September 7, 2012.....Many of Bob
Brinker's followers view his B2B-buy [TEFQX] as his second most costly
recommendation. After the fund went south about 90%, Brinker put it on hold and
walla, it disappeared completely.
Our resident Pig wrote: "If the "hold" goes "south" for a long time, the recommendation disappears from the newsrag, and history. (BUT.....not from this site) TEFQX is a great example."
In many ways, Bob Brinker handled this disastrous trade similarly to his 2000 QQQ trade (QQQ is an Exchange Traded Fund). He didn't send out a special bulletin like with the Q's. However, like with the Q's, he touted the Firsthand Fund [TEFQX] in several Marketimers. He advised aggressive subscribers to invest a defined amount from the 60% cash reserves raised in January 2000.
Here's the real history of Bob Brinker's worst mutual fund recommendation that he buried from subscribers and listeners. From my files, some writings of people who were there and some direct quotes from Marketimers. Some of these people may be a pleasant flash-from-the-past for some of you. :)
(2000) Rande Spegielman, a professional financial analyst, wrote:
"Seems otherwise reasonable people continue to argue over the meaning of "immediately" and other strange stuff, but can we at least put to rest the absolute nonsensical and unfounded bullcrap about what "5%" means?
Here's an exact quote from the Jan. [2000] Marketimer:
Our resident Pig wrote: "If the "hold" goes "south" for a long time, the recommendation disappears from the newsrag, and history. (BUT.....not from this site) TEFQX is a great example."
In many ways, Bob Brinker handled this disastrous trade similarly to his 2000 QQQ trade (QQQ is an Exchange Traded Fund). He didn't send out a special bulletin like with the Q's. However, like with the Q's, he touted the Firsthand Fund [TEFQX] in several Marketimers. He advised aggressive subscribers to invest a defined amount from the 60% cash reserves raised in January 2000.
Here's the real history of Bob Brinker's worst mutual fund recommendation that he buried from subscribers and listeners. From my files, some writings of people who were there and some direct quotes from Marketimers. Some of these people may be a pleasant flash-from-the-past for some of you. :)
(2000) Rande Spegielman, a professional financial analyst, wrote:
"Seems otherwise reasonable people continue to argue over the meaning of "immediately" and other strange stuff, but can we at least put to rest the absolute nonsensical and unfounded bullcrap about what "5%" means?
Here's an exact quote from the Jan. [2000] Marketimer:
"Firsthand e-Commerce Fund is added to page four of the Recommended List this month. We will include a writeup on this fund in the February Marketimer. For now, we would limit investment in this fund to 5%, and this 5% would be part of the revised 25% overall United States Equity weighting."
NOT 5% of 40%, but 5%
of the total portfolio, which was 25% US, 15% International, and 60% cash. So,
TEFQX was actually 12.5% of total equities (according to the recommendation),
just as International was 38% as a percentage of equities, even though it was
"only" 15% of the total portfolio. BUT, not enough conviction to
include in the Model Portfolio's evidently. Read on from the Feb. [2000] letter:
"We have always viewed books, toys and on-line auctions a the tip of the iceberg.... We are very positive on the potential for the Internet growth track to carry forward.... ...the fund is appropriate for subscribers with a high risk tolerance who seek exposure to one of the fastest growing areas of the economy going forward in our view. Due to our current risk averse stock market stance, we are not placing this fund in any of our Model Portfolios at this time. ...we would regard a five percent exposure to this fund as the maximum...."
So, to recap, TEFQX
could have been as much as 12.5% of equities, but the guru wasn't willing to
add it to the Model Portfolios. The guru was gung-ho on the Internet and fully
caught up in the B2B mania, even though he trashed the net for the better part
of 1999. And it only got worse as the year dragged on with "no
chance" of new highs on the trusty old S&P and "buy
immediately" on the "impossible to call/don't ask me" Nasdaq.
Any wonder most of his followers don't know what the heck to do or believe"__ posted by Rande at Suite 101
Kirk Lindstrom wrote: “It is simply amazing to me how "confused" Brinker's advice at the time was in January 2000. He told people to take money out of the market, which was a great call, then the told them to put some of it into TEFQX and QQQQ that were disasters. He did the latter "off the books" that seemed odd at the time, but now we see how he pretends it didn't happen so the risky advice was what seems now to have been a "hedge" to give him something to advertise should the market not crashed.
Yup, he was buying into the IPO mania in internet stocks right at the very top. He did mention it was volatile and not for risk averse investors which would leave out P3 types that don't market time.
Everyone is wrong on occasion. Is sure know I have been wrong on many stocks over the years. But we put our risky recommendations into our portfolios so they can be measured."__Kirk L.
David Korn wrote: "Other than the QQQQ recommendation from Bob Brinker, the recommendation he gave that probably comes in second place insofar as complaints that I get from my subscribers is TEFQX - the mutual fund that Bob recommended in early 2000. You may recall the excitement both on Moneytalk, and on Bob Brinker's discussion message boards at the time over this recommendation.
I do give Bob credit on one count relative to this recommendation -- he put some of his money where his mouth was because he said that he owned the fund. Why? Because he felt that Kevin Landis, the fund manager, was a great stock picker. Unfortunately, Bob simply dropped the fund from his Marketimer newsletter and hasn't brought up the topic in years leaving many people who bought it on his recommendation to decide for themselves what to do about it.
It is a familiar story when one of Bob's recommendations goes afoul I am afraid. I suppose its the ego thing. Do any of you still own TEFQX and have an opinion on it? I keep track of it because I get questions about it on a somewhat regular basis from my subscribers." __ David Korn
Kirk Lindstrom wrote: “It is simply amazing to me how "confused" Brinker's advice at the time was in January 2000. He told people to take money out of the market, which was a great call, then the told them to put some of it into TEFQX and QQQQ that were disasters. He did the latter "off the books" that seemed odd at the time, but now we see how he pretends it didn't happen so the risky advice was what seems now to have been a "hedge" to give him something to advertise should the market not crashed.
Yup, he was buying into the IPO mania in internet stocks right at the very top. He did mention it was volatile and not for risk averse investors which would leave out P3 types that don't market time.
Everyone is wrong on occasion. Is sure know I have been wrong on many stocks over the years. But we put our risky recommendations into our portfolios so they can be measured."__Kirk L.
David Korn wrote: "Other than the QQQQ recommendation from Bob Brinker, the recommendation he gave that probably comes in second place insofar as complaints that I get from my subscribers is TEFQX - the mutual fund that Bob recommended in early 2000. You may recall the excitement both on Moneytalk, and on Bob Brinker's discussion message boards at the time over this recommendation.
I do give Bob credit on one count relative to this recommendation -- he put some of his money where his mouth was because he said that he owned the fund. Why? Because he felt that Kevin Landis, the fund manager, was a great stock picker. Unfortunately, Bob simply dropped the fund from his Marketimer newsletter and hasn't brought up the topic in years leaving many people who bought it on his recommendation to decide for themselves what to do about it.
It is a familiar story when one of Bob's recommendations goes afoul I am afraid. I suppose its the ego thing. Do any of you still own TEFQX and have an opinion on it? I keep track of it because I get questions about it on a somewhat regular basis from my subscribers." __ David Korn
Will L. wrote: "I recall retired sorts were going crazy on his site [Brinker message boards] with Junior hyping the B2B sector and stocks in the fall of 99 and spring of 2000. Brinker and his adoration of TEFQX and Landis, the fund manager likely caused many people to bet too heavily on that terrible idea that he just hid rather than ever closed out."
Honey here: Brinker's
disappearing trade in black and white:
* Jan 8, 2000, Marketimer, TEFQX=$15.40, Brinker said: "Firsthand e-Commerce Fund, (888-883-3863) is added to page four of the Recommended list this month. We will include a writeup on this fund in the February Marketimer. For now, we would limit investments in this fund to 5%, and this 5% would be part of our revised 25% overall United States equity weighting. This fund is expected to be volatile, therefore it is appropriate only for very high risk tolerance investors."
* Feb 8, 2000, Marketimer, TEFQX=$15.99, Brinker said: "Firsthand e-Commerce Fund is the newest addition to the Marketimer No-Load Fund Recommended List on Page four...... We have ALWAYS viewed books, toys and on-line auctions as the tip of the iceberg for electronic business. We believe business-to-business transactions will greatly surpass retail e-commerce including software development tools, database providers, hardware manufacturers and service providers.......We are very positive on the potential for the internet growth track to carry forward through international penetration. We are hopeful the fund will be able to add many of the best positioned B2B companies going forward. Many of these companies are not yet publicly owned but will come to market in the future."
* March 7, 2001, Marketimer, TEFQX=$3.93, Brinker said: "We are removing Firsthand e-Commerce Fund from the Recommended List. We rate the fund a "hold" at these levels... we expect the shares to recover value over time."
The trade was never mentioned in Marketimer or on Moneytalk ever again! [Record low down 90%, August 5, 2002 @ $1.60/In 2008, it was close to $2.00/Today, it is at $5.84]
Note: Brinker's "Recommended List" is strictly "off the books" and is never included in his performance records. His model portfolios are his only official record and are used by Mark Hulbert to rank his market-timing performance. Hulbert never accounted for this trade or the Q's in his rankings.
As Rande pointed out above, Brinker did not want the trade on his official record (his model portfolios) "just in case" it took a nose-dive -- which it did. Here is a mind-boggling Marketimer quote which gives the whole picture quite clearly: Brinker said: "Due to our current risk averse stock market stance, we are not placing this fund in any of our Model Portfolios at this time."
(2000) Kirk Lindstrom sumed it up: "Brinker seems to put most his risky advice "off the books" so he can delete it from the newsletter if they go down (UTEK, ONTK, TEFQX) or keep them as multi year "HOLDS" if they go up (MSFT & VOD). In this day and age of exposing those that "cook the books" consumers should DEMAND accounting accuracy from those in the national spotlight. This sort of behavior (off the books accounting) from a national figure on a Disney Network should be held to EVEN HIGHER standards."
TIME WILL SOON REMOVE THIS DISASTER FROM BRINKER'S RECORD AND KEVIN LANDIS' RECORD. It shows the 90% decline from year-2000 to 2002. Dan reports that this fund has done well over the past ten years. In my opinion, that changes nothing about Brinker's expensive (for subscribers) recommendation in 2000 and subsequent cover-up:
22 comments:
I would like to add that fund manager Kevin Landis has been very much in the news lately. He has been a raging bull on Facebook. He bought many shares both before and after the IPO for his funds. It is reported that his average share price is around $31.50. OOPS!
TEFQX is a non-diversified fund with 80% of its investments in the tech sector.
Assets, $102 Million, AAPL its largest holding at about 18% -- the large draft horse pulling the wagon.
Share price on Dec 30 2011 = $5.40.
Close on Sept 7 = $6.50.
Buyers at $5.40 are happy campers in the catbird seat. Buyers at BB's buy recommendation not so much.
YTD return acc'd to my Jethro Ciphering, 20.3%. Yahoo has them at 11.48% YTD (?).
Oh, Expense ratio 1,85%, ouch!
(I had posted this to the prior thread before HB created this one on TEFQX.
I also remember bob saying to sell into the market in 2000 which I did and bought I bonds which he recommended. (very good call) Bob also put investors into different categories and at that time I was going into retirement and he recommended a balance approach. The tone Bob delivers on the show is not taken into account when you distribute all the facts. He definitely handled callers according to age groups. I have been happy with Bobs performance over the years except for his missing the recent bear market. If you did not sell into the bear you would have got all your money back. Take Bobs in stride some of it is good and helpful.. John
I must be missing something. I have never owned TEFQX, but I checked it out on Mutual Fund Comparisons:
http://www.marketwatch.com/tools/mutual-fund/compare
That site shows that TEFQX has not had a loss in any of the time frames they monitor. In fact, its 10 year record sports a 13.82% annualize gain, compared to a 7.68% gain for the total stock market fund, VTSMX.
I guess you can fault Bob for "unrecommending" the fund after it nosedived. But he did put it in the "hold" column, and it has recovered quite well.
There are many things you can jump on Bob for, but I wouldn't count this as a major blunder.
- Dan G
Dan,
Going back only ten years does not tell the story of Bob Brinker's disastrous recommendation in January and February 2000.
Neither does it tell the story of how after it dropped 90% during the two years after he bought it.
So if you bought it at the low and rode it for the past ten years, you would be fine. But ask those who bought it at the high and lost 90% how well they have done.
Bob Brinker did not buy at the low and his subscribers didn't either.
Bob Brinker followed the same pattern that he used with TEFQX later in the year of 2000 with QQQ.
He issued a special bulletin recommending that subscribers put a large chunk of the cash reserves raised from model portfolios into QQQ "IMMEDIATELY."
The trade went south by about 70% so he simply put it on hold and never mentioned it again in Marketimer! Those shares are still on hold. If you track back every issue, you will not find where he changed that advice.
Like with TEFQX, he never added QQQ to his portfolios, so it was off the record for HIM!
He had already done this once when QQQ happened, so he knew he could get away with it.
All he did that was different was cover it up by buying the QQQ via RYOCX at the BOTTOM in 2003 and then later claimed he made money on it.
Not honest, not ethical and should be illegal.
John,
You say Bob Brinker said sell the market in 2000.
That is the folk lore that will be perpetrated on the uninformed forever.
Bob Brinker sold a maximum of 65% in August 2000 and then had subscribers put up to 50% of that cash into QQQ and lose the majority of it.
Subscribers who followed ALL of his advice that year, didn't have all that much money to reinvest when he gave the buy signal in March 2003.
He's been fully invested since March 2003 and simply rode all the bears down and back up.
The S&P 500 Index may soon be back to its all-time-high of 1527.
HONEYBEE You are right on Bob's recommendations for subscribers but I didn"t subscribe to his news letter at that time. I did hear him on the radio though and in 2000 he recommended buying I bonds with cash position for someone near retirement several times (which I did)Recently on your post Bob told subscribers to sell Dodge/Cox international fund. I bought that fund even though he recommended a sell. The fund did great last week up about $1.50 per share. I think I will keep that one and dollar cost avg into it as i like the managers and the low turn over rate and the large company investment theme in the drug/health sector. Thanks John
I have removed the ID restrictions on comments because it didn't stop the hate messages that I receive. I don't know who is sending them. You decide who you think it is.
The only avenue of defense that I have left is to not allow comments at all which he has said he wants. Actually, he wants the blog shut down.
I'm not likely to let this shyster bastard win no matter what names he calls me or how many vulgar things he tells me I should do to myself.
"I'm not likely to let this shyster bastard win no matter what names he calls me or how many vulgar things he tells me I should do to myself."
Omigod! Incredible! It must be Clint Eastwood! :-)
Dan,
LOL!!! Now we know! He thinks he's making my day.
Actually, I don't have to read his garbage beyond the first word. He's sent so many thousands of the same old ignorant crap that I recognize it immediately.
He loves to waste his time though -- and at least if he's typing to me, he isn't pulling the wings off of butterflies or kicking dogs.
Honey wrote: The only avenue of defense that I have left is to not allow comments at all which he has said he wants. Actually, he wants the blog shut down.
Honey, there has to be some remedy for this. Contact Google (good luck!!), whoever hosts Blogspot, or your internet service provider.
Forget the debate over legalities, I doubt any reputable company wants it known that they allow this to go on.
Amen to that, Bluce!
That guy needs to have his bell rung. I think I'd contact the cops about harassment. And then I'd probably whistle in the wind until they did something about it!
- Dan G
I think you should be concerned about Kirk Lindstrom and David Korn.
I think Kirk is mad that he lost the traffic generated by your blog. I asked a question about you on one of Kirk's other boards and it was quickly deleted and I got a warning not to talk about you again.
And David Korn is upset because you are providing a free service giving away much of the information that he charges money for.
Both of these people would be happy to see your blog disappear and may be trying to see if they can help to accomplish that.
Bluce and Dan,
I think that Google would only care if he ever made actual threats against me.
He's been very careful not to go that far. I think he knows that I would definitely report him for that.
Wonder if Bob Brinker will talk about this today. He is reluctant to be critical of democrat politicians unless he can claim "it's the same in both parties."
That's pretty hard to do in California. We are run by all democrats, all the time, with a brief time out for a RINO (Arnie).
California Governor Jerry Brown and union representatives, er, Democratic legislative leaders last week agreed to pension reforms that could help save the state's municipalities from a Category 5 fiscal storm—three decades from now. Unfortunately, the reforms won't prevent the fast-growing tempest from knocking out Left Coast cities and soaking taxpayers.
The Golden State is spending $6.6 billion this year on retirement benefits, up from $2.7 billion a decade ago. The tab will continue to increase as the state amortizes its $225 billion unfunded liability (and that's a low-ball). Meanwhile, pension and retiree health benefits are consuming more than a third of many local government budgets, forcing cuts in services and public safety, and in some cases bankruptcy.
Stockton's bankruptcy earlier this summer should have served as a red alert. But the only thing that got Democrats moving was the Governor's warning that their lethargy on pension reform could sink his tax-increase initiative this November. Lawmakers have finally leapt into action, but their emergency response is much too small.
On the plus side, the reforms raise the retirement age to 57 from 55 for public safety officers and cap the salary that's used to calculate their pensions at $132,000. The latter will trim costs at the margins, but as a California Public Employees Retirement System analysis notes, this "change will not impact the pension benefits of the majority of CalPERS members." Meaning it won't significantly reduce the state's pension bill either.
Lawmakers deserve some credit for taking on local government pensions, which are often more generous than the state's. The reforms reduce benefit formulas for new workers and require employees to pay half of the "normal cost" of their pensions. However, that doesn't include the cost of paying down unfunded liabilities, which is what's really sending local pension bills through the roof.
Municipalities also won't realize material savings until new employees retire in another two to three decades, so retirement costs will continue to batter cities. Case in point is Los Angeles, which last year pared benefits for new public safety officers. A budget analysis last month warns that the city's pension bill for officers will still increase by 56% over the next four years. Ouch.
To achieve significant savings sooner and slash unfunded liabilities, lawmakers need to freeze the pensions of current workers and reduce their benefits going forward, as San Jose voters did earlier this summer via referendum. Democrats in Rhode Island also shifted current workers to hybrid plans that include a defined-contribution component.
Barring such reforms, the state and local pension tab will continue to balloon, which is the real reason Democrats want voters to approve a tax hike. Retirement costs will soon consume all $8 billion that politicians hope the ballot measure will raise. Rather than saving taxpayers and schools, the tax increase will merely give political shelter to Sacramento's free-spending politicians.
Raising taxes may be Mr. Brown's idea of disaster relief, but the only ones who will be protected are politicians.
Wall Street Journal Online
Aceg,
I know Kirk, and I don't believe either he or David Korn would stoop to such levels as to swamp HB's email with tasteless gargage. It's gotta be some nutcase pro-Brinker fan, I'm thinkin'.
I agree with Dan....It is not Kirk or David.
It may be simply a sicko-stalker that has no connection to this blog.
Perhaps someone who I have become uncomfortable with in the past and who refused to take no for answer when I said I wanted nothing more to do with him.
Obviously the person sending the filth to honeybee also has good reason to hate David and Kirk so it is in his best interest to get all three of them upset with each other via lies and baseless accusations.
My guess is the stalker posted the note accusing David and Kirk to further this nonsense and detract the conversation from Brinker's record and history of ... cough... cough honestly.
Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't Honeybee RECOMMENDED the newsletter David and Kirk write together saying it is far better than the one the Brinker's write?
Dear who,
It's really comical that someone would send those comments to THIS article. LOL!
Who did I quote as reliable sources? Kirk, David, Rande and Will. (Four amigos?)
Obviously all people I consider reliable friends.
To answer your question: Yes, I highly recommend both David Korn's weekly newsletter and David and Kirk's Retirement Advisor over Jr-Brinker's newsletter.
Oh, I forget Mr. Pig. He is also a reliable source and an amigo -- a little loco, but still an amigo. :)
"Actually, he wants the blog shut down." Gee, I wonder why? :-)
I guess the truth is bad for the subscription business. :-)
Post a Comment