Under the pen-name "Investing" one of the most knowledgeble Brinker-historians wrote this commentary about Bob Brinker and how his "market-timing" might be compared to gambling.
.
"Over the years on this site I've seen many people come to the conclusion that Brinker's stock market guidance was a product made to sell and cut to the bone, it was simply jabbering.
.
As you see from David's post of a recent rant about "the bad news bears", Brinker was a "jabbering Raging Bull" bashing those "bad news bears".
.
Just weeks ago he was issuing and bragging on a "mid 1450s" buying opportunity. He claimed to scoff at even the possibility of a recession. Indeed he as is the case (and I would say the danger of following Brinker) quite often made his financial commentary in wagering terms. Recall he once bragged about how he went to all of those casinos on the strip after having been on the right side of a super bowl bet?
.
Under (the alias) Don Lane (later changed to "mistertopes") he posted here (Silicon Investor Brinker Savant Thread) about sports betting and his prowess and connections with odds makers. At any rate in the quotes from David, Brinker relished making it a simple bet --recession or no recession into a sporting event wager. Like you hear before the game starts around a casino sports book where loud people who have placed a bet and believe they have "special knowledge" Brinker was talking smack-belittling those who took the 'other team'.
.
Over the years in watching Brinker I have come to believe that this is indeed his approach to investing. He gets into a position, locks in and looks for reasons to justify his position. He is totally closed to data that does not confirm his position. He feels insecure to the point of having to belittle those viewing the "game" differently. He cannot bring himself to admit he picked wrong--QQQuite costly with his still held to this day 80$$ QQQs.
.
Now according to reports, rather than being a 'raging bull' in his commmentary this last weekend, he was a "raging foggy". I see the loud braggart in that casino sport's book who taunted those betting on the other team before the game, seeing his team getting pounded and pummeled, becoming meeker, but not willing to admit he had no reason to so sure of himself in the first place.
.
What is clear is that Brinker didn't have a clue about the mortgage mess, the depth of housing problems that remain unknowable, or whether or not the economy would go into a recession. It is equally obvious then that Brinker didn't and doesn't have a clue as to whether the economy will go into a recession or not. If you don't know that you cannot possibly know what the earnings of the companies making up the stock market will be.
.
Brinker might as well have been betting 'red or black' on the roulette table for all of his expertise when he was pounding those 'bad news bears'. Indeed that is how it is in the sport's book. A lot of people who "think" they have an edge, convince themselves they know the outcome of the event would save themselves a lot of trouble and just bet on a coin flip, because they have no more insight into the event they are trying to predict, but fool themselves into believing they do.
.
So at what point do people realize that Brinker likely doesn't have a clue and has simply locked himself in this position and hopes it turns around? (Most people long the market of course, sure hope he gets bailed out, but they are exactly in the same boat as Brinker-clueless and powerless to predict the market future).
.
If Brinker is the world's greatest marketimer and we watch this performance and the market doesn't bail him out....does anyone doubt that Professor Malkeil was right when he told a caller to Brinker's own show to NEVER try to time the market?"
.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Bob Brinker's e-alert sent out on January 20, 2008 makes no sense at all.
He talks about identifying a bottom. If he has everyone 100%invested since March of 2003 and he recommends to continue to dollar cost average into the market why is he working so hard to identify a bottom?
If he can identify the bottom, at that point what will he recommned -buy into the market now? and what money will one buy into the market with? Has he lost his mind?
I wonder about Bob - perhaps he is getting old or something but he just is not making any sense.
He has lost all credibiliy. I suspect his MarKetTiMEr newsletter subscriptions will go WAY down.
I cannot trust Mr. BrinKer anymore-he is completely out of touch with reality and he has cost alot of people ALOT of money including me.
I tried calling into his show a couple of weeks ago. I told the screener that I wanted to ask Mr. BrinKer if he thought we might be headed toward a recession and if he thought we should exit the market. THE SCREENER UPON HEARING THIS HUNG UP ON ME.
