In Bob Brinker's opinion, 10% corrections are to be expected at any time and should be yawned at. He has told Moneytalk callers if they are bothered by that kind of "noise" in the market, they shouldn't be invested in it. Brinker views 10 to 20% as intermediate-term corrections, and drops over 20% are considered a bear market.
So how many 20% bear markets has Bob Brinker missed since his Marketimer model portfolios went fully invested in March 2003? Surprisingly, he has missed TWO Bear markets in that nine years. And he took subscribers and listeners on a roller-coaster ride of their lives in the megabear of 2008-2009!
#1: October 2007 all-time-high = 1576; March 2009 bottom = 667.As of today, the S&P 500 Index has declined ten out of the last 13 trading days -- very slowly but inexorably downward the past four days in a row. It is 6.64% off its year-to-date closing high of April 2nd, but still up 5.34% YTD.
Total percentage drop = 58%
#2 Last year in 2011: High = 1371; Low 1077
Total percentage drop = 22% (intraday)
Brinker hasn't talked about stock market or even given the closing numbers (like he often does when it's rising), since the decline started. Perhaps he is patiently waiting for it to turn up again (let's hope it does).
In the May 2012 issue of Marketimer, Brinker continues to recommend dollar-cost-averaging new money into the market and considers "short-term corrections.....as a health-restoring development." All of his model portfolios remain fully invested.
52 comments:
Actually I am curious, has Brinker ever gotten anything correct? His legendary 2000 market call was a joke. I remember him fumbling to express it on teh air, it was the lamest, most faggoty approach you ever heard. Something like how would you feel if the market went up 50% but you only got 25% of the gain, but if it fell 50% you would only lose 25%. That was how timid his advice was. He had not real conviction behind it and was trying to mask his retreat. In fact we know he never had any conviction or else he would have had people go 100% to cash instead of hedging as he did. But to hear it retold today you would think he had a bullhorn and stood on top of a mountain loudly proclaiming the bear market was coming. So when precisely has the emperor ever had clothes?
tfb
Don't worry. Brinker will just issue another "all in gift horse buy" wiping out the last call. He will keep doing this until he hits the bottom and the world starts spinning from that call, even if it takes over a dozen to catch it.
Never fear, Brinker knows how to hock a rag.
Joey.
"So how many 20% bear markets has Bob Brinker missed since his Marketimer model portfolios went fully invested in March 2003?"
Well if he even missed ONE bear market he is better off than the buy-and-hold gang. They were in the market for ALL the bear markets.
So overall, those who followed Brinker's market timing advice are head of the buy and hopers.
Timer wrote:
Well if he even missed ONE bear market he is better off than the buy-and-hold gang. They were in the market for ALL the bear markets.
So overall, those who followed Brinker's market timing advice are head of the buy and hopers.
What about when the timer is sitting in cash at the wrong time? That happened to Brinker in 1988.
In those cases the buy and holders do better.
While it's true that buy and holders must suffer all the loses, they are also certain to pick up all the gains.
Anonymous said...
"Actually I am curious, has Brinker ever gotten anything correct?"
TFB
You haven't figured out how Brinker operates. He will make about 5 recommendations like: Gold, Ginnie Maes, S&P 500, I bonds and a specific stock like Suncor. One of them will turn out be a good call. Ginnie Maes have done well over the last 5 years. He will screen his calls so that Ginnie Mae investors get on the air with the usual "Thanks Bob". He will tell them it is a home run. People who are still under water for following one of his all in buy recommendations for the market don't make it on the air. Talk about the winners and ignore the losers. Unsuspecting new listeners hear nothing but praise from his long time listeners and marketimer subscribers. When it comes to marketing he is one of the best. He is great at putting lipstick on a pig.
Well if he even missed ONE bear market he is better off than the buy-and-hold gang. They were in the market for ALL the bear markets.
Absolutely not true. You have to be correct on both sides of the equation, meaning he also has to pick the entry point. Recall form the often touted study that if you missed a mere 10 of the 2517 trading days for the 10 year period ending 6/30/06 you would have seen your return drop from 8.3% to 3.3%.
A mere 10 out of 2517 days and your return would have been decimated!
And we know Brinker has demonstrably failed this two headed test. He had people bail out after the 1987 flash crash and then sat out a good potion of the upleg.
tfb
"Absolutely not true. You have to be correct on both sides of the equation"
That's an old and incorrect bromide usually promoted by buy and hold amateurs.
You DON'T have to be correct twice. You don't have to call the top nor the bottom. All you have to do is buy back in at a price below what you sold for and BINGO you are ahead of the buy and holders.
And as far as what happened in 1987 I don't know or care about. That's 25 years ago!!!
The answer is yes.
Wading through the many destructive buy recommendations, one that worked was the S&P 1030 buy in July 2010. That resulted in a 37% increase in less than two years, but no talk of taking some profits off the table. Stay fully invested.
He won't sell during upswings, nor during intermediate-term corrections because he "doesn't like to sell on weakness."
Robert J Brinker Sr has proven to be a market holder, or rather a serial market buyer buyer buyer buyer buyer and holder. Come next bear market, odds are he will ride it down once again and make no mention on air.
"On Moneytalk we discuss all matters financial." Except the stock market.
If making major market calls,
was so easy. Do not think,
people would be using Brinkers service.
Further, if he was a bad as some
suggest - his subscriber numbers
would be falling.
However - if you can do it better.
Just do it...
No, not a Brinker subscriber.
I do my own market timing....end
Further, if he was a bad as some
suggest - his subscriber numbers
would be falling.
How do you know they are not?
tfb
You DON'T have to be correct twice. You don't have to call the top nor the bottom. All you have to do is buy back in at a price below what you sold for and BINGO you are ahead of the buy and holders.
Really? If that were true there would be an academic study that demonstrates market timing beats buy and hold. There is no such study despite many being conducted.
Btw how did that QQQ investment work out for you when Brinker called a counter rally that never materialized. That was Da Brink trying to time the market. His subscribers got slaughtered over that one.
Please explain how getting out of the market and jumping back in worked then? Where are those subscribers who took the Brineks advice at today? 12 years later they are still under water. So much for market timing.
Once again(as indicated elsewhere in this thread) if you missed 10 out out of 2517 trading says your significantly diminishes. And if you study those days, in general, you will see they were very unexpected movements not likely to get caught by a confirmation signal and bottom tester like Brinker.
tfb
"Recall form the often touted study that if you missed a mere 10 of the 2517 trading days for the 10 year period ending 6/30/06 you would have seen your return drop from 8.3% to 3.3%...A mere 10 out of 2517 days and your return would have been decimated!"
I know what you are trying to say tfb. It's not if you miss ANY 10 days, it is if you miss the BEST 10 days etc etc.
But then again, NOBODY invests that way. What if you eliminate the 10 WORSE days? But nobody invests that way either.
That is a tired old and very bogus argument for buying and holding.
Market timing can work as Dan, another poster here, has proven over the past 40 years I think he said.
Think of it logically, if you only sidestepped ONE BEAR MARKET in your entire lifetime, you would be better off than if you just held on.
If making major market calls,
was so easy. Do not think,
people would be using Brinkers service.
I doubt there is ANYONE who has anything but a plebeian understanding of statistics or market timing systems uses Da Brink.
Da Brink's prey appear to be the naive, senile, uneducated unsophisticated, mentally lazy, and mentally challenged.
tfb
And as far as what happened in 1987 I don't know or care about. That's 25 years ago!!!
OH MY GOODNESS! I was born about 25 years ago, and I CERTAINLY DO CARE!
Is it because your memory is failing you now, and you even forget where you park?
How sad, and I feel your pain.................
Nice poem, but it makes no sense. (kinda reminds me of the newsrag for $185==.NOONSENSE)
Here's a HOT TIP for ya. Try it out some weekend, but stay offa the floor on Saturday nights, OK? HTH
http://www.groupon.com/deals/ga-green-valley-ranch-las-vegas?c=all&p=3
Someone sounding defensive after missing the biggest bear market since the Great Depression with a "gift horse" at the very top then who missed another bear market last year AND didn't lighten up again before this recent decline might have posted:
"
If making major market calls,
was so easy. Do not think,
people would be using
Brinkers service.
