them at 83 in huge amounts and he holds them all way down to the low 20's and has the cajones to tell people they need to keep subscribing to know what to do with the QQQs.

Hubris. Task of the street.com was right.

-- posted by Will_L

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Will_L - Strange

Does anyone else find it strange that Brinker is now using his worst call ever the QQQs as a marketing tool to keep people subscribing?

Does anyone else worry that a guy who was absolutely certain of his ability to call counter trend rallies that he extended to about 8 or nine months before giving up--has CHANGED his definition of a 'cyclical bull" . He has moved the minimum time frame from 6 months to 1 year?

Now is that based on new research? Nope like everything else Brinker does, that is based on what is best to sell a newsletter. Historical data on such events hasn't changed because there has not been one since his shorter description.

It would be skerry indeed to trust the guy with real money.

-- posted by Will_L

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions