Sunday, February 17, 2013

February 17, 2013, Bob Brinker's Moneytalk: Summary, Excerpts, Commentary and Discussion

February 17, 2013....Bob Brinker hosted Moneytalk today. (comments welcome)

STOCK MARKET....Brinker said: "As we look forward to the week, we see a market that has had an incredible, almost straight up run. And now sits at 1519 in the S&P 500 and very close to 14,000 on the Dow.

STOCK MARKET WARNING....Brinker said: "Those indexes (Dow, S&P and Nasdaq) are all at or close to their 2013 year-to-date highs. And also at or near their highest levels in several years. There is a lot, there a lot of bullish sentiment  out there right now. If you look at the sentiment indicators,  a lot of the indicators are showing that there is a very high level of bullishness out there. Whenever you see that, you always have to recognize that, usually, at some point, those levels of over-enthusiasm, of over-zealous participation are very frequently cause for profit-taking. So if you see some profit-taking coming into the market, you should not be surprised when you consider the fact that there is such a very high level of bullish sentiment in a number of indicators out there right now."

Honey EC: It's been a very long time since I have heard Brinker actually give a cautionary warning like that on the air. Kudos to you, Bob! You sounded like the Bob Brinker that made me a fan twenty-six years ago.  NOTE: Brinker has NOT raised any cash and is still fully invested.

INFLATION BEHAVING WELL... Brinker said: "We get the Consumer Price Index data on Thursday... prices have been behaving well. CPI estimated for the month to go up a tenth of a percent. It was flat last month. The core number is expected to go up 2/10 of 1%. If that comes in, then the headline number would be 1.6 and the core number would be 1.8, so inflation continuing to behave very well."

UNEMPLOYMENT...Brinker said: "Initial claims for unemployment insurance on Thursday estimated at 355,000. Big drop last week down to 341,000....We want to see this number under 400,000. It's been there and its been staying there. That's why we have seen the jobs growth that you have seen. We've seen decent jobs growth for the past two years."

INCREASE TAX BY CHANGING DEDUCTIONS FOR HIGH EARNERS: Brinker said that the president's so-called "balanced approach" will include tax increase aimed at high earners. There are five areas where taxes will be increased with reductions in deductions. 1. Reduce mortgage interest $million cap or means test (second home deduction). Remove deductions for state and local taxes (They've already done it for AMT victims.). 3. Set income cap on charity deductions (president already proposed cap).  4. Tax employer health care benefits. 5. Change rules on municipal income taxes.

Honey EC: Brinker seemed convinced that this would only hit the wealthy and high-earners. I don't agree. I think that many of these deductions are enjoyed by the middle-class. 

WHEN TO KNOW INTEREST RATES WILL RISE: Caller Ned from Ohio wanted to know what signals to look for in order to know when interest rates would rise.

INTEREST RATE WARNING.....Brinker replied: "I think it's very important for all Moneytalk listeners to take note of the fact that the high risk in the bond market now is in the high-duration investing......My recommendation is to keep those durations on the shorter end.....The indicators that I follow on interest rates are far too numerous to mention. But let me highlight a couple that I think are very important. One of them is Federal Reserve Monetary policy." (Brinker explained how the low rates have helped unemployment and the housing market.) There's one more that I want to touch on and that's the economic growth rate. If you're looking at the economic growth rate above trend, and trend is still thought to be in the area of 3%, then chances are you're going to see some inflation and interest rate activity."

DON'T BUY TREASURY INFLATION PROTECTED SECURITIES (TIPS)....Brinker said: "I would not be using TIPS in here. My personal view is they are over-priced, over-valued."

SEQUESTRATION CUTS DROP IN THE BUCKET....Brinker said: "The Sequestration that we are talking about now is the $85 billion scheduled to take affect in less than two weeks on March 1st....The amazing thing about this is that this is a drop in the bucket."

