Moneytalk, January 16, 2011, Bob Brinker said: "The S&P at 1293, actually with a 3% total return year-to-date in 2011....."Are there going to be short-term corrections in here? Of course there are. It's my guess that there are going to be single-digit corrections. That's my best guess right here. That if we get corrections in this market, and we're talking about a market that's been horrendously strong as it's reached its new recovery high in the S&P at 1293. But we're certainly in a position where we could easily see short-term corrections in this market because it's always been that way. There's nothing new about this. But my personal view would be that they would be single-digit corrections based on what I'm seeing."
Moneytalk, February 27, 2011 was the next time that Bob Brinker expressed his market-timing views. He said: "I have even made comments on the broadcast about this subject.... The market, and the areas of risk we could be seeing in the market from time to time that would be normal expectation.....As a matter of fact, last month right here on the broadcast, I pointed out that there are going to be along the way, and they might be small -- they might not be as small as what we've seen, which has been minuscule. Right now, we're 1.7% below the recovery high....it's almost nothing at all......
.....Of course there are going to be short-term corrections in the market. I also pointed out that my guess was that at this point, the likelihood would be that they would be single-digit percentage corrections. So far, that has been correct......I view it as a health-restoring event in a cyclical bull market, which is what I believe we're in. It's a heck of a one, but I think that's what it is -- a cyclical bull market. We've had ones greater than the one we're in right now and we certainly had a lot that were smaller than this. I just don't see any reason right now to sign on to the doomsday machine. If I did, I would tell you."
Bob Brinker believes that the stock market is in a cyclical bull, running concurrently with a secular bear.
As of the March, 2011 Marketimer, he does not see an end to the cyclical bull on the radar. Just the opposite, he raised his S&P 500 Index target to the "1400 to 1450 zone," depending on the "economic recovery and the ability of the Federal Reserve to effectively manage monetary policy." He also recommends a "dollar-cost-average approach for new investing."
Brinker's model portfolios are fully invested, as they have been since March, 2003. His latest in a long list of ever-lower buying-opportunities was in July, 2010 at S&P 1030 -- that is the one he talks about on Moneytalk now. He never mentioned mid-1400's, mid-1300's or low 1200's....
Dixiegeezer's red-headed woodpecker:
.
27 comments:
Hey brinker&brinker, didja buy any TIPS yet, or are you going to wait until they get a little higher?
Why are they blocking Dan out? I think they got the wrong guy.
Dan G said...
I have been "locked out" by Google from posting, but maybe they'll let me in this time.
Anyway, with all hell breaking loose in Japan, and with revolts going on all over the world, I'm not sure just how much one can depend on TA and chart patterns to offer any guidance.
But for what it's worth, here goes. The Dow is very near a pretty substantial support level around 11,500. This support comes from the minor top at about that level last November. So that's where I'd look for this nasty drop to possibly start to turn around.
So I'd start to nibble now, and if we do get a rally here, then I'd await a follow through day some 4-7 days past the bottom day (counting the bottom day as day 1).
So that's it from TA land! Good luck!
- Dan G
Thanks for copying Dan's post here -- sure don't want it to be missed. It was originally posted here:
March 13, 2011, Bob Brinker Moneytalk Summary
.
Mr. Pig,
I doubt that Bob Brinker or Bob Brinker will be buying Vanguard Inflation-Portected Securities (VIPSX) again very soon.
In January 2011, Bob Brinker eliminated all TIPS weightings in his Marketimer fixed-income portfolio (which includes stocks) and his "balanced" model portfolio III (which is about 66% stocks).
He added Vanguard Wellesley Income Fund (VWINX) to both of those portfolios, and increased Vanguard High-Yield Corporate Fund (VWEHX) in the fixed-income portfolio to 25%.
.
"He added Vanguard Wellesley Income Fund (VWINX) to both of those portfolios, and increased Vanguard High-Yield Corporate Fund (VWEHX) in the fixed-income portfolio to 25%."
You certainly get a lot more actual cash money with those dividend paying stocks and the junk bonds than you do with the TIPS.