Mr. BrinKer should retire now.
Hi Dan,
It makes me nauseas when I hear stories like yours. Stories of subscribers reaching out to Brinker for some guidance, and instead, getting a phone slammed in their ear.
.
This is history repeating itself!
This is EXACTLY the way the Brinker's treated people when he blew the QQQQ-calls in 2000-2001.
No doubt, most of his current subscribers are a whole new crop of people who will now learn the hard way that what you THOUGHT you were paying for doesn't exist.
That it is all smoke and mirrors and guess work, and when Brinker's market-timing hocus-pocus takes a downturn, you are on your own.
.
How many more times can he cover up his major blunders and spin it on Moneytalk to reap another harvest?
.
IT's plain to see he has already laid the groundwork for weaseling this major miscalculation.
He blames the Fed and says it's FOGGY out there, while ignoring the fact that all along he has been bashing the Fed for the very things that he now says has caused the market decline--BUT HE TOOK NO ACTION.
"...Under the pen-name "Investing" one of the most knowledgeble (sic)Brinker-historians wrote this commentary about Bob Brinker..."
Readers should know that this "pen-name" is but one of many aliases used by the poster over nearly ten years of Brinker bashing.
He has posted literally tens of thousands of internet messages over the years including decades old posts showing that Brinker was actually some other person who later morphed into yet another person.
This poster has literally followed Brinker around and has admitted even stalking him into Las Vegas casinos.
Everything posted by this individual including all those ancient conspiracy theories should be taken with a huge grain of salt!!
tugboatwilly,
YOU are the STALKER. You have stalked the person you are LYING about for many years. Even the handle you chose shows that YOU are the STALKER!
YOU have also stalked me for many years.
I won't include any of the UGLY details of things you have done over the years, but your words show just a glimpse of your mentality.
Now I am going to ask you to stay on topic. The topic is Bob Brinker--in case you missed it in the title of the Blog, because your personal attacks on other posters will not be tolerated here.
InvesTing said:
"..does anyone doubt that Professor Malkeil was right when he told a caller to Brinker's own show to NEVER try to time the market?.."
--I disagree with Malkiel. I don't believe in short-term timing,but I believe in trying to avoid major bears.
In 1999, we were in a stock market bubble. I believe THAT was a great time to try to time the market--IOW, try to get out or partially out BEFORE the inevitable crash.
Meanwhile, you should have an asset allocation plan in place that will enable you to withstand a bear market IF you fail to get out, or at least reduce your stock holdings, in time.
Brinker failed to get out before a 15% or so drop. Therefore he now has no choice but to ride it out and take whatever comes. Again, if one's asset allocation is right, it shouldn't be a disaster.
OTOH, if you think the market is going to go down 80%, now WOULD be a good time to get out.
I don't believe we should use the words "never" or "always" very often. According to you, Malkiel used that word, and I think he was wrong to do so.
What is being described is Confirmation Bias, a common tendency to look for data that confirms our beliefs. It makes us feel better, in spite of contrary indicators ;-)
I think that Nassim Nicholas Taleb has it very right, and applies to BB. When we "forecast" correctly, we attribute it to our intelligence or our correct models, when in fact it was just plain luck. Bob has been mostly lucky with his big calls. He has confused correlation with causation. Fooled by Randomness is a great book!
The stock market is right for those with a long time horizon and a strong gut.
Note to the person posting as "Octavian."
.
Why have you imping the "real" Octavian?
Please add a note to each of your posts making it clear that you are not Dija.
The "no 20% bear market" in the S&P call was actually quite clever. The bullish interests have a very strong incentive to keep the "down 20%" from happening because if it does, then all the market news sites will have to run the obligatory "the S&P is now officially in a bear market" articles that would further frighten the buy-and-holders. That the Russell 2000 and Nasdaq Composite drop more than 20% is not as significant since they are not regarded the same importance as the S&P 500 in my opinion.
Post a Comment