TAKING IRA RMD FROM ONE ACCOUNT INSTEAD OF EACH ACCOUNT: Caller Dale from Denver asked a question like this: "Can an account owner just take a RMD from one account instead of separately from each account?"
THE IRS ANSWER: "An IRA owner must calculate the RMD separately for each IRA that he or she owns, but can withdraw the total amount from one or more of the IRAs. Similarly, a 403(b) contract owner must calculate the RMD separately for each 403(b) contract that he or she owns, but can take the total amount from one or more of the 403(b) contracts.  However, RMDs required from other types of retirement plans, such as 401(k) and 457(b) plans have to be taken separately from each of those plan accounts."
HOW TO BUY BRINKER'S NON-VANGUARD RECOMMENDED MUTUAL FUNDS: Caller Brad from New Orleans, who said he follows Brinker's model portfolio III, asked about the best way to buy mutual funds that Brinker recommends that are not Vanguard. 

Brinker replied: "If you buy it directly from the mutual fund, that's usually the least expensive way to buy it.....If you going to use a third party, whether it be Vanguard  or Fidelity (Honey EC: or Charles Schwab) brokerage, very frequently, you are going to have to pay a fee....That's an additional transaction expense." 

WARREN BUFFET FORCES TAX INCREASE ON HEINZ CO. SHAREHOLDERS: Caller Bob from San Francisco said he was long-term Heinz stock holder and wanted to hold it much longer. He was really ticked off  about Warren Buffett's purchase because it meant he (Bob) had to sell for cash if the deal went through and then pay big  capital gains tax on it.  He said that the same thing happened because of Buffett when Mars purchased Wrigley. 

Brinker agreed with the caller that he was going to have to pay a large amount of taxes since he was a high-earner in California. Brinker said: "There is a real irony here....The same person who perpretrated this takeover, the Sage of Omaha, has been out there for the past couple of years, campaigning, beating the drums, on increasing the tax rates. Then he comes in with this bid, and in Bob's case, he could lose 35% overnight on the tax bill....Amazing stuff, huh?"

HEINZ CO. SUSPICIOUS INSIDE TRADE:  Brinker's comments summarized:  Right after it was announced that H. J. Heinz Co. was being taken private at almost $72.5 billion in an offer by Warren Buffet, we learned that the SEC is suing some traders for suspicious trading activities.  No wonder some investors have left the stock market when this kind of thing happens. The SEC complaint alleges that traders earned $1.7 million by purchasing out-of-the-money call options just before the announcement was made. The trades took place in Zurich. They will probably find the people involved and go after them. 

The following summary and editorial comments written by guest-writer, Frank J: 

A summary of the interview with Alan Blinder on MoneyTalk, February 17, 2013. 

Alan Blinder was Bob’s guest in this Sunday’s third hour. Mr. Blinder is a Professor of Economics at Princeton, a contributor to the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, and a former member of the Federal Reserve. Blinder’s book, After the Music Stopped, is an examination of the economic meltdown and the reaction to it. The book is now on Bob Brinker’s reading list on his website.

Mr. Blinder said that the book came about as a result of the economic meltdown, which was a big, complicated mess that few Americans understand. He delayed writing the book because he “wanted to see how this play ends.” As to what happened, Blinder said we built a fragile financial system, and there was a desire to build complicated derivatives on top of mortgages. All this activity was predicated on the housing bubble continuing. People should have known that home prices would not continue upwards, and it didn’t help that regulators were looking the other way.

Blinder pointed out that there were “$200 – 300 billion of bad mortgages, … $600 billion at most.” The problem was that “trillions” in investments were built on top of these mortgages and institutions were too heavily leveraged. The topic of March 2009 market bottom came up and Bob Brinker asked if the fear that the banking system was going to go under was legitimate. Mr. Blinder’s answer was yes – however, he cited some actions by the federal government that he thought helped prop up the banking system: 1) the stimulus bill had been passed a few weeks earlier, 2) Treasury Sec. Tim Geithner had announced the need for stress tests on banks, 3) and the TARP program was operating, having been put in place in late 2008.

Bob asked if we have learned anything? Mr. Blinder’s answer was probably not enough, and he wondered out loud whether we would actually remember what we learned. Blinder pointed out a few things that we already knew: being excessively rich can be hazardous to your financial health. We knew that any unregulated financial system tends to go to excess; people get irrationally exuberant and begin doing things they shouldn’t. He said when this happens, the regulator’s role is to mitigate. The Federal Reserve “missed” all this because a lot of the worst mortgages were coming from outside the banking system. But, Blinder added that there were “disgraceful lending standards” and the Fed should have taken action against.

Bob hypothesized that the federal government made a conscious decision NOT to save Lehmann brothers. The guest agreed and said the decision by the government to let Lehmann go bankrupt was a mistake. He believed it could have been saved like Bear Stearns. The resulting confusion over the “rules of the game” led to a freezing of worldwide credit markets. When it came to AIG, the Fed and the Treasury found ways to stretch the law and help that company.

Bob asked if the “too big to fail” concept was the same as a license to do harm (by large financial institutions and traders). Blinder said the Dodd-Frank legislation in 2010 did away with the “TBTF” notion because if a bank looks like it is failing, the legislation calls for an orderly liquidation by the FDIC. Bob mentioned Republican presidential primary candidates who called for Dodd-Frank to be abolished, citing government actions as the cause of the meltdown. Mr. Blinder dismissed this and said the cause of the meltdown was government INACTION, and the notion of repealing Dodd-Frank was “beyond the Pale.”

Editorial comment: Not mentioned with regard to government actions in the form of the Community Reinvestment Act, and the activities of those quasi-government agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. 

Carl, calling from WLS country asked a two part question, had Glass Steagall been in place would it have made a difference? And, if the original uptick rule was in place would that have slowed the downturn?

Editorial comment: At this point, MoneyTalk regulars might have listened a little closer because Bob has commented many, many times on the folly of repealing Glass Steagal and the lack of enforcement of the uptick rule. 

Mr. Blinder said that there were many bad practices and “zero” would have been prevented by Glass-Steagall. Only the Citigroup merger would have been stopped. He said that the repeal of Glass Steagall played “a very, very small role if any.” He dismissed the uptick rule as “speed bump” (to those who would short a security).

Honey EC: Thank you for that great summary, Frank. I can't believe that Brinker actually let those comments about Glass-Steagall go by unchallenged. As you said, he has repeatedly talked about how its repeal by "both Parties" was responsible for the housing-banking crises of 2008.

Jeffchristie's Moneytalk Final Exam Question: 
When Bob Brinker takes calls from people listening on the great KNUS radio he frequently says they are calling from: 
A) The emerald city.
B) The windy city.
C) The mile high city.
D) They city that never sleeps. 
Answer:    710knus
Brinker said he will be adding Blinder's new book to his recommended reading list:  After the Music Stopped: The Financial Crisis, the Response, and the Work Ahead

San Francisco, Ca. KSFO 560: 1-4pm (KSFO archives Moneytalk Free on Demand for seven days after broadcast. You can download and listen on the go.)  


42 comments:

Anonymous said...

Did Bob Brinker just say that he would avoid TIPS because they are overpriced? I thought that is what he was saying buy I'm not sure.

And did he say he likes shorter term bonds?

bushbi

Anonymous said...

rasputin here: Has Bob said anything about his thoughts regarding the ballooning debt? And the effects on the market?

Honeybee said...

Hi Ras,

Brinker talked about the ballooning debt, but did not relate how it might affect the stock market.

MOF: In the first hour, he only mentioned the stock market with a casual remark about how the "ordinary investors" have left it because they don't trust it. Then he told about an apparent insider trade of Heinz.

Anonymous said...

ras here: Yes, Bob has liked short-term bonds for a long time due to interest rate risks and the effect of this on bond prices.

Anonymous said...

Honey, in hour two a caller from KSFO said the he owned Hienz stock and Buffet bought it up and was taking the company private, that we already know but as the talk went on we find out to that everyone who owns the stock, including mutual funds will owe 23% cap gains [ more in Calif] even if you wanted to keep the stock. Now to the question, do you think that this could be a plan to raise tax revenue [ put on your cynic's hat] this act will raise tons of NEW capitol gains tax money for obama to share or spread around. Kerry gets Sec of State, Buffet gets Heinz, Obama gets more of our money, that's a win win .

Anonymous said...

buffet buys Heniz, taxpayers pay the new 23% plus Calif. tons of new dollars for obama to spread around. question, put on you cynics hat, is this a plan to extract more money from us?
kerry gets sec of state, buffet gets heniz, obama gets to punish " the rich " a win win

Honeybee said...

The point that the caller and Brinker both made without a direct accusation, was EXACTLY what you said about Warren Buffett's purchase of Heinz.

I agree....

tomfrompv said...

It seems to me that Bob continually avoids connecting the debt and QE to the stock market. I understand that for politicians. But Bob is supposedly a market timer and advisor. He should be warning his listeners that the markets are on the edge.

IMO, there is no doubt that the stock market is riding a bubble based on the debt (govt spending) and QE.

Our GDP each year is so much. The govt spends 25% of it. The govt borrows 40% of that. Meanwhile, the Fed prints not only that 40% in debt, but another $1 trillion in QE.

Bob should be stating these facts, even if they do make the govt look like imbeciles. And the bubble can be pricked any number of ways -- when it does stocks will drop a lot. Why won't Bob just state all this as a warning?

Add in the weirdness he has with people expressing differing opinions (see that story about Suite 101!), and it seems Bob is just not interested in the listener's wellbeing. Maybe its always been this way and I just noticed?

gabe said...

What is a Vanguard substitute for the three funds in Brinker's income portfolio that are non Vanguard funds are quite expensive.

Thanks.

Tricky Dick said...

"it seems Bob is just not interested in the listener's wellbeing."

Brinker has one news letter that is very aggressive into stocks. No financial advisor I know recommends 100% in equities but even his "middle portfolio" is 100% in stocks. It scores well on ratings services when the market is up. Brinker takes calls praising him for that portfolio when stocks are doing well. Funny not too many calls these days as he scared a lot of listeners into his other newsletter.

The "other" newsletter, easily mistaken for his, is now 100% out of stocks. They share mailing lists many callers don't know the differences.

Some people might even think if they subscribe to both, they will get a secret decoder ring to tell them when to switch back and forth from 100% stocks to 100% fixed income. Boy are they in for a surprise!

Ask Honeybee for a link to her excellent Red/Black strategy explanation.

Anonymous said...

Honey EC: "Brinker seemed convinced that this would only hit the wealthy and high-earners. I don't agree. I think that many of these deductions are enjoyed by the middle-class."

These proposed tax changes would apply ONLY to those earning over $250,000, or the high income earners.

EA

Anonymous said...

Regarding the caller "Bob" from KSFO country: He is getting to be a frequent flyer on the Starship. And, in my opinion he asks better questions than some of the other frequent flyers.

Like Bob from KSFO, I will also be losing my Heinz shares to Buffett and 3G, his partner in the deal. I read that Buffett will get preferred stock paying a 9% dividend.

Bob, and I and others get to pay capital gains taxes in 2014.

-- Frankj

Anonymous said...

Bess:

"No financial advisor I know recommends 100% in equities but even his "middle portfolio" is 100% in stocks."

That is supposed to be Brinker's stock portfolio for the stock portion of your total portfolio.

Haven't you heard Brinker recommend a 50/50 basic portfolio for most folks nearing retirement? You adjust according to your age and risk tolerance I think.

Honeybee said...

Anonymous said: "....this act will raise tons of NEW capitol gains tax money for obama to share or spread around. Kerry gets Sec of State, Buffet gets Heinz, Obama gets more of our money, that's a win win .

"Cynics hat" very stylishly placed. :)

Leftist big money gets away with changing the face of America and picking our pockets, but gets a pass from the so-called mainstream media.

Honeybee said...

tomfrompv said...
"It seems to me that Bob continually avoids connecting the debt and QE to the stock market. I understand that for politicians. But Bob is supposedly a market timer and advisor. He should be warning his listeners that the markets are on the edge.

IMO, there is no doubt that the stock market is riding a bubble based on the debt (govt spending) and QE.

Our GDP each year is so much. The govt spends 25% of it. The govt borrows 40% of that. Meanwhile, the Fed prints not only that 40% in debt, but another $1 trillion in QE.

Bob should be stating these facts, even if they do make the govt look like imbeciles. And the bubble can be pricked any number of ways -- when it does stocks will drop a lot. Why won't Bob just state all this as a warning?"


Tom,

All excellent points. Brinker does talk about the deficit and National Debt, but he never extrapolates to possible effects on the market.

And in all fairness, he did repeat his mantra about government being "dysfunctional" again. I just didn't re-write it because we've heard this ever since the Republicans took control of Congress.

Yesterday, when he spoke of the economy, inflation and unemployment, he made it sound like everything is coming up roses.

But he did say the market was due for a "correction." Now in Brinker-speak, that could mean up to a 19.9% decline before it becomes a bear market. You really couldn't make this stuff up; no one would believe you. :)

Anonymous said...