With the TIPS, they just tack inflation on to the value of your bond and you don't get any cash until you sell it. And if there isn't any inflation they don't even do that.
Bealy Idnw
Bealy said: "You certainly get a lot more actual cash money with those dividend paying stocks and the junk bonds than you do with the TIPS."
I don't disagree with that statement at all. Do you think that is why Bob Brinker made those changes?
What do you think of his adding stocks to a fixed income portfolio? Just one more example of his lack of honesty?
How about Bob Brinker, the computer technician turned snake oil salesman, selling a fixed-income newsletter, with fixed-income portfolios that contain stocks?
.
"What do you think of his adding stocks to a fixed income portfolio? Just one more example of his lack of honesty?"
Oh I don't think so at all. I think it was probably some sort of a hedge against rising interest rates and I am glad he did that.
I think those dividend paying stocks pay as much or more in dividends than the bonds and I know they pay a lot more in cash than those TIPS do.
I don't think a fixed income portfolio has to be all bonds do you? Some people also have REITs and those Gas Royalty things that pay a big dividend but I don't think they are bonds.
I am much happier with those junk bonds and some dividend paying blue chip stocks than TIPS.
I have to take those RMDs and it makes it much easier when you actually get the cash money.
Bealy
Dan said: "Anyway, with all hell breaking loose in Japan, and with revolts going on all over the world, I'm not sure just how much one can depend on TA and chart patterns to offer any guidance."
I sure agree with that. I think that even proven pros (in my opinion), like Ground Zero, are having trouble getting a handle on this market.
So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that the bottom will be tested some more?
.
Bealy asked: "I don't think a fixed income portfolio has to be all bonds do you?"
Well, I think it should be all fixed income and zero stocks -- because that is the name of the portfolio.
Seems pretty clear to me, but then I believe in telling only the truth as much as is humanly possible.
Bob Brinker and Bob Brinker play fast and loose with the truth in many other areas concerning their newsletters.
I can prove that, so not just talking through my silk hat.
.
"Well, I think it should be all fixed income and zero stocks -- because that is the name of the portfolio."
Oh I guess you are right but I don't really care too much just because it is called fixed income.
Most of the time the income isn't fixed at all but changes from month to month. I don't care as long as it keeps coming in.
I think things like REITs, preferred stocks and those Gas Royalty things are much more like bonds than stocks so that's where I keep them in my mind anyway when it comes time to balance back.
Anyway they are in my IRA portfolio and that is all fixed income to me no matter what others may call it so I am happy.
Bealy
Bealy,
While that may be just fine and dandy for an individual to do to his personal portfolio, it's dishonest to SELL, SELL, SELL a newsletter titled Brinker Fixed Income Advisor with three "fixed income" portfolios that has stock in it without even an explanation.
Don't you agree?
.
"I just don't see any reason right now to sign on to the doomsday machine."
Why is Mr B discouraging folks from signing up for his newsletter?
"If I did, I would tell you."
Don't hold your breath. In ten seconds that woodpecker has had more activity than eight years of stagnant buy and hold advice.
"While that may be just fine and dandy for an individual to do to his personal portfolio, it's dishonest to SELL, SELL, SELL a newsletter titled Brinker Fixed Income Advisor with three "fixed income" portfolios that has stock in it without even an explanation."
Well yes, I would agree there should be some sort of an explanation as to why he was holding a balanced fund.
I don't subscribe to I don't know what the newsletter actually says but I have heard him on the radio explaining why a balanced portfolio can have a goodly share of stocks versus bonds.
I don't think it's dishonest, what has he got to gain? I mean it's all there in black and white for anybody who wants to read it.
I just don't feel sorry for people who don't read things and then complain later that they didn't understand what they were doing.
Bealy
Excuse me, Bealy, but evidently my message is going over your head like a flock of crows.
I was talking about the fixed income fund having stock in it. That is different from the balanced fund, which obviously has stock in it. Capice?
You said: "I don't think it's dishonest, what has he got to gain? I mean it's all there in black and white for anybody who wants to read it."
What is all there in black and white? Certainly NOT THE TRUTH! What good is reading something if what is written is a lie?
What have they got to gain? Well, for Bob Brinker, the techie turned shyster, that's easy: The lifestyle that only daddy's NAME AND GAME can provide.
Daddy's name got him picked up by Mark Hulbert almost the first day the fixed-income rag was published: Cha-Ching.
The "game" gets him listed in the top-5 of Hulbert's (risk-adjusted) performance rankings because some of some computer glitch. Of course, without the stupid risk-adjustment that Hulbert mostly invented, he's #38, but who will see that since Hulbert has rearranged his columns so conveniently.
Cha-Ching for BobbyJr and Cha-Ching for Mark Hulbert
.
Wow... Brinker has a topic for Sunday to avoid not raising any cash before this latest meltdown!
Two Democrats Charged in Tea Party Election Fraud
PONTIAC, Mich. (WJBK) - Two former leaders of the Oakland County Democratic Party are facing a total of nine felonies for allegedly forging election paperwork to get fake Tea Party candidates on November's ballot.
Always good to deflect the angry questions of his subscribers who are still waiting to get even from his "gift horse" buy in the mid 1400s!
Some quality newsletters I follow raised cash before the meltdown and used some to buy this week after the decline.
Japan and Democrats to Bob's rescue!
Beady tries to say, "I just don't feel sorry for people who don't read things and then complain later that they didn't understand what they were doing."
Me and Ms Honey read stuff ( as does Jeff and Kirk and Fluffy and others here) and we complain and holler before-hand, kinda like today, and what do we hear?
"Why do you people complain so damn much all day long? Who wants to hear it?"
Be thrilled with your REITs, preferred stocks and those Gas Royalty things, and JUNK BOND dividends.................but I don't see where you get off knocking other people over here for being concerned about the DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF FIXED INCOME.
But, that's just me, so pay no attention, since I don't have to worry about feeding extra family members because they can't find a steady job. HTH, but I doubt it.
Risk Adverse Fixed Income Investors Don't expect 27% under performance to a simple Bond index Fund!!
A very observant Pig commented to the alias-of-the-day" but I don't see where you get off knocking other people over here for being concerned about the DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF FIXED INCOME.
In my professional and personal dealings, the vast majority of people who don't want to own stocks are risk adverse. That means they want to sacrifice POTENTIAL returns for safety.
It really does them a disservice to sell them the idea they are buying a "safe, fixed income" product then load it up with garbage that is is as volatile (read risky) as equities.
For example, how many would give up the potential returns of the stock market to invest in a "fixed income" model portfolio that lost over 20% in a year GNMA and Total Bond Index funds went up over 5%? 25% under performance!
Below is what Mark Hulbert reported for Bob Brinkers' Fixed Income Model Portfolio Returns
Brinker's fixed income advisor model portfolio #1 lost 21.7% in 2008.
Brinker's fixed income advisor model portfolio #2 lost 11.5% in 2008.
Brinker's fixed income advisor model portfolio #3 lost 5.2% in 2008.
Brinker's fixed income only portfolio in “Marketimer” lost 2.1% in 2008.
All the "Brinkers'" fixed income portfolios lost money in 2008, a year Vanguard's GNMA fund was up 7.22% and Vanguard's Total Bond fund was up 5.24%.
Gnubie
I keep seeing recommendations of gold in the portfolio -- usually 5-10%. It seems too little for insurance. Assume a $100,000 portfolio at 90% of various tradeable assets and 10% gold. The markets drop 50% as a result of a black swan event. Your portfolio is niw worth $45,000 plus gold, which let's say doubles -- now the portfolio is $55,000. Big deal. Who buys car or home insurance for only 10% or even 20% of the value? IF you believe gold is a good hedge, then the percentage should be much higher. Right? If not, why not?
I am surprised that Bob Brinker is recommending the Vangard Wellesley fund since Philip Morris is one of its top 25 holding. Didn't Brinker say he wouldn't own a tobacco stock?
I think Google is going to let me in this time. I'll hurry before they change their mind!
Anyway, with the two day rally, we should have the makings of a possible "follow-through" day within the most favorable 4-7 day window following the first day of the rally (counting the first day as day 1).
So I'd be watching the market from Tuesday through Friday next week for a big rally in one or more of the major indexes, and on good volume, at least larger than the preceeding day, but the larger the better.
So far so good for TA vs lousy world news!
- Dan G
Gnubie said:
I keep seeing recommendations of gold in the portfolio -- usually 5-10%. It seems too little for insurance. Assume a $100,000 portfolio at 90% of various tradeable assets and 10% gold. The markets drop 50% as a result of a black swan event. Your portfolio is niw worth $45,000 plus gold, which let's say doubles -- now the portfolio is $55,000. Big deal. Who buys car or home insurance for only 10% or even 20% of the value? IF you believe gold is a good hedge, then the percentage should be much higher. Right? If not, why not?
After reading your post I don't feel you are qualified for equity investing.
Mark
Jeffchristie said: "I am surprised that Bob Brinker is recommending the Vangard Wellesley fund since Philip Morris is one of its top 25 holding. Didn't Brinker say he wouldn't own a tobacco stock?"
Good point, Jeff. In the past, Bob Brinker has been very adamant about not owning tobacco stock. Sadly, he lost his mother at an early age because she smoked, and he blames the tobacco companies.
I also lost my mother at an early age because she smoked. However, I don't blame the tobacco companies for her inability to quit once the facts were known about how deadly smoking is for most people.
Perhaps when she was a young teen and got hooked, the tobacco companies were to blame, along with the media and movie industry that glorified it.
OTOH, I have heard (I never smoked) that it is more difficult to quit smoking than it is to get off heroin addiction.
.
DanG said: "So I'd be watching the market from Tuesday through Friday next week for a big rally in one or more of the major indexes, and on good volume, at least larger than the preceeding day, but the larger the better.
So far so good for TA vs lousy world news!"
Dan,
Yes, the world news right now is pretty lousy. Sheesh, what would we do without some good TA and maybe a nice glass of Chardonnay. LOL!
I am so sorry that you have been having difficulty posting, but sure glad you finally got through!
I got cold feet on a recent trade-purchase of QLD, and sold it today -- break even.
But I will be looking for a good (and lower) entry point. I wasn't home as the market closed today, or I might have bought it back since it went down at the same time the Dow and S&P went up. Go figure.
But it's wise to be caution with the Nasdaq right now if you believe Jim Rogers. He's negative on it and bullish on commodities, gold and silver.
BTW: I'm still holding my AGQ. It seems to be the best money-maker for now -- or until it isn't. LOL!! It's volatile....
.
Mark said to gnubie: "After reading your post I don't feel you are qualified for equity investing."
Hi Mark,
Nice to hear from you. Are you the MarkJ who used to post at Suite101 in the good old days?
Based on Gnubie's assumption that the 10% gold in his make-believe portfolio would double as the stock market went down 55%, I agree with you. I don't think that is a safe-assumption because sometimes gold seems to go down with the market.
And how does double 10% make up for a 55% of 90% loss?
He figures like the guy that came up with the "buy QQQQ with 20-50% of 65% of available cash reserves" in 2000. The guy who double-counted that money in his model portfolios.
Birdbrain said: "Don't hold your breath. In ten seconds that woodpecker has had more activity than eight years of stagnant buy and hold advice."
LOL! Yes, when one washes out all the chaff from what Bob Brinker has actually DONE over the past eight years, all that's left is "stagnant buy and hold advice." For that, people have paid him $1480 if they subscribed to Marketimer!!
And of course, if anyone came into new money during that time and believed and trusted his bottom calls, they took several real financial baths.
.
On previous comments thread under the Summary,
birdbrain said...
"Anybody else tune in to Jeopardy Friday night?
First category was Name That Brinker. I got em all."
Birdbrain,
I don't know how that hilarious post got past me, except that I had out of town guests and was kinda flying by the seat of my pants for a few days. (Thanks again to Jeffchristie for writing such an excellent summary.)
So you named all the Brinker's. Outstanding! ROFLOL!!
.
Must be my imagination of the huge rise in food prices at the store. Since Brinker (the a#$) would always shout that rising fuel costs are deflationary.
What brilliance.
Post a Comment