I-BONDS and TIPS....The interest on I-bonds are tax-deferrable until redemption, but you can pay current taxes if you elect to...Bob said: "At this time, if I were a holder of Inflation Protected Securities, I would sell them. The reason is that I think the base rate has reached unattractive levels. I have no desire at this juncture to hold (them)."
BOB SETS ME AND BLOG READERS STRAIGHT....Jim from Ohio asked: "I have heard you on a number of occasions caution investors in the bond fund to set a mental stop as to when to get out. My question is, have you done so or will you do so on your Marketimer income portfolio?"
Bob replied: "I don't think that it would in the context of the way I have answered those question....Sometimes, people call into the program and their primary concern is net-asset-value fluctuation. The mental stop tool is used in order to ameliorate those concerns in reference to that specific holding whether it be a Ginnie Mae or whatever. I have the flexibility in my investment letter in managing the portfolio.
I personally manage all of the model portfolios in my investment letter. Just as I personally write every word that's every been in the investment letter. So the bottom line of all of this is, I have the ability to manage through the investment letter to manage those portfolios. I can announce change whenever I want to. It's normally done within the context of the monthly letter. But I can announce changes whenever I want to and as a consequence, I have that flexibility. So if I'm going to make a change -- do I have a change in hand right now today as we speak, no. But I can make a change in the portfolio at any time."
birdbrain said...SELLING OUT AND BUYING BACK AT HIGHER PRICES....Caller John from San Mateo claimed that he had been a Marketimer subscriber for a long time and followed Bob's portfolio-one, but he got scared last August and went to cash. John pointed out that his portfolio dropped almost 25% during the market downturn.
When Mr B said that he personally manages every portfolio and writes every word in his investment letter, he was speaking directly to the host and readers of this blog.
He claims that he has owned Apple stock for a decade or so and it has probably been the number one performer that he has owned. A rise of over 4500% in ten years is PROBABLY one of his top investments? The inclusion of that one word raises doubt. As Honey brought up, why no mention of this great success in print or on air?
Bob replied: "John, just so we don't mislead anybody, we issued a buy-signal on September 22nd in the low 1100s.....The total S&P market decline was 19%....(John reminded Bob that he had told a caller that if he sold he might have to buy back at higher prices.) Bob continued: "That's exactly right, virtually verbatim what I said....I would not buy individual stocks. I would buy the total stock market -- like VTI shares....The SPY shares would be another way. I would dollar-cost-average. I'm certainly not jumping up and down at this level as I was last September in the low 1100's....You're going to be kicking yourself for selling out near the bottom. It's one of the most painful experiences.
Honey EC: Bob slipped in some horse-puckey again. Unfortunately, most listeners will never know the truth. Yes, Bob did tell a caller that if he sold out, he might have to buy back at higher prices. What Bob didn't say yesterday was that the call was in June and there were several opportunities AFTER it to buy in at lower prices -- as much as 19.4% lower when the S&P bottomed in October before turning up again. Here is a link where I document this call in my summary.
REASON WHY BOB ISSUES BUY SIGNALS WHILE HIS NEWSLETTER ADVICE IS TO REMAIN FULLY INVESTED...Bob said: "Some people will wonder over time, well Bob, you're fully invested, right? Why are you issuing a buy signal? As I have said many times, I have to exercise market-timing in a situation like that. Okay, the model portfolios are fully invested, but we see a buy signal develop in the market on a correction. And this has happened twice in the last two years. It happened in the beginning of July of 2010. Yes, we were fully invested, but at the same time, we saw a buying opportunity on the correction, so we issued a buy by upgrading our investment letter recommendation to attractive for purchase at that time. That was near the 1000 level on the S&P less than two years ago. And then it happened again last September. Even though we were fully invested, so many of our subscribers asked us is this an opportunity to buy."
Honey EC: Bob just blows off the fact that his subscribers are only gaining back what they have lost from bears in the past few years. Bob took no action to raise cash and preserve profits. What he was basically bragging about is that subscribers following his advice, rode the market down 20% in 2010 and 2011. And as those same followers are STILL UNDERWATER from the mega-bear market of 2008-'09.
Honey EC2: Bob bragged about issuing a couple of buy-signal before the stock market happened to go up. What he has never done is apologize for all of the buy-signals he has issued before the stock market continued going down.
January 4, 2008, S&P @ 1411: "Mid-1400's"LENDING SHARES FOR SHORT SELLING: David Korn wrote this commentary:
Feb 10, 2008 S&P @ 1331: "Low-1300's" (delivered via "special bulletin" - no mention of January Marketimer mid-1400's buying opportunity)
Aug 5, 2008 S&P @ 1285: "1240 or less"
Sept 2, 2008 S&P @ 1282: "Low-to-mid 1200's"
Caller: This caller owns 70,000 shares in a drug stock trading at $4.50. His brokerage firm told him they wanted to borrow the shares and will pay him 4% a year for that with no restrictions on when he can buy or sell. Bob asked if this was a thinly traded stock, to which the caller said it had 71 million shares outstanding. Bob said that meant it had a $318 million market cap which is pretty small. Bob said it sounded like there was a short-seller who the brokerage firm wanted to lend the stock out for them to short. Bob said during the period of time he has the stock on loan he will get 4% and since there is no restriction you will get that added income for lending out the stock. Bob said it must be a hard stock to short given the brokerage house is willing to pay 4% in this kind of market. The brokerage firm can't naked short, so they need to secure a borrowing of the shares so they can enable their customer to go into the market and sell 70,000 shares short. The caller then asked if the brokerage firm could use the shares in a margin account without going to a client? Bob said he thinks many margin accounts have allowed brokerage firms to do that.
Honey EC: The caller was Ed from Illinois. He called in the second half of hour-one....Thanks to Jeffchristie for finding the name of this stock and even finding a Yahoo message board post by the caller. It's KERX, and you can read Ed's comments about his call to Bob Brinker (he uses an alias). Here's the LINK.
Bob Brinker's Moneytalk on Demand is FREE on KSFO560. Shows are archived for seven days after broadcast.
Please see hour one summary below
14 comments:
"Honey EC: Shark Alert! Shark Alert! Bob Brinker has never recommended Apple stock in Marketimer and has never before said he had invested in Apple on Moneytalk. Don't be deceived into thinking otherwise in spite of how it might have sounded. A man of integrity would have made it clear that this was a personal choice that he made for himself but never shared with listeners OR subscribers. The only two individual stocks that Bob has had on his list of individual issues in Marketimer over the past ten years are Microsoft and Vodafone."
You still have to learn a little more Brinker-Speak HB.
Brinker never claimed to own Apple stock INDIVIDUALLY.
He said Apple "is a company I am invested in".
Brinker has recommended the Total Stock Market fund for years and of course just like you probably are...he is invested in Apple.
Brinker told the truth!
Translater,
I can't tell if you have your tongue firmly planted in cheek or if you are serious.
If your premise of Brinker-speak was true, he could pick any stock in the total stock market that is doing well and claim he owned it.
I will assume you are being funny because I can't believe you are serious.
Somebody was talking about Schwabs Total Bond Market ETF the other day. It is now DOWN 3 cents while Vanguards Total Bond market fund is UP 5 cents.
They don't even move in the same direction???
I would stick with Vanguard.
Yo, Ms Bee.......
What happened to that radio genius that was here a few weeks ago?
Did you ban him, or did he get deported?
Yo, Mr. Pig,
Very strange how he came and went, isn't it? No, I don't ban anyone. I welcome all opinions no matter how silly I think they are.
Did you read Translater's premise that Bob Brinker was telling the truth when he said he owned Apple for a decade because he owns the Total Stock Market. LOL!
Oh well, maybe the radio guy was just pretending.
Honey,I think Translator is spot on.
tfb
Hi fluffy one,
Please explain why you think Translator is spot on. I must be missing something -- unless you both think that Brinker-speak is nothing but horse-puckey and not to be trusted. :)
I wish they would read this disclaimer at the top of every hour.
Please note: In late 2000, Brinker forecasted a several-month bear market rally and recommended an investment in the NASDAQ 100 Index, a trade that turned out quite unprofitably. However, because Brinker at the time of making this forecast chose not to make this trade part of his model portfolios (Not true. See note 1), his HFD record has not suffered as a result."
__ Mark Hulbert on Pg 16 of the January 2012 issue of "The Hulbert Financial Digest - Long Term Performance Ratings" under Footnote 10:
Note 1: Brinker did not tell his subscribers this advice was "official" until weeks after the rally failed to materialize. Hulbert even admitted he bought QQQ for his portfolios then sold them for a loss when they didn't show up in Brinker's model portfolios while Brinker was saying to buy more in his newsletters as the fell from the $80s.
Kirk, glad to see you here. I saw your comments re: total bond market ETFs. Can you tell me why sometimes(like yesterday) they move in opposite directions?
Jim said it was because of float adjustment, whatever that is. But I think it's because of sampling differences. What do you think?
Kirk,
That Hulbert footnote* would make a good disclaimer. The problem is, as you pointed out, even it is not truthful.
I wish that I had been documenting the charade between Bob Brinker and Mark Hulbert back in 2000 when this happened.
I would love to have hard evidence that Hulbert did what you said even though I absolutely know it's true.
I'm sure it was documented at Suite101, but we both know what happened to it after you left -- they folded to pressure and destroyed everything ever written about Bob Brinker -- hundreds of thousands of posts and first person testimonies.
I would love to have hard evidence that Hulbert did what you said even though I absolutely know it's true.
Peter Brimelow wrote about it Bugging Bob Brinker in one of his "marketing stories" about Hulbert.
In a special bulletin, he suggested Nasdaq 100 Trust QQQ +0.33% , the Nasdaq 100 exchange-trade fund on the American Stock Exchange.
But it did not appear in the detailed model portfolio published, as always, in the next month's letter . So Mark promptly sold out the QQQ position and no longer counted it.
Which was just as well, because QQQ fell from above 80 to a recent 24. Brinker is still sweet on it, in this peculiar, extra-marital sort of way. But if it does rebound, Mark won't count that either -- unless Brinker explicitly puts it in his model portfolio.
As some of us speculated at the time, Brinker put them into his model portfolios AFTER they crashed.... He should share meals with Madoff.....
Kirk,
Thank you, thank you, thank you....
There it is, proof that even Mark Hulbert knew that Bob Brinker recommended model portfolio cash reserves for that trade. He gave exact percentages of the cash reserves and how much conservative and aggressive investors should put into it.
I agree that this kind of scam should be illegal and carry a stiff sentence.
You and I have heard numerous testimonies of people who lost money on that trade!
Brinker left them holding the bag and buried the trade. Every time Brinker and Hulbert promote Marketimer performance, I know that it's a lie.
I agree, if there was justice, Brinker would be eating breakfast with Bernie Madoff INSTEAD OF BRAGGING ABOUT OWNING APPLE FOR OVER A DECADE.
See Brinker's special bulletin QQQ here
Dearest HottieBee,
Brinker never claimed to own Apple stock INDIVIDUALLY
+
Brinker has recommended the Total Stock Market fund for years and of course just like you probably are...he is invested in Apple.
I think Translator has it right. Brinker is deceitful enough to USE an investment in the total stock market, held from certain date and time, and reference it as investment in a particular stock. It gives him the perfect method of making it appear he can pick stocks.
Think back at how he constantly misleads by omission. Think about the very recent example where he encourages a caller to defraud bank by a lie of omission.Do you think that this dirt bag has any scruples?
tfb
Treasury sells TIPS at negative yield
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- The Treasury Department sold $13 billion in 10-year Treasury Inflation Protected Securities on Thursday at a yield of -0.89% - the second time 10-year TIPS have sold with a negative yield. Investors still buy them because besides the coupon, TIPS pay the rate of inflation. Bidders offered to buy 2.81 times the amount of debt sold, compared to an average of 2.77 times at the last six comparable auctions, all of which were for smaller amounts, according to Nomura Securities. Indirect bidders, a group which includes foreign central banks, bought 40.4% of the auction, versus an average of 41%. Direct bidders, a group which includes domestic money managers, purchased another 22.1%, compared to 10.4% on average. After the auction, the broader bond market held onto most of its gains. Yields on 10-year notes 10_YEAR -0.04% , which move inversely to prices, fell 3 basis points to 2.27%.
Post a Comment