To call Buffett's acquistion of HJ Heinz some sort of a leftist conspricacy is really stretching.

Berk

Honeybee said...

Tricky Dick wrote: "The "other" newsletter, easily mistaken for his, is now 100% out of stocks. They share mailing lists many callers don't know the differences."

You made some very good points about the two Brinker newsletters.

You also turned on a light bulb right over my head that went BLING!

Here it is: All this time, I've assumed that Bobby Jr was the brains behind the Brinker Fixed Income Advisor and he was just riding on Brinker Sr's famous name.

Now let's turn that around and speculate: What if it was Brinker Sr's brainchild? What if Bobby Jr is just a puppet and it really IS Brinker Sr's newsletter?

It would have looked really bad if Brinker started charging for a whole new "fixed-income" newsletter while having a very similar fixed-income portfolio in Marketimer.

Walla! Enter his computer-geek young sprout and a new fee for $150 per year subscription price is created.

Would that explain why Brinker rarely corrects callers who tell him they subscribe to both of his newsletters? A little pride rearing its head?

Honeybee said...

FrankJ,

Sorry to hear that you too are going to be hit with this capital gains tax because of Buffett's move.

Disgusting thing, IMO......

Anonymous said...

Sorry to hear that you too are going to be hit with this capital gains tax because of Buffett's move

I am a bit confused. Without regard for Buffet's politics, is there anything wrong with him purchasing this company? It seems like a smart business move. Interest rates are low, so if he wants he could float bonds for the acquisition cost he could probably pay the interest out of the once dividend. My point is, it looks to me like he can buy this company for free in many respects due to the low interest rate environment.

I feel bad for anyone (including those in index funds) who will get a tax bill but isn’t the real issue that we tax capital gains in the first place? Think about it, when you buy a stock you take on risk, including the risk of the company being bought out. Why does the government, who has no stake in your investment profit from your risk taking? I would think your ire should be directed at a system that punishes savers and rewards spend thrifts.

I think I must be missing something? Is there something underhanded in what Buffet is doing?

Anonymous said...

In case I did not label it, the Buffet post was from tfb

Honeybee said...

My dear TFB,

I'm glad you said that about Buffett. I obviously have not made my feelings clear on the subject.

Being a devout Capitalist, I believe that Buffett had the absolute right to buy Heinz Co.

What bugs me is the irony of the purchase triggering so much extra, unintended and unavoidable capital gains tax for the average investor -- AFTER Buffett has been so vocal about wanting to increase all kinds of taxes, including property taxes in California.

That really gets my goat, as you might imagine.

So, and yes, I AM sorry that people like the caller and FrankJ are being forced (for whatever reason) to hand over money to this "dysfunctional" government.

Anonymous said...

Wasn't blinkie Blinder part of the clinton administration during the community re-investment act ? when the government [janet reno ] forced banks to lend your money to a$$ holes that they knew couldn't re-pay it. blinker is a liar but being a democrat, nobody will call him on it !

Honeybee said...

"anonymous" asked if Blinder was part of the Clinton administration. I think he/she has hit on exactly why Blinder didn't say anything negative about the removal of Glass-Steagall, which Clinton signed.

This is from Wikipedia:

Political career

Blinder has served as the Deputy Assistant Director of the Congressional Budget Office (1975), on President Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors (January 1993 - June 1994),[6] and as the Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System from June 1994 to January 1996.[6] As Vice Chairman, he cautioned against raising interest rates too quickly to slow inflation because of the lags in earlier rises feeding through into the economy. He also warned against ignoring the short term costs in terms of unemployment that inflation-fighting could cause.[12]


Many have argued that Blinder's stint at the Fed was cut short because of his tendency to challenge chairman Alan Greenspan:


[Economist] Rob Johnson, who watched the Blinder ordeal, says Blinder made the mistake of behaving as if the Fed was a place where competing ideas and assumptions were debated. "Sociologically, what was happening was the Fed staff was really afraid of Blinder. At some level, as an applied empirical economist, Alan Blinder is really brilliant," says Johnson. In closed-door meetings, Blinder did what so few do: he challenged assumptions. "The Fed staff would come out and their ritual is: Greenspan has kind of told them what to conclude and they produce studies in which they conclude this. And Blinder treated it more like an open academic debate when he first got there and he'd come out and say, 'Well, that's not true. If you change this assumption and change this assumption and use this kind of assumption you get a completely different result.' And it just created a stir inside--it was sort of like the whole pipeline of Greenspan-arriving-at-decisions was disrupted." This put him in conflict with Greenspan and his staff. "A lot of senior staff... were pissed off about Blinder--how should we say?--not playing by the customs that they were accustomed to," Johnson says.[3]


He was an adviser to Al Gore and John Kerry during their respective presidential campaigns in 2000 and 2004.[6]:

GS said...