I betcha Bernard Madoff made the same argument to his suckers, er clients, right up until he admitted he was a fraud.
Sorry, but your argument doesn't do it for me. Just look at all the people willing to pay $100B for a company (Facebook) that barely makes money....
Also, how would YOU know if Brinker's subscriber rate fell off a cliff or if they all switched over to his son's boring newsletter or got wise and subscribed to one of my far better letters?
Here is a study that says market timing beats buy and hold.
Market timing trumps buy-and-hold strategies during market swings, says NYU study
By David Hoffman
The fund managers who invest based on macroeconomic trends — and are willing to adjust their portfolios as those trends change — are the managers most likely to add value for investors, according to a study released today by the New York University Stern School of Business.
“The current recession has left many investors with lost confidence in financial markets and, more narrowly, in the people managing their money,” Marcin Kacperczyk, a finance professor at the school and one of the study’s three authors, said in a statement.
http://www.investmentnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091110/FREE/911109978
Market timing can work as Dan, another poster here, has proven over the past 40 years I think he said.
I beg your pardon. Dan has not proven a thing. We would need an audited record or a record of his calls the percentage of his assets he invested etc in order to determine that.
I do believe he relayed an anecdotal account this his method works for him. In other words I believe what Dan has stated is he has a timing model that meets his needs and risk tolerance measures and he is content with it. I do not believe he has ever indicated that he beats the market averages over time using his methodology.
Additionally I suspect based on his verbiage that he only market times with a small percentage of his assets (he may correct me if I am wrong). Moreover, I also suspect he dabble and tinkers with his indicators so there actually is no model to test, as it always would accurately reflect the past.
Lastly Dan does not market his advice not do I believe he misleads people. On the other hand Da Brink distorts people’s perception of his methodology for financial gain. To Da Brink’s credit, I now believe he has pretty much told everyone covertly he is full of crap, that his method does not work via his recommended reading list. It is beyond me how anyone, of even normal intelligence, who actually reviews his recommended reading list can come away believing that market timing is a viable strategy for portfolio management.
tfb
Here is a study that says market timing beats buy and hold.
Market timing trumps buy-and-hold strategies during market swings, says NYU study
By David Hoffman
The fund managers who invest based on macroeconomic trends — and are willing to adjust their portfolios as those trends change — are the managers most likely to add value for investors, according to a study released today by the New York University Stern School of Business.
Sigh...
Okay one step at a time.
This:
Market timing trumps buy-and-hold strategies during market swings
Does not say:
market timing beats buy and hold
It says during market swings. That is a qualifier which indicates it does not work 100% of the time, in fact the qualifier is essentially useless because you would have to be able to predict periods of vacillation in advance and by definition it is a backward looking gauge.
Next macroeconomic trends does not equal market timing. For example the current trend of moving out of commodity related stocks (mining stocks, oil etc) and into consumer staples is really what is commonly called fundamental analysis which is a synonym in investment jargon for macroeconomic analysis.
Now you could use macroeconomic analysis to time the market but in and of itself macroeconomic trending is not a synonym for market timing. At least not in the sense Brinker uses it
In fact if this is the study I am thinking of, what it claims is during one part of the economic cycle a manager can exhibit skill by stock selection and at other times the can exhibit skill via actual market timing. the trouble is it is not the same manager that does both and they have to predict is they should be in stock picking mode or market timing mode, which in itself is not what was tested.
In other words (once again I did not read this but I am familiar with Marcin Kacperczyk research)you first have to decide if this is a stock pickers market or a market timers market and then you have to either pick stocks or time the market. Well we already knew that years ago when it was demonstrate that those who outperform the market in a given periods are unable to do so consistently in ensuing periods. So what is now suggested is a hybrid model.
And to a statistician this suddenly begins to look like pattern recognition that has no predictive ability. I.E. we are simply seeing order in randomness due to the sampling periods own bias.
I look forward to peer review of any claims being made.
tfb
TFB, and all,
Sorry that I have not commented on the great conversations that were posted here today.
I intend to get myself caught up tomorrow. :)
is really what is commonly called fundamental analysis which is a synonym in investment jargon for macroeconomic analysis.
The above is not correct. It would be laborious to correct and in the context it was given it conveys the sentiment even if it is wrong.
Sorry for the misstatement. I am tired - LOL.
tfb
Buy and hold a balanced portfolio and rebalance? You can go for DECADES with ZERO return!
"...the "average" return is meaningless. Most of the gains came in two booms: during the 1950s, and in the past 30 years. For many other periods, the returns were meager, or nonexistent.
From January 1, 1937, through January 1, 1950, a period of 13 years, this surefire 60/40 portfolio, rebalanced annually, earned you ABSOLUTELY NOTHING after inflation. Zip. The story was the same from 1965 to 1982 -- a slump that lasted nearly two decades.
In the real world, investors did even worse than zero. They paid trading costs, fund-management fees and taxes. Many just gave up along the way. Meanwhile, toddlers grew to college age, and middle-aged couples reached retirement. And the money they were counting on wasn't there."
http://www.smartmoney.com/invest/strategies/why-a-balanced-portfolio-may-not-work-1337101197387/?link=SM_hp_featStory
6:24 –as you stated it I would say true (i.e I did not read the article) - but it does not mean market timing is a better alternative. Although I might suggest you might obtain far better results by diversifying beyond stock and bonds and rebalancing; real estate, international exposure, and commodities should alter that equation appreciably. In reality a two asset class model is counter to most tenets of MPT.
That being said, and I have mentioned this before and shall say it again, the idea of relying on utilizing the stock market to create wealth is a misnomer. The proper way to view the security industry is as allowing you to do is preserve wealth acquired through other means by diversifying it. As a bonus, over time you should see a slight level of appreciation beyond the rate of inflation (1.7-3.1%).
Additionally I will make the following statement:
1) Stock brokers
2) Active mutual funds
3) Financial Planners
4) Investment advisors
exists for the sole purpose of transferring the wealth you have generated yourself into their pockets. That they may coincidently be useful for diversifying your asset base is simply happenstance. These entities were designed to distribute your assets into other people’s hands. That is why they have large advertising budgets. They are businesses after-all, and that is their purpose, they are not philanthropic endeavors.
My last message is simple, people need to grow up. If you are a woman the easiest way to understand the financial world is to pretend you still have your virtue intact and remember the amount of deception and deceit many men tried to perpetuate upon you in order to get you to yield it. If you are a man, and you did not harbor strict moral standards, recall the amount of effort you expended trying to get a woman to surrender her virtue. Bearing that in mind, the world of finance and investment is no different.
Brinker has done you a favor by telling you about shark attacks. Just realize Bob is one of the sharks, a big toothy one, but at least he warned you. After reading his recommended reading list, you are a fool to swim in those waters.
tfb
TFB asked: "Actually I am curious, has Brinker ever gotten anything correct? His legendary 2000 market call was a joke. I remember him fumbling to express it on teh air,
TFB,
You are absolutely correct. Bob Brinker did not say the market was a bear until August 2000. That is when he added a whole 5% more to his cash reserves -- which meant a total of 65%.
Before that he was straddling the fence -- talking about how with 40% remaining in equities, you could "capture" most of the upside if the market rallied. But that you would be hedged if there was a bear market.
And I agree that if he had actually "called a bear market," he would have gone to 100% cash and perhaps even gone short -- which he also talked about in late 1999.
The folklore of him having "called the 2000-2003 bear market" will live on forever -- never mind the actual facts.
TFB asked: "Actually I am curious, has Brinker ever gotten anything correct? His legendary 2000 market call was a joke. I remember him fumbling to express it on teh air,
TFB,
You are absolutely correct. Bob Brinker did not say the market was a bear until August 2000. That is when he added a whole 5% more to his cash reserves -- which meant a total of 65%.
Before that he was straddling the fence -- talking about how with 40% remaining in equities, you could "capture" most of the upside if the market rallied. But that you would be hedged if there was a bear market.
And I agree that if he had actually "called a bear market," he would have gone to 100% cash and perhaps even gone short -- which he also talked about in late 1999.
The folklore of him having "called the 2000-2003 bear market" will live on forever -- never mind the actual facts.
Joey said: "Don't worry. Brinker will just issue another "all in gift horse buy" wiping out the last call. He will keep doing this until he hits the bottom and the world starts spinning from that call, even if it takes over a dozen to catch it."
Joey,
You have evidently been following Bob Brinker for some time because you have him nailed.
That is exactly what he has always done, and I'm sure will always do.
Timer said: "Well if he even missed ONE bear market he is better off than the buy-and-hold gang. They were in the market for ALL the bear markets.
So overall, those who followed Brinker's market timing advice are head of the buy and hopers."
Timer,
Firstly, for this article only, I asked how many bear markets had Bob Brinker missed since March 2003.
So your point that if he missed one, he would be "head of the buy and hopers" is probably the most ridiculous statement I have ever read here.
What would you call the fact that Brinker "bought" and "hoped" all that time. LOL!
Try to use some logical reasoning and see if you can tell me why he isn't a "buy and hoper."
Jim said: "What about when the timer is sitting in cash at the wrong time? That happened to Brinker in 1988.
In those cases the buy and holders do better."
Jim,
You are correct. I have never taken the time to figure out how much it cost Bob Brinker when he went to cash after Black Monday in October 1988, but I would bet you a lunch on the Santa Cruz Wharf that it would be close to the amount he gained from the 2000 call to cash IF he had to account for the QQQ trade losses.
Here are some excerpts from his total asset allocation record:
* Oct 19, 1987……equities @ 100%................1841
(Black Monday: Dow Down 695 or 25.6% From Top.)
* Jan. 1988…….equities @ Zero.…………...2015
(Went to 100% cash & told listeners he was
bearish after the market was 9.5% above
bottom, taking the brunt of most of the
bear decline.)
* Feb. 1989… equities @ 50%........................2342
(Market up 27% from the bottom.)
Nov 1989....equities @ 75%.........................2650
Feb 1990…. equities @ 40%..................2559
Mar.1990…..equities @ 50%..................2635
Apr. 1990….. equities @ 65%.................2687
May 1990…...equities @ 75%.................2656
July..1990…...equities @ 85%.................2840
July 18, 1990: Dow @ 3016....(Bull peak: up 50% since Jan. 1988)
* Oct. 12, 1990: Dow @ 2398
(Gulf War bear bottom. Down 20.5% since bull peak.Market is back to where it was in Feb 1989 where Brinker went form 0% to 50%)
* Dec. 1990....equities @ 95%......2565
* Jan. 1991…. equities @ 100%..................2550
(Finally back to fully invested: Dow up 26.7% since going to 0% equities. Missed out on a large portion of market gains from when he went to 100% cash at 2015 in January 1988.)
Here is a link to Brinker's Asset Allocation History.
Jeffchristie said: "You haven't figured out how Brinker operates. He will make about 5 recommendations like: Gold, Ginnie Maes, S&P 500, I bonds and a specific stock like Suncor. One of them will turn out be a good call.....
.....Unsuspecting new listeners hear nothing but praise from his long time listeners and marketimer subscribers. When it comes to marketing he is one of the best. He is great at putting lipstick on a pig."
Jeff,
If anyone doubts that what you said is 100% true, they should listen to the program very carefully. They will NEVER hear anyone complain about Bob Brinker's Blunders.
Imagine how unlikely this is to happen on Moneytalk:
Caller Goober from Elk Grove says: Bob, I'm a long time listener and Marketimer subscriber. I sure wanted to buy into the stock market on your great call in September 2011 at 1129, but sadly, all my money is already in the stock market.
I came into some money in January 2008 and took your advice to buy into the stock market at S&P 1465. When do you think I will get back to even?
Timer said: "And as far as what happened in 1987 I don't know or care about. That's 25 years ago!!!"
Timer,
Bob Brinker's market timing history and official performance goes back to 1988 -- check his website if you don't believe me. And the reason that he doesn't use 1987 is because he was fully invested as the stock market crashed in October 1987.
Bob Brinker has been a buy-and-holder all of those 26 years EXCEPT:
A. The time he went to cash at the wrong time in January 1988 and January 1991 when he finally got back to 100%.
B. Between January 2000 and March 2003 when he raised 65% cash and put up to 50% of that cash into a forecasted counter-trend rally that never happened -- so he lost 70% on the QQQ trade.
Ms. Hottie-Bee,
Actually I do remember when one of your faithful minions did manage to get by the call screener and asked fill in host Flanagan what he would do about an investment adviser who recommend the same QQQQ call Brinker gave without indicating he was simply recanting Da Brink's advice. It was hilarious. Possibly the best moment on MoneyTalk ever.
tfb
Birdbrain said: "Robert J Brinker Sr has proven to be a market holder, or rather a serial market buyer buyer buyer buyer buyer and holder. Come next bear market, odds are he will ride it down once again and make no mention on air.
"On Moneytalk we discuss all matters financial." Except the stock market."
Birdbrain,
I think one more bear market may be the end of Bob Brinker's Moneytalk Land of Critical Mass. That's just my opinion based on how he handled this last one and how many years he's been trying to prove his claim that NOONE could have seen it coming.
And as you said, he won't talk about the stock market when it's going down. His show is already losing stations and as you know, he cut it to one day only. So I think his rating are probably suffering.
And IMO, Lynn Jimenez is a ridiculous fill-in.
Anonymous said: "If making major market calls,
was so easy. Do not think,
people would be using Brinkers service.
Anonymous,
Why would anyone who is "using Brinker's service" (subscribing to Marketimer), think that Bob Brinker will help them time the market?
Is it because he deceives listeners by covering up all of his bad calls and only talking about the one out of several that he finally got right?
How many times has he said on the air that he declared the S&P 500 mid-1400's a gift-horse buying opportunity in January 2008?
I'd ask you how many times he has mentioned the mid-1400s, mid-1300s and 1200s buying opportunities in Marketimer since they were published, but you say you are not a subscriber.
I know the answer...and I will never forget as long as he is on the air.
And BTW: What do you think of his son making no effort to make sure he is not mistaken for his dad.
My opinion is that I'm sure he is getting rich riding daddy's famous name. Not a young sprout I'd be proud of....
Do come back and defend Brinker again. I always appreciate it when someone actually tries to defend his market-timing.
There once was a man from Philly,
with a newsletter that was a dilly.
Since it was mostly buy and hold,
subscribers got left out in the cold,
and ended up feeling quite chilly.
-- Frankj
My opinion is that I'm sure he is getting rich riding daddy's famous name. Not a young sprout I'd be proud of....
Oh come on hottie-bee. Da Brink does about everything but knocking old ladies on the head to get money from his marks. Given the apple does not fall far from the tree, do you really think he would not be proud of his sprout? Heck think of Ma-barker, history is filled with mothers and fathers who proudly guided their children down the path of unscrupulous behavior.
But in Da Brink's defense he is simply shearing sheep who would have fell to the wolves eventually anyways.
tfb
Pig said: "Nice poem, but it makes no sense. (kinda reminds me of the newsrag for $185==.NOONSENSE)
Here's a HOT TIP for ya. Try it out some weekend, but stay offa the floor on Saturday nights, OK? HTH"
Pig,
Here is the link that you posted (to anonymous, I presume):
Green Valley Ranch Deal of the day (Las Vegas)
Kirk said: "Someone sounding defensive after missing the biggest bear market since the Great Depression with a "gift horse" at the very top then who missed another bear market last year AND didn't lighten up again before this recent decline might have posted:
"If making major market calls,
was so easy. Do not think,
people would be using
Brinkers service.
