In my opinion, Mark Hulbert pimps (figuratively speaking) for both Bob Brinkers in the way he reports their newsletters performance in Hulbert Financial Digest. He has done numerous shenanigans, such as "risk-adjusting" and rearranging his performance lists to keep their newsletters showing up as much as possible. (He created an "Honor Roll" that Marketimer always makes it on regardless of performance.)
Hulbert began covering the Brinker Fixed Income Advisor from the time it was first published in 2005. The old saying, it's not what you know, but who you know comes to mind. Or in this case, what's your daddy's name? There is much confusion about who actually publishes this newsletter, and the Jr-Brinker makes it even more confusing by posting on his website and Twitter as "Bob Brinker."
Today, Mark Hulbert wrote a Marketwatch snake-oil sales pitch about the Jr-Bob Brinker. Are they good buddies? I think that's very likely. At least, they are both on the Bob Brinker's Moneytalk and Marketimer band-wagon that takes loads of loot to the bank. :)
For Marketwatch, Mark wrote: "Brinker’s service is in first place for risk-adjusted performance over the last five years among the nearly 200 advisers tracked by the Hulbert Financial Digest."
The deceptiveness of that statement is enough to make you shake your head in disgust. Note the words, "risk-adjusted." What he doesn't say is that in simple performance numbers, BFIA ranks number 14 -- which is still good -- but even that is misleading because it is ranked against stock newsletter.
When I saw BFIA on the top-5 of Hulbert Financial Digest Overall Performance Scoreboard, I wrote to Hulbert and asked if he knew that BFIA was a fixed income newsletter. Here is my email to Hulbert:
From: DXXXXXXX]
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2010 4:38 PM
To: Hulbert, Mark
Subject: RE: Robert M. Brinker's Newsletter
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2010 4:38 PM
To: Hulbert, Mark
Subject: RE: Robert M. Brinker's Newsletter
Thank you for your response. To answer your question about the focus of my question:
Firstly, I did not know that you rated 100% bond newsletters along side 100% equity newsletters.
Secondly, I noticed that you listed the Fixed Income Advisor as holding equities as shown below:
Key:
U.S. Equities 
Int'l Equities 
U.S. Fixed Income 
Int'l Fixed Income 
Gold
Firstly, I did not know that you rated 100% bond newsletters along side 100% equity newsletters.
Secondly, I noticed that you listed the Fixed Income Advisor as holding equities as shown below:
Key:
U.S. Equities Int'l Equities U.S. Fixed Income Int'l Fixed Income GoldHere is Mark's response to me. No fair laughing about the "algorithm" thingee:
Sunday, October 17, 2010 1:52 PM
From:
"Hulbert, Mark"
View contact details To: "DXXXXXX
Now I understand.
I think the source of this listing that you report is a function of the algorithm that determines the range of asset classes that are reflected in a newsletter’s portfolios. I think the algorithm defaults to “E” whenever there is one or more securities that otherwise doesn’t get mapped specifically to one of the five classes. I suspect that some of the exchange traded funds that Brinker recommends fall into this category, though without a lot more work I can’t be sure…
I've written before about the incredible mulligan that Mark Hulbert gave to Marketimer's Bob Brinker after the disastrous QQQ trade. Here are some comments posted to my last article:
- Dilbert, what a JOKER! said...
- "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. (See "Bugging Bob Brinker" for proof.)
- The guy doesn't even lie well. Why trust him when his own paper trail is full of errors and complaints?
- April 3, 2012 4:42 PM
- Yeah that Hulbert guy is certainly a bastion of credibility.
tfb
May, 2001 Marketimer, Page3; Paragraph 4; Bob Brinker wrote: We continue to believe the Nasdaq has the potential to recover further in the months ahead. As we stated last month, "with or without a buy signal from our long-term model, we expect the Nasdaq composite and Nasdaq 100 Index to stage a significant recovery over the next several months."
Subscribers with conservative objectives and a low-risk tolerance are limited to no more than 20% to 30% of cash reserves in these shares. this equates up to 6.5%, to 9.75% of a total balanced portfolio. The remaining 70% to 80% of a balanced cash reserves remain in quality money funds. Subscribers with aggressive objectives and a high-risk tolerance are limited to no more than 30% to 50% of cash reserves in these shares. This equals potential investment of 19.5% to 32.5% of a high-risk aggressive portfolio. the balance of 50% to 70% of reserves remains in money market funds."
If you remember your history of what the stock market did in 2001, it never staged any kind of a "countertrend rally" like Brinker was calling for. It continued deeper into bear territory and did not bottom until March 2003.
Poster @ 9:54 am today:
Thought of the late comedian Sam Kinison's
take about America's song Horse With No Name
"You're in the middle of the desert with nothing else to do. Name the damn horse."