Goldman Sachs eases fears of 2013 double-dip recession

February 19, 2013, 7:59 AM

Time to stop worrying about a double-dip recession. Forget lackluster growth readings and depressing surveys, it’s (almost) full speed ahead for the U.S. economy.

That’s the message, more or less, from Goldman Sachs top economist Jan Hatzius, who in his latest note argues that the tail risks for the economy have diminished. And that’s even as the first take on the U.S. economy for the fourth quarter fleshed out that activity shrank 0.1% in the final months of 2012, well below expectations.

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2013/02/19/goldman-sachs-eases-fears-of-2013-double-dip-recession/

Jeffchristie said...

Thanks for documenting the segment with Allen Blinder. If someone had a dollar for every time Brinker claimed the repeal of Glass Steagal and the removal of the up tick rule were major problems that caused the financial crisis, they would be at critical mass.

Blinder not only disagreed with Brinker but presented facts that back up his assertion. He pointed out that Bear Sterns, Merrill Lynch, and Lehman brothers were investment banks and as such are not subject to regulation under Glass Steagal.

As for the up tick rule he said it was just a speed bump. Brinker has claimed it was a major factor in Bear raids.

If a caller would have taken the position that Blinder did, Brinker would have ripped him to shreds. In this case Brinker just sat there not saying a word. I wonder if he was doing a slow burn inside.

Anonymous said...

TFB:

I griped about Buffett taking me out of HNZ. I don't think its a conspiracy, it has only happened twice. If it happens a third time, THEN it will be a conspiracy!

Ways to look at it: 1) unexpected capital gain -- pleasant surprise, sort of. 2) I am such a great stock picker, The Sage of Omaha follows in my footsteps. 3) Loss of a steady dividend payer, now the hunt is on to replace it in the portfolio. I read the deal was going to close in 3rd quarter.

-- Frankj

Anonymous said...

Honey EC: Thank you for that great summary, Frank. I can't believe that Brinker actually let those comments about Glass-Steagall go by unchallenged. As you said, he has repeatedly talked about how its repeal by "both Parties" was responsible for the housing-banking crises of 2008.

Brinker has always been a gutless coward when it comes to debating points with guest who disagree with his assertions. He always makes his defense and then attacks after the guest is safely off the air and can no longer refute his comments.

Anonymous said...

the comment about Brinker attacking after the guest leaves was by tfb

Doug said...

Has Brinker made mistakes? Of course. Does he pontificate and endlessly repeat himself? Oh yes. Does he bob and weave in answering questions? Again that's affirmative.
Bob Brinker has in fact created a whole industry of detractors, and hindesight visionaries.

However, despite his obvious faults, Brinker has led me and countless others either close to or into "critical mass."

Honey, I value your comments and selectively those buzzing in the beehive.

Honeybee said...

Hi Doug,

Great comments. Let me interpret your critique of Bob Brinker.

He may have not be perfect, he may be flawed, but he's OUR not-perfect flawed "teacher" and talk show host. :)

Last week, it felt a little bit like it felt during my "honeymoon" years with him. LOL!

And like honeymoons, it probably won't last long....

Pig said...

Here it is: All this time, I've assumed that Bobby Jr was the brains behind the Brinker Fixed Income Advisor and he was just riding on Brinker Sr's famous name. Now let's turn that around and speculate: What if it was Brinker Sr's brainchild? What if Bobby Jr is just a puppet and it really IS Brinker Sr's newsletter?

Are you suggesting that the fixed income advice of having safe, fixed income money in volatile stocks may have been the idiotic idea of the old man, and not the jobless kid?

Now you gots me wondering which of them is "DUMB" and which is "DUUMBER".

Sorry about the smut that your mailbox will receive after this post, and the usual inane crap about "Does that fat ugly pig think he's being funny again? He's not." ...BLAH.....BLAH....BLAH......BLAH...BLAH.

Pig said...


BTW,

No, I'm not gay or "maggoty", and if you care to aks your wife, that will prove it. HTH

gabe said...

What Vanguard Fund or Funds can one substitute for the three (3) non Vanguard Funds in Brinker's Fixed Income Portfolio. Anyone.

Honeybee said...

Gabe,

I'm looking into this subject. I will get back to it as time allows.

gabe said...

Honeybee: Thank you!

Honeybee said...

Vanguard will not be doing any high-yield bond ETFs. Here's why:

ETFTrends

Anonymous said...

Does anybody know if Bob has ever expressed an opinion regarding "opportunistic rebalancing"?
http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10670

Honeybee said...

Bob Brinker has never done "opportunistic rebalancing" in Marketimer, and I have never heard him express an opinion about it on Moneytalk.

He has talked about "trading stocks" and he has made some trades. However, since the QQQ debacle, he has never mentioned trading stocks.

Kirk Lindstrom's Investment Letter Service said...

RE: Does anybody know if Bob has ever expressed an opinion regarding "opportunistic rebalancing"?

Yes, he tried some in the 1980s and early 1990s but with little success. He went to 100% cash after missing the 1987 bear market then slowly went back to fully invested in 1991.

I put up a fully summary of it here: Bob Brinker's Asset Allocation History

We did a study of his performance. Up to 2000, Brinker under performed the benchmarks due to poor fund selection and bad market timing between 1987 and 1991. He made up for it with his timely call to take profits in 2000 but he gave much of it back with his QQQ advice.

Since the SEC doesn't regulate newsletters, Brinker got away with not counting his horrible QQQ advice or any of the under performing stock picks he has in his newsletter but does not account for.

Estimate of Effect of Bob Brinker's
QQQ advice on his Reported Model Portfolio Returns


Compare that to how I report my performance for core mutual fund portfolios with and without individual stock picks. Obviously, if the individual stock picks added to his performance, he'd have a broken arm from patting himself on the back with planted(?) calls.

Unknown said...

RE: Does anybody know if Bob has ever expressed an opinion regarding "opportunistic rebalancing"?

Yes, he tried some in the 1980s and early 1990s but with little success. He went to 100% cash after missing the 1987 bear market then slowly went back to fully invested in 1991.
-----------------------------------

That's not opportunistic rebalancing, that's market timing.

I'm not so sure about the other information provided by all those other links. It seems more like advertising from a competitor to me.

Honeybee said...

G Sadlier,

I agree with you that when Brinker (RARELY) raises cash (and the QQQ trades) it is strictly market-timing, not rebalancing.

However to call Kirk's link "advertising from a competitor" is pretty silly. I don't sell a newsletter, therefore, I have NO competitors.

If you are worried about Kirk competing with Bob Brinker, that's understandable.

Kirk's newsletter offers value that you can use. Brinker offer very little except smoke and mirrors.

Kirk Lindstrom's Investment Letter Service said...

Thanks for the kind words, Honeybee.

"Kirk's newsletter offers value that you can use. Brinker offer(s) very little except smoke and mirrors."

It would be "advertising" if I put that endorsement on my own web site! -grin-

FWIW, playing games with words to call any change of asset allocation something besides "market timing" is just that, word games. I've had many people tell me that rebalancing my portfolios when the markets are up 10% is market timing...

Brinker can't "rebalance" when he's 100% in equities so it is a moot point.

But, if you look at Bob Brinker's Asset Allocation History you can see he attempted to make minor (5% to 10%)modifications to asset allocation several times between 1990 and 1991. If you plot his allocation vs. the price of the market from 1998 to 1991, you can see why he gave it up.

BTW, funny how Bobby Jr is still so concerned with links. I remember when he said it was OK for Jen to post about my site on his forum in the 1990s then he wrote a script that changed the links she wrote so they didn't work. At the same time, "someone" over on Yahoo made it so you could not get any comment posted if it had "Bob Brinker" inside. People got around this at Yahoo! with funny names like "Boob Stinker" to discuss his awful stock pick that fell 50% after recommending it in his newsletter and on national TV.