I betcha Bernard Madoff made the same argument to his suckers, er clients, right up until he admitted he was a fraud.
Kirk,
Yep, it's too bad that Bob Brinker doesn't realize that he might have a more loyal fan base and perhaps even sell more newsletter (well, maybe I shoudn't go that far), if he would admit his mistakes, air them out and use them for teaching tools for both subscribers and listeners.
Reflections on Da Brink and Binkey by tfb
-----------------------------------------------------
There once were some men named Brinker,
both father and son both are a stinker.
They both plied their disingenuous trades,
on widows, orphans, the senile, and old maids.
Through guile and deception
they defrauded the elderly and others aforementioned.
Using the radio as their main weapon,
they have been able to proliferate their great deception.
For it has been demonstrated market timing never works,
a fact well known yet ignored by both these money grubbing jerks.
So please heed these words of wit,
Sit on you wallet and protect yourself from these two twits.
And for now I have to go,
I have better things to do than continue to write about these two A-holes.
TFB related: Actually I do remember when one of your faithful minions did manage to get by the call screener and asked fill in host Flanagan what he would do about an investment adviser who recommend the same QQQQ call Brinker gave without indicating he was simply recanting Da Brink's advice. It was hilarious. Possibly the best moment on MoneyTalk ever."
Fluffy,
That must have been an all-time classic. I would love to have heard it....
Flannagan must have been speechless. LOL!
FrankJ,
Great poem...It's a keeper and a classic. :)
TFB said: "Da Brink does about everything but knocking old ladies on the head to get money from his marks. Given the apple does not fall far from the tree, do you really think he would not be proud of his sprout?"
Fluffy,
What WAS I thinking??!! LOL!
"My opinion is that I'm sure he is getting rich riding daddy's famous name."
On one hand you say Brinker is losing listeners, down to one show a week and losing subscribers.
OTOH, you say his kid is getting rich.
Which is it?
BTW, Nothing wrong with Bob Brinker using his OWN NAME. Who cares if he gets a lift from dad. That's what Dads do.
Whocares said: "On one hand you say Brinker is losing listeners, down to one show a week and losing subscribers.
OTOH, you say his kid is getting rich.
Which is it?
BTW, Nothing wrong with Bob Brinker using his OWN NAME. Who cares if he gets a lift from dad. That's what Dads do.
Whocares,
Just because Bob Brinker's Sunday talk radio show is in decline does not mean that the son cannot capitalize on using the name made famous on radio.
Ask yourself why Brinker continues to do the show into his 70's if not to keep the name Bob Brinker in the public eye.
BrinkerJr began this charade of pretending to be the talk show host when he started selling a newsletter that uses the Brinker name, which is mostly believed to be BrinkerSr's.
Jr used to be more honest:
From: Bob Brinker, Jr. of 42807 Greg -
I truly apologize for the confusion. I am not Bob Sr. I am Bob Jr. This has happened on occasion before and I NEVER attempt to misrepresent myself as Bob Sr. From now on, I will always sign my name as bob jr. in hopes of avoiding future confusion. FWIW (For what its worth) I would not be surprised if Bob Sr. read your note to me anyway!
thanks -
bob jr!
SiliconInvestor where Bob Sr posted as "donlane (later changed to) mistertopes"
Whocares, did you know that Bobjr said the following? Looks like the big dotcom bust did him in because it was in 2005 that he, along with his linguist wife to help him with his 5th grade writing ability, figured out a whole new business model -- with consultation from Papa Brinker, of course:
To: Gary M. Reed who wrote (994)7/24/1997 1:01:00 AM
From: Bob Brinker, Jr. of 42823
Quite frankly, it never occured to me to go into the financial sector. I was extremely fortunate as a kid to be able to play around with computer and I was hooked as a young teenager. I remeber purchasing basic programming books & typing the programs into our brand new TI99/4a computer. I would save the programs by recording them onto a cassette recorder. Those where the days...we've come a long way. A few hours of typing in program lines, days of debugging typo-s (no debuggers back than, it either worked or it didn't!), and I might see a few characters jump across the black & white tv i had plugged in. It was a strange time.
Anyway, in college I was immediately hooked on Mgmt. Info. Systems and have never looked back. Now, with a Master's degree in the field and a few years of development/proj. mgmt experience I am doing just fine. I am perfectly happy (as many of us in the thread are) with getting my financial rewards through my own personal investing. But who knows what the future holds???? (of course I am always accepting offers if some company really wants to pay me mega-bucks as a mutual fund mgr. That seems like a great job! I would, of course, build a fund around high tech internet companies that are on the b-leading edge).
Bob Brinker (JR) being truthful before he became greedy
BTW, Nothing wrong with Bob Brinker using his OWN NAME. Who cares if he gets a lift from dad. That's what Dads do.
Actually my father wanted me to stand on my own - like a man, not a testicle deprived female sexual opening. But then my dad was a man and expected the same, Da Brink on the other hand - LOL, well you figure it out.
tfb
"Actually my father wanted me to stand on my own - like a man, not a testicle deprived female sexual opening. But then my dad was a man and expected the same, Da Brink on the other hand - LOL, well you figure it out."
I hope your father would be proud of your potty mouth. You can say whatever you want about the Brinkers but I have never, ever heard them use gutter language like yours.
TFB, actually I recall Brinker's
sell signal was in January 2000.
Maybe Feb, but I do feel it was
a pretty good call.
Bud
I think, Brinker not taking money
off the table - on Apr 2nd, or
even May 5th, was an incorrect
investment decision. IMO
Bud
Hey tfb (?? Or whoever you wanna be). - Guess what? Bob Brinker has more money than you could ever dream of! Jealous???
KING OF TRUTH
Hey tfb (?? Or whoever you wanna be). - Guess what? Bob Brinker has more money than you could ever dream of! Jealous???
Nope, not at all. I have more money they I can think to spend. Far less than Brinker I am sure, but I live the life I wish, I am at critical mass and I made my modest fortune ethically.
Jealous of what, and effeminate faggoty type with a a puss for a kid - hardly.
tfb
I accidentally found Bob while driving home on Super Bowl Sunday in 1986, I live in suburban Chicago and came home very excited about the show. Needless to say, everyone was watching the game and not particularly interested in hearing about the investment guru I had just discovered.
Well, I was far more interested in Money Talk than the Super Bowl, and have been a fairly loyal, if not frustrated listener ever since. Although, a college graduate, I was not financially literate when I started listening. I was frugal and desperate to stretch a dollar as far as it could go. Bob seems sincere and spoke in language I was able to understand.
Things I learned from Bob:
• Diversify
• Dollar cost averaging
• The four percent withdrawal rule
• Contribute to your IRA to the maximum and to your 401k, 457 plan, or 403b as much as you can, up to the max or at least enough to get the match.
• All about GNMA’s, (I started buying GNMA’s in 1986 when they cost 7 dollars and change. I used them as income until I learned that I would do much better to reinvest my earnings to keep buying shares.
• How terrific Vanguard is.
• What an index is.
• To stay away from annuities, and why their not a good investment.
• Market timing isn’t for sissies, and buy and holders don’t have to 'time' entry and exit points. If you missed the opportunity to get out while you could, just sit tight and you’ll be nicely positioned when the recovery sneaks back up on all of the ‘fraidy cats.
Over the years it became apparent that educating his listeners was no longer his first priority. And, until he missed calling the bear market in 2007-2008, my motto was “In Bob we Trust.”
For the last few years, I spent my Sunday’s yelling at the radio when MT was on, because of the rude and confusing answers Bob gave to people who really needed him to provide some answers.
I’m truly thrilled to have found this blog, and a little frustrated that I missed finding you until now. I love the summaries and comments because I refuse to pay for MT on-demand. Thanks a million for mentioning the podcast from KSFO. Getting the guest segment this way is awesome.
Notmonalisa,
I am copying your excellent post over to the comments section of the program summary for today.
Please look for response there....
Post a Comment