Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Hey! But I have no info about GE in the title page.
(1)When did he buy it?
(2)When did he sell it ?
(3)When did he do any thing with GE ???
I stand corrected !
Yes Larry, he reduced MSFT from 4% at cost, to 4% net. I believe late 1999. Maybe somebody has the actual date.
Kirk is right. It was GE.
"I recall him saying that it is OK to ignore the 4% rule
on MSFT because it is such a key stock and acts like
a nutual fund."
Wrong.
He said that about GE and GE was ok for up to 20%.. Check PBS transcripts for his appearances on NBR but I have him as far back as 1996 saying MSFT was a "hold." Back in those days, a hold meant a sell for most analysts.....
When GE fell by 60%, he used some crap about "we warned that GE would lose the Welch Effect" or some such nonsense.
Someone retired I know listens to Brinker every weekend and doesn't recall the 4% rule for GE until after it fell and he held a SUBSTANTIAL position in GE about equal to Brinker's 20% limit... despite my urging to "take some profits" back in the summer of 2000.
Sorry. That 4% rule does not help on MSFT.
Why?
Because I recall some one calling in about selling MSFT and
the 4% rule.
And guess what?
I recall him saying that it is OK to ignore the 4% rule
on MSFT because it is such a key stock and acts like
a nutual fund.
Maybe some one else can recall that radio show also?
Oh! Well! When it comes to stocks I repeat what is already
in the Title of this Board.
.................................
Part 2. What to expect from Bob Brinker's stock/Fund buys.
(a)You must decide before hand the risk you are willing to take.IMHO.
(b)And be prepared to take firm Stop Loss action rather
then depend on Bob's sell.IMHO.
...................................................
Regarding selling Microsoft:
At one time Brinker's guideline was that the purchase price of an individual stock should not be more than 4% of one's portfolio. Somewhere around the mid 1990s he began recommending that the current market value of an individual stock should not be more than 4%. Because MSFT had gone up so much, this could have required selling quite a lot of it. Unfortunately I don't know the date when he made this change.
My comment is that I don't think it is possible to moderate a message board without receiving complaints about how one is doing the moderating.
I haven't seen anything in the iHub FAQ that says authors of deleted posts routinely receive email about it. If you want to know why iHub approved the deletion maybe you should ask them.
As for the substance of your issue, my opinion is that revealing the identity of another poster violates iHub's prohibition against invasion of privacy.
Of course, I am not the moderator, so my opinion doesn't count for much.
IMPORTANT:IMHO.
(1)As far as I can find, Bob Brinker does give exact buys and sells for his Portfolios 1,2,3,etc.
(2)This is what Hulbert Digest follows.IMHO.
AT
You said you have been getting his newsletter a long time.
Do you recall Bob Brinker ever selling MSFT?
I checked His newsletter back to Jan 2002 recently and could not find any sell of MSFT during that time.
Larry, I believe he says something like "We don't recommend individual stocks on the program" almost every weekend that the show is on. (Perhaps David has more accurate verbage on that.)
Bob Brinker very very recently stated that he does not recommend individual stocks on Moneytalk. I have recorded many instances in the past where Bob did in fact recommend stocks publicly. I like to research fully before posting about them to strive for accuracy.
You notice that most of the stocks/funds refer to some reference.
The AWE has a reference.
Also you wrote:
Regarding AWE, he gets calls regarding many stocks. And he's stated many times that he doesn't recommend individual stocks on Moneytalk. So I don't see how any commentary can be considered a buy or sell on an individual stock; because, that's not the intention.
Comments:
(1)AWE reference is related to money talk.IMHO.
(2)Do you have a reference for the above under lined?
(3)Example "because that's not the intension"
How do you know that? Or is that your opinion?
Or what he has said on the radio?
Larry, I think it's fair to include TEFQX in your list, because there was some commentary in the newsletter directed at aggressive investors. Even though TEFQX was never included in any of the recommended portfolios.
Regarding AWE, he gets calls regarding many stocks. And he's stated many times that he doesn't recommend individual stocks on Moneytalk. So I don't see how any commentary can be considered a buy or sell on an individual stock; because, that's not the intention.
Thanks for zappin' the personal attack. Nice to see more boards out there that discourage this sort of activity.
Kirk
If you want to let people know about your newsletter,
that is OK with me.
By the way, that copy of your newsletter you sent me years ago.
I was very busy with a major program and deleted it with out reading it. Sorry.
I promise to at least read the next one(g)
Kirk
If "arcothunder" was Mark, then your post was showing what Mark had posted in the past.
BUT IF IT WAS NOT MARK, IT WAS A PERSONAL ATTACK. IMHO.
I sent Matt an email asking if "arcothunder" had registered as
Mark being his first name.
If Mark was not his first name of "arcothunder", then Kirk had
conducted a personal attack and the post should be deleted.
It was deleted.
..........................................................
Now listen to this ! Because it is very important.
Do not start posting "this or that" about Mark or arcothunder
Why?
Because it does not realate to Bob Brinker's past record of a
stock,fund or call....IMHO.
If you must talk about Mark, then create a Mark Data Board.
....................................
What is interesting and perhaps you can comment.
I pointed out who arcothunder was and how I kicked him off my site for shilling for Bob Brinker in non Brinker forums.
My post was deleted and I recieved NO email from iHub as to what I did to violate their TOS. Larry told me via SI PM that the post was removed and was interested to hear what iHub management said was wrong with my post. It can't be for advertising (links to my site or newsletter) as David Korn does it all the time and iHub didn't delete his post.
Isn't it interesting the attention Larry's Web Log gets...
Is is so damaging to Bob Brinker for someone to point out he has a shill touting him to the point people have to kick the shill off message board forums?
One of the good things about the Internet is that it is possible to find out what has been swept under the rug. Larry's summary in the header of this thread is a good addition to what is available, as he seems to have done a good job of distancing himself from the emotion that surrounds this subject.
I think that is fair.
You wrote
From my April 29, 2001 Newsletter:
Comments:
I used April 29, 2000, Since that is time where AWE was around 29.50.
See AWE in Title of this board.
The question was posed to me whether Bob Brinker ever mentioned purchasing shares of AT&T's wireless tracking stock (Ticker: AWE) on Moneytalk. Indeed he did as shown below from in excerpts from my newsletter relative to AWE:
David Korn's Stock Market Commentary, Interpretation of Moneytalk (Bob Brinker Host), Financial Education, Helpful Links, Guest Editorials and Special Alert E-mail Service.
From my April 29, 2001 Newsletter:
Caller: What do you think of the initial public offering market in the next few months. Bob thinks the IPO market is in "shambles" right now as a result of the tech stock debacle. Bob though that the one triumph was the AT&T wireless IPO. Elizabeth wanted to know specifically if a biotech IPO would be worthwhile. Bob thought it might be worth looking at, but overall that sector has done very poorly lately.
EC: AT&T's wireless tracking stock (NYSE: AWE) priced at $29.50 at its initial public offering which brought in $10.62 billion in proceeds from the 360 million share deal ranking it as the largest U.S. IPO ever. The stock opened at $30.13 per share, so you could have purchased it on the open market for only .63 cents more than the IPO price. It closed Friday at $31 15/16. After the offering, AT&T retains about 82.5 percent of equity interest in AWE and plans to use about $7 billion in proceeds from the IPO, plus an additional $5 billion credit line, to acquire, upgrade, and expand its network, Until recently, AT&T was the largest wireless carrier, but now that Bell Atlantic, and Vodafone Airtouch have merged, AT&T will no longer be the biggest wireless company in town. See article for more:
http://www.redherring.com/ipo/2000/0428/ipo-attws042800.html?id=yahoo
From my May 6, 2000 Newsletter
Brinker Comment/EC: On Sunday's show, Bob told his listening audience that he purchased shares of the AT&T wireless spin off (Ticker: AWE) at the initial public offering price. For those of you who like to purchase stocks that Bob owns, Bob paid $29.50 at its initial public offering. It closed Friday at $30 1/2 so you can pick it up for only $1 more per share than Bob paid.
July 27, 2003 EC UPDATE: Bob Brinker has not mentioned AWE in a very very long time and I have no record of him ever saying he sold it. One could presume he still owns it, and it went the way of TEFQX in that it was simply "removed" from discussion. Shares closed Friday at $8.59 and have suffered dearly since their IPO which nearly coincided with the end of the bull market in the first quarter of 2000:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=AWE&d=c&k=c1&a=v&p=s&t=5y&l=on&z=m&q=l
- David Korn,
Editor of 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/
I think the focus on Bob Brinker's recommendation of CA General Obligations stems from this week's downgrade of California's credit rating by Standard & Poor's to a worst-in-the-nation "BBB." This makes a lot of folks who own those GO's very nervous. Recall that Bob Brinker said that as an "A" rated credit, he would not be losing any sleep over them. But what about a BBB rating?
As for whether CA will recover, I think the odds favor it given that no state in modern history has defaulted on its debt, but in the meantime there are just a lot of nervous investors that need reassuring. At least that is what I gather from the numerous e-mails I received in the past few days on the issue.
- David Korn,
Editor of 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/
"(2)Do you consider a removing from his list a sell?
This could be very interesting way that Bob brinker
gives SELL SIGNAL."
If so, one might wonder what else is under the rug.
;)
You wrote
"he removed TEFQX from his fund list a long time ago."
Questions:
(1)Did he actually give a sell?
(2)Do you consider a removing from his list a sell?
This could be very interesting way that Bob brinker
gives SELL SIGNAL.
What's with the sudden focus on the Brinker comments on CA bonds? Going a little off topic here, but do folks think CA is going bankrupt? Much of the revenue shortfall has been the result of the cut in the Vehicle License Fees, which are to be restored in October. The stock market crash has impacted capital gains taxes, and the market is up. Housing prices are up, and real estate activity is hot and heavy, increasing local property taxes.
I think if Brinker's right and we're in a cyclical bull market, CA's revenues will surprise to the upside in the coming months and year or two. So, JMHO, but now you can get a few extra ticks on your CA bonds.
OK, don't want to clutter Larry's board with Off Topic CA stuff. I have a thread at an MSN board on California if you want to tell me what's wrong with CA. We've posted a bunch of stuff there that IS wrong with CA (ie losing tech jobs), but I think coming out of this bear market, we're in for a few good years.
http://groups.msn.com/InvestingandFinance/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message...
I've subscribed to Brinker's newsletter for many years and don't recall AWE as a recommended stock, Larry. Plus, he removed TEFQX from his fund list a long time ago.
Burk
As shown in the title of this board:
..........................................
Final Conclusions dated 7/19/03
Part 1. What to expect from Bob Brinker's Major Buys and Sells.
Bob Brinker's major calls are in general very good.IMHO.
(a)Buy when he says major buy.IMHO.
(b)Sell when he says major sell.IMHO.
(c)Do not use his sells to go short.IMHO.
(d)Allocation is still a problem.IMHO.
Part 2. What to expect from Bob Brinker's stock/Fund buys.
(a)You must decide before hand the risk you are willing to take.IMHO.
(b)And be prepared to take firm Stop Loss action rather
then depend on Bob's sell.
.............................................................
Since Bob Brinker first bought MSFT in 1990(I think) and has never issued a sell signal. In fact has rarely issued a sell on any stock. I don't see any comments from me about his newsletter until after his "general sell signal" hits the
radio and/or news papers some time in the future.
The way I will use Bob Brinker in the future is as a
"major trend" indicator. And "major trend" indicators
do not require exact dates.
I have no interest in following any Bob Brinker's present or future stocks picks.
For subscribers, he hit the 800 right on the head with special bulletin. Sorry you missed it.
Sorry. I have no links.
I would think that if you simply paraphrase Bob then you would avoid any question of Copyright. No?
Sorry.
I have no links.
Well that same public place had Richard Russell's newsletter
on the "computer". And he has been writing a newsletter since the 1950's.
Would you mind supplying a link?
Well that same public place had Richard Russell's newsletter
on the "computer". And he has been writing a newsletter since the 1950's.
You do not make money with a newsletter by keeping it a secret.IMHO.
And there is no copyright info on any of the 8 pages.
And by the time this newsletter came out, S&P500 was much
higher then 800, where he gave the BUY SIGNAL.
Larry, if you want to keep track of Bob's bond recommendations as well, he recommended purchase of the California General Obligations on numerous occasions. I don't know when he first recommended them, but based on the inordinate amount of e-mail I received from my subscribers today, I imagine there are many Trekkies around the world anxious to hear what Bob Brinker has to say about yesterday's downgrade of California's credit rating by Standard & Poor's to a worst-in-the-nation "BBB." I did some research, and pulled out Bob's discussion and recommendations of California State General Obligations, and how he has responded to the ever slowly degradation of the state's debt. Here are excerpts from my newsletter over the last two years where Bob addressed his recommendation of California General Obligations. Check it out:
Excerpt from my newsletter dated May 6, 2001
Brinker Comment: Bob said he was comfortable with purchasing high quality municipal bonds within the state of California that are backed by the full faith and credit of the State of California. Bob added that he doesn't expect to see a default in General Obligations in the State of California, despite the utility crises and the problems with PG&E.
Editorial Comment (EC): I am glad Bob answered my question from last week about his view on the credit worthiness of California General Obligations. Incidentally, if you are a Californian, and you have questions about your taxes, your starting point on the net should be the California Tax Information Center Homepage which you can access at this link:
http://www.taxes.ca.gov/
December 7-8, 2002
CALIFORNIA BONDS
Caller: This caller is in a high tax bracket and is interested in California state bonds, but is concerned about the amount of debt that California has on its books. Bob said if you want tax-free income, you can definitely consider quality California bonds. Bob noted that General Obligations for the State of California are investment grade bonds and generally carry an "A" rating. They could be downgraded to BAA, but they would still be investment grade if they were. Bob doesn't see any reason right now to think that California will default on its general obligations. Bob also suggested that the caller try to purchase new issues where the seller pays the commission.
EC: Bob has maintained his bullish view of California State General Obligation bonds for a very long time. As Bob noted, the ideal way to purchase general obligations is to work with a broker from a brokerage house that is part of the syndicate underwriting the bond offering. If you can't buy them on the initial offering, you would then have to purchase them on the secondary market where you would have to pay a commission and might not get such a good price due to the spread between the bid and the ask price.
March 29-30, 2003
MUNICIPAL BONDS/GENERAL OBLIGATIONS
Brinker Comment: Bob reiterated one of his long-standing recommendations for a bond portfolio -- General Obligations issued by a particular state. Bob said he likes investing in state General Obligations because they have a great track record. The only state general obligation that Bob would not invest in are the bonds issued by the State of Louisiana.
EC: Over the past few years, Bob has steadfastly recommended general obligations issued by the State of California. When those bonds do well, Bob has bragged on that recommendation. In the wake of the energy crises in California, Bob stood by his recommendation noting that California bonds had only suffered a slight downgrade in credit rating. If Bob is going to single out Louisiana as the one state he would not purchase general obligations from, he might want to check the latest ratings from the major credit rating companies. As of February, 2003, Fitch, Moody's and S&P rated both California bonds and Louisiana bonds with the same ratings (A, A2 and A, respectively). These are lower than most of the other states which are rated. This link brings you to a list that compares California's bond ratings to all other State General Obligation Bond Ratings:
http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ratings/current.htm
April 26-27, 2003
Caller: How safe are General Obligations (GO) of the State of California with 7-10 year maturities? Bob first noted that you aren't going much of a yield on them. 10-year treasuries are yielding less than 4%, and you will only get a little better on yield on the GOs. In terms of their safety, Bob thinks they have shown there resilience through the various crises California has faced. Bob said he follows them closely since he owns them. Bob bragged a bit pointing out that the ones he purchased are yielding 5.25% to 5.75%. In Bob's opinion, they have been outstanding performers. As an "A" rated credit, Bob said he would not be losing any sleep over them.
EC: I guess Bob will have to modify his opinion on the State of Louisiana's General Obligations which Bob previously said he wouldn't own. Louisiana and California now have the dubious distinction of being two states that have an "A" rating by Standard & Poor's versus AA and AAA ratings for most other states.
June14-15, 2003
CALIFORNIA BONDS
Caller: California is offering some general obligation bonds next week which are only rated "A" by the credit rating agencies. Are they still safe to buy? Bob noted that an "A" rating means they are investment grade bonds. Bob added hat California General Obligations have done very nicely. The municipal bond fund that invests in California bonds of longer dated maturities has returned 31% over the past three years. The intermediate maturities have returned around 27%. People are always trashing the great state of California, but their municipal bond holders have had tremendous returns in recent years. Bob noted that as an investment, General Obligations of the State of California are a "reasonable investment" as part of a diversified portfolio." As a point of clarification, Bob said he is not referring to the tobacco bonds which he wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.
EC: One of my subscribers named Bob (not "The" Bob) e-mailed me this week to update me on his research into California municipal bond funds which he has put on his web site. Bob is a long term Trekkie, and I think you will find it worthwhile to bookmark his website. This link brings you to his research on the closed-end California municipal bond fund:
http://www.geocities.com/bob90245/current.html
July 5-6, 2003
California General Obligations
In response to one very nervous caller this weekend, Bob pointed out that California General Obligations are very liquid and the caller could sell them if owning them was keeping her up at night, but that she would probably face some hefty tax consequences. Bob added that he is going to continue to hold his investment in California General Obligations as they have been very good to him, and because he does not believe California will declare bankruptcy and default on those bonds, despite the daily talk in California of fiscal crises. Bob also added that he isn't worried because he owns the California GOs as part of a diversified bond portfolio -- something he had never emphasized before, and he probably brought up to hedge against being wrong.
EC: I suspect that Bob may have received a lot of nervous inquiries in view of the news that Moody's and Standard & Poor's are considering a possible further downgrade of their ratings of California debt. See article at the attached link:
http://tinyurl.com/g3z6
If you would like to learn about my newsletter service, just drop me a line by clicking here: mailto:davidk555@earthlink.net
- David Korn
Editor of 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
Before I answer that, please tell me on what page does he print "This letter is Copyrighted" ?
I have no idea. I've never read it but it is a subscription newsletter. I don't think he'd charge for his forecast then put it in the public domain.
Before I answer that, please tell me on what page does he print "This letter is Copyrighted" ?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
?
I do not think so. I read his newsletter in a very, very public place !
Where was that?
I do not think so.
I read his newsletter in a very, very public place !
Larry - Reading Bob Brinker's Letter of 4/5/03: (1)Clearly shows he recommends buying MSFT at 23 as of 3/11/03
Are you violating Bob's Copyright by posting that here?
I just updated the performance figures for Bob Brinker's tactical asset allocation call based on Friday's numbers. These will be included in my newsletter which in part tracks Bob Brinker's Moneytalk.
BOB BRINKER'S PERFORMANCE
Editorial Comment ("EC"): Here is how the major market indexes have played out since Bob Brinker's timing model turned "favorable" based on the S&P 500 Index's close on March 10, 2003 and he recommended investors redeploy their cash reserves into a fully invested position by bulletin issued at 2:00 a.m. on March 11, 2003:
S&P 500 Index: Up 23.67%
Dow Jones Industrial Average: Up 22.67%
Nasdaq Composite: Up 35.38%
For those of you who also followed Bob's recommendation to invest anywhere from 20% to 50% of your cash reserves in the Nasdaq 100 (QQQ shares), here is how those shares have performed based on various times Bob recommended that security:
October, 2000 (Original Recommendation): Down 61.75%
January, 2001 (Second Recommendation): Down 49.08%
March 11, 2003 (Third Recommendation as part of model portfolio): Up 32.44%
If you would like to learn about my newsletter service, just e-mail me at: mailto:davidk555@earthlink.net
or, visit my website: http://www.BeginInvesting.com
- David Korn
Editor of David Korn's Stock Market Commentary, Interpretation of Moneytalk (Bob Brinker Host), Financial Education, Helpful Links, Guest Editorials and Special Alert E-mail Service.
Hi Larry, what do you make of Brinker current market strategy?
I understand he indicated SPX 800 as a buy signal,if its correct, then where is the top of the range? Looks like we could be making new local Top high on Monday? Is Brinker presently expecting Local Top?...
Bob Brinker's Mar 11, 2003 Buy Signal
52 week High Line and 200DMA for 9 Indexes
http://www.geocities.com/larrydudash2004/index.html
web site can only take a few hundred hits per hour
so you may have to try later.
OK, I did it. You can have me committed now! <g>
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=1877
There is a wide area of potential discussion separating dull factoids and personal attacks. Maybe I should start a board for Brinker discussion.
On the other hand, maybe I should stick my head in a vice and tighten it. <g>
Richard
This board will never have many bookmarks because "personal attacks will not be allowed".
Only "DULL FACTOIDS" about Bob Brinker will be allowed.
But there is a need for FACTS (Good and Bad) about Bob Brinker.IMHO.
I was just thinking that it's kind of surprising iHub has not had a thread about a figure as controversial as Bob Brinker until now.
from KOMAG web site:
...........................
INVESTOR FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have a question that is not answered, please email us at ir_web@komag.com or call Komag at (408) 576-2000.
Q: What happens to my stock that I purchased prior to Komag's Chapter 11?
Stock held prior to the company's chapter 11 are no longer tradeable as of the effective date of our emergence from chapter 11 of June 30, 2002. These shares are deemed "worthless securities". For more detailed information, please review the attached confirmation order document. The specifics of your concern will be on page 17, line 6 (paragraph 12) of the Order.
........................................................
I'm not an expert on bankruptcies, but my impression is that stockholders typically get zero in these situations. (If there had been any equity left, why would they have needed to go bankrupt? I can't think of a reason.)
Update 6/9/09
I am looking for return data for the "Brinker Fixed Income Advisor." I have data from Mark Hulbert but nothing from the Brinkers
They don't publish a table of return data by year for either Marketimer or "Brinker Fixed Income Advisor" so I'd like to make one here. If you have the data, send it to me and I'll add it here.
2008 Data
Mark Hulbert says Brinker's "fixed income advisor" model portfolio #1 lost 21.7% last year, 2008.
Mark Hulbert says Brinker's "fixed income advisor" model portfolio #2 lost 11.5% last year, 2008.
Mark Hulbert says Brinker's "fixed income advisor" model portfolio #3 lost 5.2% last year, 2008.
Brinker's "Marketimer" model portfolio #1 lost 39.7% last year, 2008.
Brinker's "Marketimer" model portfolio #2 lost 37.4% last year, 2008.
Brinker's "Marketimer" model portfolio #3 lost 23.9% last year, 2008.
Vanguard's Total Bond fund made 5.1% last year, 2008
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=0084&FundIntExt=INT#hist=tab%3A1a
Vanguard's Total Stock Market fund lost 37.0% last year, 2008
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=0085&FundIntExt=INT#hist=tab%3A1a
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |