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.
I listen to him on most Sunday afternoons as I am driving around town, or walking in the park. He has been talking about financial responsibility for a long time. I enjoy his radio show.
I am very proud of the fact that I will not allow misinformation (or anything that is untrue) about Bob Brinker to be posted on Honey's Bob Brinker Beehive Buzz2.
.
It's an interesting blog, but people thinking of going there should know that its owner has defended blocking comments that cite information that she "knows" is not true, thus making herself the sole arbiter of what is true and what isn't.
In her own words: "But that does not mean that I will publish websites that contain information about Brinker if I know for a fact it is not true."
http://siliconinvestor.advfn.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=25285884
"Please drop by and say hello or join us. All are welcome."
In the interests of truth in advertising, that is apparently no longer true.
"GET LOST! You aren't wanted here."
http://groups.google.com/group/brinker-moneytalk-and-marketimer-discussions-with-the-beehiv/msg/d12907b6ad4536a9
Hi everyone,
I have been listening to Bob's show lately and most of what he says is right on the mark. One of his topics, however, seems to be rather uninformed. That's alternative energy.
Bob keeps pushing the idea that nuclear energy is the only hope for mankind. I won't argue that nuclear needs to be a part of the solution but Bob's total dissing of solar energy is really annoying me.
I recently "ran the numbers" and here is what I found:
-The earth's surface receives a constant 89,000 TerraWatts of solar energy.
-Total energy usage by humans is 15 TerraWatts
Now assume that we could cover at most 5% of the earth's surface with solar collectors and they would have a maximum efficiency of 50%, the 89,000 TerraWatts becomes 2,200 TerraWatts.
The bottom line: There is enough solar energy to provide 100 times the energy needed by all humans on the planet.
Of course you will have to have some nuclear to deal with power demand after sunset but there are so many things that can be done with the power. You can generate hydrogen, use it to extract clean burning gas from coal, oil shale, and tar sands. Use it to desalinate sea water and pump it to Las Vegas!
I would even hazard to guess that covering 100 square miles of the desert southwest with solar collectors would be faster and cheaper than building 100 nuclear power plants.
To see the source of my numbers, search for "solar energy" on Google and click on the Wikipedia link.
I enjoy your blog
http://honeysbobbrinkerbeehivebuzz.blogspot.com/
Great colors!
Suite101 Brinker threads are KAPUT. Anyone looking for the new Honey's Bob Brinker Beehive Buzz will find it in a Google Group entitled Bob Brinker's Moneytalk and Marketimer Discussions with the Beehive Buzz.
Please drop by and say hello or join us. All are welcome.
.
Well, I'm glad we agree on something.
As for Dija, as you know, I disagree with you about him, but I don't think anyone who has been following that thread expects you and he to start liking each other.
"I pointed out that a few people, you in particular, prefer to run around the net taking a great amount of time to complain in multiple obscure forums where she posts to complain about her forum rather than simply post some balance in her forum."
There are three forums that I was already a member of, where someone other than myself brought up the subject of Honey's thread. Now I don't know about you, but when most people bring something up in a discussion forum, they expect that people will discuss it, and that's exactly what I did.
This is not an advertising forum; it's a discussion forum. Same for SI and Yahoo.
BTW, one of those so-called "obscure" forums happens to be a major source of material for Honey's blog!
"It appears you were trying to hassle her so she stops rather than any concern you have for balance."
Honey's FIRST post on this thread was TWO WEEKS after I posted my opinion of your links, one of which was to her thread. I think you're confused as to who is hassling whom.
I don't delude myself into thinking that I have the capability of stopping Honey from doing anything. In fact, I don't care whether she stops or not, but I promise that I will continue to tell the truth about it as I see it, whether you like it or not.
"Until today I thought you were literate. Where have I told you to not express your opinion?"
And yet you assumed, in the same message, that I am trying to get Honey to stop what she's doing with her thread/blog.
Actually, I agree with what you write:
However, based on volume, or rather lack thereof, I don't think any message board is as "obscure" as this one right here
Personally I would prefer that there not be a last word. This thread's been pretty dead for quite a while, and I would be just as happy to see ongoing activity. I believe there's some number of posts per day that people can post for free if they don't mind the ads. As far as I know Yahoo management is neutral on the issues, but they seem pretty ham-handed in their handling of the Yahoo UTEK thread. I think iHub management is much more intelligent about it, in addition to being neutral.
I agree. They (IHub) would probably eliminate any nasty, name calling posts that I object to from both sides. The 5 post limit would limit those who post too much of the same thing to a few, well thought out posts... I might even start reading all the posts again.
Of course, it seems the majority of the posts on "your other forum" are regulars harassing each other including lying about what the other says, lying by omission and making up things then speaking as if they were facts. I've seen some of this from both sides but that dija character is the worst.
Are you saying that in order to criticize a Web site, a person must first criticize all similar Web sites?
No, obviously you have your leanings.
And yet you're here right now, complaining about something I posted on my own thread. What's the difference?
Maybe you have lost track of my original comments. Lets reconstruct:
You said Honey's forum was one sided.
I said she has offered to let others post their side of the story.
I pointed out that a few people, you in particular, prefer to run around the net taking a great amount of time to complain in multiple obscure forums where she posts to complain about her forum rather than simply post some balance in her forum.
It appears you were trying to hassle her so she stops rather than any concern you have for balance.
I must say, it really takes hubris for you to tell me that I shouldn't express my opinion of links that you post on my thread. Who the heck do you think you are?
Until today I thought you were literate. Where have I told you to not express your opinion?
I think you're confused about the difference between a straw man and a hypothetical situation intended to illustrate a point. The point of my hypothetical was that the same principle would apply if the situation were reversed. That principle is that trying to improve someone's Web site for them is not a prerequisite for criticism of that Web site.
"That 'Pro Brinker Only idea' already been tried on SI and it was made quite clear that those who didn't like it were not allowed to post. Posts that complained were deleted and people who made them banned from particapation. You were a regular on that forum and I don't recall you objecting."
Are you saying that in order to criticize a Web site, a person must first criticize all similar Web sites? If so, I disagree. However, I support your right to post your opinion of Justa's board, and I insist that I have the same right to criticize your boards as you have to criticize his.
BTW, the only post that has been deleted on this thread so far was done by iHub management, not by me, nor was it done at my request. (For those who are wondering, it was an advertisement for a Russian Web site unrelated to the topic of this thread.)
"I think enough complained that eventually Justa took it to Brinker's web site where he was allowed to delete any and all who posted anything critical of Brinker. Again, I don't recall you complaining."
I didn't know that Justa was deleting posts on Brinker's boards. However I have in fact complained about the way the Brinkers ran their discussion boards, beginning with Rande's expulsion, and as I have said several times, it's a good thing they discontinued them, because they were no good at it.
"The fact is I have not acted like you and complained about whatever you want to post in your own Blog."
And yet you're here right now, complaining about something I posted on my own thread. What's the difference?
You have the right to complain about anything you like. If you choose not to exercise that right, it does not alter the fact that you have that right, and it does not alter the fact that I have that right.
"Your argument is as silly as telling the NY Times that they should not post so many Liberal articles. It is THEIR CHOICE to post what they want."
That's funny, because I know people who complain constantly about the NYT's slant, and it never occurred to me tell them that there was something wrong with their posting their opinion of it.
And, for the record, I am NOT telling Honey what to post. I am only calling a spade a spade.
So far, you haven't claimed that I have said anything untrue about Honey's board. Do you object to the truth being posted? If you think anything I have said about it is untrue, tell me what it is.
"OTOH, you are on the record of supporting a Forum moderated by Justa on SI then on Brinker's own web site that kicked people off simply for posting things the Brinker's didn't like such as complimentary words to David Korn."
I'm not sure what you mean by supporting, but it's true that I did post on those boards for a while. Eventually, I got bored with Justa's board and went elsewhere, which has been my pretty consistent reaction to all one-sided boards. The Brinker boards always seemed to have a variety of opinions on them in spite of whatever censorship was taking place, so I continued to read and/or post there until they were closed.
The fact is that I ALSO support Honey's right to have a one-sided thread or blog, just as I have a right to express my opinion of it.
I must say, it really takes hubris for you to tell me that I shouldn't express my opinion of links that you post on my thread. Who the heck do you think you are?
Even if you hadn't posted those links here, I have the right to express my opinion. You will never succeed in your attempts to silence me.
"You are the one running around saying you answered some question already on some obscure message board few read. It might have been easier to simpy answer it again here."
Luckily for me, I'm free to post where I like. However, based on volume, or rather lack thereof, I don't think any message board is as "obscure" as this one right here.
BTW, I don't know what question you're referring to. If you'll tell me what the question is, I'll be happy to answer it here.
"But I expect you to have to get in some sort of last word."
Would you prefer to have the last word yourself?
Personally I would prefer that there not be a last word. This thread's been pretty dead for quite a while, and I would be just as happy to see ongoing activity. I believe there's some number of posts per day that people can post for free if they don't mind the ads. As far as I know Yahoo management is neutral on the issues, but they seem pretty ham-handed in their handling of the Yahoo UTEK thread. I think iHub management is much more intelligent about it, in addition to being neutral.
STRAWMAN ALERT
If I were to start copying only pro-Brinker posts over here from the Yahoo UTEK board, you would be entirely justified in pointing out that I was building a one-sided thread, and if you didn't want to take the time to copy the anti-Brinker posts over here yourself, or to write rebuttals yourself, that would not make you any less justified in criticizing what I was doing.
That "Pro Brinker Only idea" already been tried on SI and it was made quite clear that those who didn't like it were not allowed to post. Posts that complained were deleted and people who made them banned from particapation. You were a regular on that forum and I don't recall you objecting.
I think enough complained that eventually Justa took it to Brinker's web site where he was allowed to delete any and all who posted anything critical of Brinker. Again, I don't recall you complaining.
The Truth
The fact is I have not acted like you and complained about whatever you want to post in your own Blog. If I wanted to see balance, I would simply provide it or keep my mouth shut. I might complain that only one side is allowed if you acted like Bob Brinker and deleted EVERY critical post on a forum that was supposed to be for all subscribers.
Your argument is as silly as telling the NY Times that they should not post so many Liberal articles. It is THEIR CHOICE to post what they want. I admire Honey the opportunity for those who don't agree with her to post why they don't agree on her forum.
OTOH, you are on the record of supporting a Forum moderated by Justa on SI then on Brinker's own web site that kicked people off simply for posting things the Brinker's didn't like such as complimentary words to David Korn.
You are the one running around saying you answered some question already on some obscure message board few read. It might have been easier to simpy answer it again here. But I expect you to have to get in some sort of last word.
"Honey's board and posts are read by thousands."
Why should I care?
First of all, my side of the story is already posted on the Yahoo UTEK thread. Why should I waste my time copying it all over to Honey's board?
Does anyone but you and Fish read all the garbage posted there?
Perhaps 15 people read a fraction of the nonsense posted there on a good day. If that floats your boat... then good for you. Honey's board and posts are read by thousands.
You're always entitled to post your opinion, as am I. That's one of the wonderful things about this great country of ours!
No problem as long as you keep your comments "fair and balanced" --but if you put your finger on the scales, you can just bet that someone will see it and react accordingly. :)
"Do as you like, Math Junkie. But since YOU and YOU alone have decided that you do not want to present your viewpoints at the Beehive, then the least you can do is to stop trying to make it appear like you are not allowed to post them."
I don't know what I have written that might make anyone think I am not allowed to post on your board. For the record, as far as I know I am allowed to post on your board.
What I reject is the notion that there is something wrong with my expressing my opinion of your board if I am not interested in posting there.
Suppose the situation were reversed. If you were to criticize this board, its contents, or the way I run it, I would not dream of claiming that you had to post here in order to have the right to criticize it.
It strikes me as very peculiar that you seem to want to make me responsible for the shortcomings I have pointed out in your board. You are responsible for your own actions, and you are the person who has chosen to copy only one side of a debate from another board.
If I were to start copying only pro-Brinker posts over here from the Yahoo UTEK board, you would be entirely justified in pointing out that I was building a one-sided thread, and if you didn't want to take the time to copy the anti-Brinker posts over here yourself, or to write rebuttals yourself, that would not make you any less justified in criticizing what I was doing.
You're welcome at Honey's Bob Brinker Beehive Buzz at Suite 101, so it would be nice if you would stop the whining.
Math Junkie said: "First of all, my side of the story is already posted on the Yahoo UTEK thread. Why should I waste my time copying it all over to Honey's board?"
Do as you like, Math Junkie. But since YOU and YOU alone have decided that you do not want to present your viewpoints at the Beehive, then the least you can do is to stop trying to make it appear like you are not allowed to post them.
It sure seems like you're walking awfully close to the boundary between truth and fiction when you whine that my thread is "one-sided." It is what it is... "Noone" has been censored. Perhaps I do present all sides. I report--you decide.
I will post what I want to about Brinker there and you are free to do the same. It's your choice, so put up or shut up--no offense. :)
"Even Math Junkie admits that Brinker's (ongoing) QQQQ-trade cover-up is not right."
I have said so numerous times without anyone pressing me to say it. Why you characterize that as an admission is a mystery.
"I DO CARE that you complain 'They don't post my side of the story' then when you are invited to 'post your side of the story' you refuse."
First of all, my side of the story is already posted on the Yahoo UTEK thread. Why should I waste my time copying it all over to Honey's board?
Secondly, I'm sorry if it upsets you, but the fact is that I don't like the way you run your boards, and I'm not obligated to come over there and help you improve them as a condition of expressing my opinion of them.
Would Brinker be justified in telling you that you shouldn't criticize his investment letter unless you were willing to help him write it?
"Perhaps the reason the forum is 'unbalanced' is nobody can defend Brinker reporting his results without including the QQQQ advice?"
It's much worse than unbalanced. Honey's board is one-sided, because she copies pages and pages of posts from a dedicated anti-Brinker propagandist on the Yahoo UTEK thread, without letting people see the arguments that are posted on the other side. It's like listening to one side of a phone conversation.
(For those who are interested, both sides of these arguments can be found at http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=topics&board=4687942&sid=4687942&type=r )
BTW, I agree with you about the reporting of QQQQ results.
"For the record here, do you think Bob Brinker honestly reports his investment record?"
I think that completely excluding the results of the QQQQ advice, and failing to list TEFQX in the newsletter in spite of its still being on hold, are dishonest. Other than that, I haven't seen evidence of a problem.
"How would YOU report his investment record?"
As Honey graciously pointed out, I already covered this in post #23 here.
"FWIW, I don't own Suite101... so it is NOT my site. I moderate one of over 200 topics there, a topic I have some passion for."
Good point. I don't have any beef with the portions of it that are not subject to your control.
You are correct, Kirk. I have indeed invited Math Junkie to post at Honey's Brinker Beehive-Buzz--just as I have invited anyone to post there whether they agree or disagree with what is posted there.
Unlike many Brinker forums of the past, such as those hosted by Justa and Lars, I am willing to respectfully let the "opposition" have their say. All I ask is that everyone stay on topic and that Suite 101 TOS rules be observed.
As I said over at the site where Math Junkie posted a link to this site this morning, defending Bob Brinker's cover-ups and distortions of his true record is "mission impossible." Even Math Junkie admits that Brinker's (ongoing) QQQQ-trade cover-up is not right.
You are arguing in circles.
YOU are the one who said Honey's Bob Brinker Beehive Buzz forum [ http://investment.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/8 ]was on sided
SHE invited you to post to bring balance
YOU refused her offer.
I DO NOT CARE if you post there or not.
I DO CARE that you complain "They don't post my side of the story" then when you are invited to "post your side of the story" you refuse. Perhaps the reason the forum is "unbalanced" is nobody can defend Brinker reporting his results without including the QQQQ advice?
I will continue to point out that Honey pretty much destroys the arguments of anyone trying to defend Bob Brinker's record and she has invited YOU to bring balance but you refuse to post in HER forum.
In fact, I've read you think Bob Brinker dishonestly reports his investment results.
For the record here, do you think Bob Brinker honestly reports his investment record? How would YOU report his investment record?
FWIW, I don't own Suite101... so it is NOT my site. I moderate one of over 200 topics there, a topic I have some passion for.
"So the personal attack continues."
If you continue to tell me that I ought to post at your site, you can expect me to continue to explain why I am not interested in posting at your site. It's your choice.
"Why don't you trust me?"
If I answer your question you'll just accuse me of continuing a "personal attack." So make up your mind. Do you want to have a discussion about this or not?
"Do you think I will make your computer explode if you post your side of the debate on Honey's forum?"
Nope.
"Are you afraid your arguments will look foolish and you can't trust me to not point this out?"
Nope.
So the personal attack continues.
Why don't you trust me? Do you think I will make your computer explode if you post your side of the debate on Honey's forum?
or...
Are you afraid your arguments will look foolish and you can't trust me to not point this out?
"YOU have been specifically invited to post your side of the issues but YOU have refused, usually followed by some personal attack on me or some silly claim you don't trust me...."
It's not a "claim." I really don't trust you.
"yet you have zero evidence I've ever deleted any posts other than a post you made that you asked me to delete. You dishonestly left that part out once when attacking me saying you knew I had deleted one of your posts..."
My lack of interest in posting on your boards is not based on that incident. And oh by the way, I didn't ask you to delete it.
"So.. the ONLY reason either of the Bob Brinker Message boards
http://investment.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/8
and
http://investment.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/7
are not 'balanced enough' for you is your own refusal to participate."
I didn't say that the board at the second link above was one-sided, because I haven't paid enough attention to it lately to be able to give an opinion. I said that about Honey's board (the first link above), and about the "fan (and critic)" club. I'm not sure why you're blaming me for their being one-sided. I'm not obligated to help you improve your site, and the fact that I expressed my opinion of parts of it does not create such an obligation.
BTW, most people consider the posting of links on a board as an invitation to discuss what's at those links. You're free to disagree with any opinions expressed here, of course, but you shouldn't be surprised to see opinions expressed.
"I certainly have no objection to your posting those links here, but I will also state that in most contexts, a critic writes about the good as well as the bad. Honey's board has been pretty one-sided towards the negative every time I've looked, which is inconsistent with her claim that she wants to be fair and balanced. Same for the "fan (and critic)" club."
YOU have been specifically invited to post your side of the issues but YOU have refused, usually followed by some personal attack on me or some silly claim you don't trust me.... yet you have zero evidence I've ever deleted any posts other than a post you made that you asked me to delete. You dishonestly left that part out once when attacking me saying you knew I had deleted one of your posts...
So.. the ONLY reason either of the Bob Brinker Message boards
http://investment.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/8
and
http://investment.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/7
are not "balanced enough" for you is your own refusal to participate.
I certainly have no objection to your posting those links here, but I will also state that in most contexts, a critic writes about the good as well as the bad. Honey's board has been pretty one-sided towards the negative every time I've looked, which is inconsistent with her claim that she wants to be fair and balanced. Same for the "fan (and critic)" club.
New Bob Brinker Discussion Forum
http://investment.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/7
Critics Forum - Honey's Bob Brinker Beehive Buzz
http://investment.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/8
Bob Brinker's 5 root causes for a bear market:
http://investment.suite101.com/article.cfm/BobBrinker20060423
Bob Brinker Fan (and critic) club
http://home.netcom.com/~kirklindstrom/BB/BobBrinkerFanClub.html
Thanks, should be an interesting week coming up. Seems like the Fed will make the wrong move it raises rates and will tell the whole world that the US economy is weak if they do not raise rates. There is very little economic news coming out next week until Friday. So, if the market wants to continue to go down, there is nothing stopping it. I assume that if there is a pause in the decline there will promply be an attempt to rally the market and take advantage of the decline. But this market after a long grind down is very dangerous to bottom feeders.
The dollar declined significantly Friday. I think there will be about $51 billion in treasuries to be sold next week. Things will get real interesting if the Asians get spooked by the recent economic news..and the likely slowing of the US economy. I mean I think they have been net sellers of US equities over the past several months and so this could also shift to our debt. We need about $2 billion per day in new foriegn debt purchases to keep this economy borrowing....
Best wishes everyone....
Brinker was using the S&P 500 as his yardstick, but he might have switched to the Wilshire 5000.
I just noticed that the Russell 2k is down over 17% since this time last year. If the market is down by 20% does that not indicate that Bob Brinker may have missed a market call. I'm not out to bash him...I think he does a fantastic job...much better than 98% of most brokers you have to pay high commissions to. I am looking at some of the other indexes and see over 10% losses in the market.... Best wishes...
Steve
I can not get to survey either.
Will contact Matt
Hope it is not like Ihub email
Works some time. Doesn't work some time.
Your link is busted. Was the post deleted?
Take Bob Brinker's Survey on QQQ Trades
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=3527861
Thanks for confirming the facts and providing that bit of history.
You wrote:
Some Facts for a Change
by: fahrenheit_451_fan 07/02/04 04:19 pm
Msg: 75017 of 75018
I created a moderated thread as a test, so I know what I'm talking about. Moderators can ban people, but there is no provision for deleting posts.
No "provision" means no easy button to delete posts.
But I'll tell you for a fact that your buddy Justa had SI delete one of my posts only because it linked to the "7 habits for successful investors" summary that someone posted after they attended one of Brinker's seminars.
Brinker thought people were "stealing valuable IP" by posting this and Brinker/DonLane/MisterTopes would stop posting if Justa allowed it to continue.
I told Justa I'd ask SI to remove the post if Brinker gave a public appology for calling me "scum of the Earth" for posting what was already posted in the Chicago Tribune.
Justa had SI delete the post and he lost any respect I had left for him after that.
That deleted post was not even in a moderated forum! So... yes, there is no "delete button" but moderators can delet posts. It will be interesting to see if this post gets deleted....
Since you followed him up to 2001, you probably know about the attempted QQQ trade that went bust. He never did take that one off of hold status.
Other than that he went fully invested in March of last year. It was a good buying opportunity, but I certainly wouldn't call it the "Mother of All Buying Opportunities," given that he keeps saying on the radio that this is just a cyclical bull market within a secular bear market.
Out of courtesy to Mr. Brinker, I prefer that people not quote current Marketimer content in this thread.
Been away several years Need current "moboa" update
Between 98 and 01 I closely followed Bob Brinker's take on the market. I've been away for several years and am trying to catch up and find out what the current status of his position on the market is. Specifically in 2001 he spoke of a point time in the future which he called MBOA (the mother of all buying opportunities) In the last few years did Bob ever come out and say that that time had arrived. What is his current market timer position?
Thanks for your help!.
Thanks for your commentary and the links.
Here is an excerpt from my last newsletter which provides summary and commentary of Bob Brinker's Moneytalk.
BOB BRINKER SAYS THE SUMMER DOLDRUMS ARE HERE
Bob Brinker Comment: This was a very quiet week for the stock market. The changes in the major indices were very small. The Dow was only up 6 points for the week. The S&P 500 dropped only 1.5 points, and the Wilshire 5000 fell 11.8 points, which is only about .1%. This is the time when people leave town for their summer vacations and the summer doldrums hit Wall Street.
Editorial Comment "EC": The Stock Trader's Almanac rebuts the widely held belief that summer produces the greatest rally of the year. The so-called "summer rally" was defined by Ralph Rotnem as the lowest close in the Dow in May or June, to the highest close in July, August or September. The Almanac points out that there are rallies in every season of the year, but the summer is actually the weakest statistically speaking. Nevertheless, a rally is a rally and over the last 40 years, the summer rally produced on average gains of 9.2% using Mr. Rotnem's guidelines.
source, 2004 Stock Trader's Almanac (p. 70), Yale Hirsch and Jeffrey A. Hirsch editors, http://www.stocktradersalmanac.com
BOB BRINKER'S VIEW OF THE LONG TERM TREND
Brinker Comment: Bob said that we had an indication that the secular bull market from 1982-2000 came to an end during the speculative peak in the first quarter of 2000 which ushered in a new bear market megatrend. We are now in year 5 of that secular bear megatrend, which Bob thinks will last anywhere from 8 to 20 years. Nothing Bob sees right now, however, suggests to him that this secular bear market will end anytime soon.
BOB BRINKER'S OVERALL VIEW OF THIS CYCLICAL BULL MARKET
Brinker Comment: Bob said he feels that we began in earnest a cyclical bull market in March, 2003 which was the successful and final test of the initial bottom that occurred in October, 2002. Bob said he has referred to this as a market "double bottom" which is where you get a low for the market, followed by a failed rally, and then a crucial retest which determines whether you get a buying opportunity. Bob said we saw the initial low in October, 2002. This was followed by a failed rally into the winter of 2002, and then a successful final retest of the low area in March, 2003. On March 11, 2003, the S&P 500 closed at the 800 level, just 3% from its prior low which is when Bob issued his buy signal when he "saw what he needed to see."
EC#1: As I have discussed in prior newsletters, I believe that Bob decided to return to a fully invested position after seeing the market had a 90% down day which occurred on March 10, 2003. In fact, it was based on the market's close of March 10th (not March 11th), that Bob's timing model issued its "buy signal" and Bob recommended investors return to a fully invested position based on the market's close that day. I am aware of at least two other advisors who turned bullish at the same time, both in large part due to the 90% down day phenomenon in my opinion.
EC#2: I realize that Bob likes to refer to the market as a "double bottom" but I maintain that it is more accurate to refer to this as a "triple bottom." Bob likes to use the S&P 500 area of 800 as evidence that it had tested the lows of October. However, the S&P 500 actually CLOSED at 797.70 on July 23, 2002! That was the first bottom in my opinion, followed by the lowest close which occurred in October, 2002. The third bottom occurred in March, 2003, but the October 2002 saw levels significantly lower in the Nasdaq Composite.
BOB BRINKER SAYS THE EASY MONEY HAS BEEN MADE
Brinker Comment: The stock market is up over 40% since the buy signal in March, 2003. However, Bob thinks that the "easy money" phase of the cyclical bull occurred from March, 2003 until earlier this year. The consolidation period, which we are in now, has been very modest. Even now, the S&P 500 is within 3% of its recovery high, and has never been more than about 6% from its recovery high. Nevertheless, since the easy money was made during the initial 40% thrust from last year, we will now have to fight for our profits and be patient.
EC: I agree, and that is why I am trying to identify inflection points such as the buy signal I identified on May 17th, which so far marks the correction bottom this year.
THE CYCLICAL BULL MARKET HAS NOT ENDED
Brinker Comment: As we move through this consolidation phase, we will have to be patient in a market that can be more than frustrating as it has shown so far this year. AT THIS TIME, however, Bob said he does NOT see the evidence that this cyclical bull market is over.
EC: The cyclical bull market we have seen thus far comports with other cyclical bull markets. If you would like to see my analysis of all cyclical bull market in the last secular bear market, just e-mail me at davidk555@earthlink.net.
HOW LONG DOES BOB BRINKER THINK THE CYCLICAL BULL MARKET WILL LAST?
Brinker Comment: Bob said cyclical bull markets tend to last 1 to 3 years. However, how long it lasts doesn't really matter. What matters is that you are on the right side of the market when it does end, whether its in 1 year, or 3 years or even longer. Bob said his stock market timing indicators have done a very good job of identifying major moves in the stock market and he is going to stick with those indicators and not try to predict when the cyclical bull market will end. As of right now, however, Bob does not think the cyclical bull market is over. Bob will wait until the indicators give the all clear.
EC: No surprise here. The indicators that Bob tracks in his stock market timing model don't suggest to me that Bob will be turning bearish anytime soon. I will update those indicators in a future newsletter.
WHAT HAPPENS NEAR THE END OF A CYCLICAL BULL MARKET?
Caller: This caller wanted to know what will happen with jobs and interest rates toward the end of a cyclical bull market. Bob said that these are economic issues, and the economy, just like the stock market, is subject to cyclical moves. One of the first places that you will see a change in the economy is in the jobs market. You will see the absence of new jobs, you will see layoffs and if you are living in a housing community that is sensitive to new jobs, than you could see that impact the prices of housing as well.
EC: The stock market can turn, however, before the economy turns. Remember, the stock market is a discounting mechanism as investors try to anticipate what the future will hold for corporate earnings and the economy, usually six months in advance.
INVEST IN THE WILSHIRE 50000
Caller: This caller has $100,000 to invest and wanted Bob's recommendation on a security to invest in. Bob said he likes the idea of investing in the Wilshire 5000 because it will basically earn you the rate of return of the U.S. stock market. If you purchase a low expense fund that tracks the Wilshire 5000, you will get a tax efficient investment, diversification and you are assured of not under performing the market as so many managed mutual funds are prone to do.
EC: The Vanguard Total Stock Market Fund (Ticker: VTSMX) is the way to go if you want to own the Wilshire 5000 through a no load mutual fund. It only has an expense ratio of 20 basis points or 0.20%. I prefer to own the Wilshire 5000 through the exchange traded fund VIPERS (ticker: VTI) because you can trade it in real time. The only downside is you have to pay a commission when you buy and sell it, but a discount broker minimizes those transaction costs.
TREASURY INFLATION PROTECTED SECURITIES
Caller: This caller subscribes to Bob's Marketimer newsletter and observed that he made a recommendation to reduce holdings in some TIPS mutual funds. Bob said he made that recommendation some time ago, although he still keeps a small portion of his portfolio in TIPS. The caller then asked what Bob thought the optimum conditions were for TIPS? Bob said the optimum situation is what we saw a couple of years ago when the base rate was up near 3%. Recently, the base rate got down into the ones and Bob's concern was that people would demand a higher base rate and they have and that is why you have seen depreciation in the share price.
EC: Looking for inflation protection? Check out this article entitled, "Inflation-Proofing Your Portfolio" which you can access at this link:
http://tinyurl.com/2n6zm
STARTING OFF SMALL
Caller: This caller's 16-year old wants to learn about investing and purchase some stocks. Bob said he would like a young person to learn about investing, rather than actually start investing in stocks. The caller asked if Bob knew of a way to invest small amounts of money into stocks. Bob encouraged the caller not to adopt this route. Instead, he said he would rather the child wait until their early 20s, keep the money liquid in a money market account and start investing after college.
EC#1: I take a different stance on this issue than Bob. I think it can be very beneficial for children to start investing in stocks at a young age. It gets them interested in the concept of investing, and can be financially rewarding to boot. Moreover, there are now companies that allow you to buy stocks for a very small amount per transaction. One such company is Sharebuilder which allows you to start buying stocks at just $4 per investment. Learn more about Sharebuilder at this link:
http://www.sharebuilder.com/
EC#2: Another way to invest in stocks without paying commissions is through what are called "Drips." Drips is actually a nickname for the acronym DRP which stands for Dividend Reinvestment Plan. A related concept are the Direct Stock Purchase Plans (DSPs). These plans are offered typically by blue-chip companies where you can invest small amounts of money by purchasing stock directly from the companies. Want to learn more about this type of investing? Start here and follow the links:
http://www.fool.com/school/Drips.htm
David Korn, editor of http://www.BeginInvesting.com
E-mail me at: mailto:davidk555@earthlink.net
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.
That could be the way he sees it, but if so, I disagree with that line of thinking. In the long run it's better to build customer loyalty by being straight with people.
I agree with that AND his results with QQQ are not that bad compared to the indexes... so his mistake was not much worse than just a buy and hold of the indexes.
Perhaps he would lose more than he gains from that disclosure?
My guess is it would destroy a good part of his advertising method which now is making fun of anyone who "held stocks all the way down" in the bear market...
What you say is true, and yet Bob seems to have this irrational fear of talking about his mistakes and what he has learned from them. Here's something I would like to see in the newsletter:
"At the request of subscribers who participated in our QQQ buy recommendation in October of 2000, beginning with this issue we are adding a version of Portfolio I which includes the effect of placing 50% of cash reserves in QQQ at $xx.xx, which was the average price of QQQ for the week of October 15, 2000."
He also never removed his hold rating on TEFQX, as far as I know, and I think he should include that in his list of securities on hold until he issues a sell recommendation on it.
More and more people are getting their information from the Internet, and when they find out about these things through someone other than him, I think it makes him look worse than if he had just been upfront about it.
To:Truman Bradley who started this subject
From: Larry Dudash Saturday, Jun 12, 2004 1:03 AM
Respond to of 21358
WOW Bob Brinker's newsletter is OUT!
And what a surprise it was.
LOL....shhhhh.....
The Bashers will never rest, Larry....it's their goal in life to discredit Bob whatever means it takes.
Jealousy and hate have no bounds.
Here's how I identified changes in status of the model:
The earliest date for which I was able to make this determination was January 1991, when he went 100% invested. If he was fully invested, then his model must have been favorable. Unfortunately, we are not able to make that determination prior to that, as he was only partially invested, and if he made any statements on whether the model was favorable or unfavorable, I don't have that information. On the other hand, in January of 2000, even though he only went 60% to cash, he explicitly stated "the model has turned unfavorable."
In October of 2000 he spoke of a "countertrend rally." By definition a countertrend rally cannot exist unless the trend is down, so it is evident that his model must still have been unfavorable. This is confirmed by the fact that in subsequent issues he made it clear by his explanations that the methodology he was using in attempting to identify a countertrend rally was different from the methodology of his model as he had previously explained it on many occasions.
In March of 2003 he again went fully invested, leaving no doubt about the status of the model.
Followers
|
12
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
72
|
Created
|
07/25/03
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderator Math Junkie | |||
Assistants |
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |