Bob Brinker's comments summarized, paraphrased or quoted
STOCK MARKET: Brinker did not mention the stock market today and there were no calls about it.
Honey EC: Brinker has made no changes in his model portfolio's asset allocation. They are still fully invested. In the July Marketimer, Brinker said the May correction was health-restoring and had increased the likelihood that "the S&P 500 Index will reach low-to-mid 1400's target range going forward."
INTEREST RATES-BOND MARKET IF GOV DEFAULTS: There were a couple of callers that asked about this subject. In his weekly newsletter which contains a summary of Moneytalk, David Korn wrote (posted with permission):
Caller: What would happen to interest rates if there is a government default? Bob said that would depend on the credit rating. Bob said people around the world would actually believe that Americans would fail to pay their Treasury obligations. That said, Bob estimates it would be less than a 100 basis points. Take the 10-year Treasury which is yielding around 3% which Bob said he didn¹t think it would go above the 3s even with a downgrade. Many investors don't even have that much regard for the credit rating agencies. So far, however, there hasn't been much of a reaction. The financial markets have yawned as the did back in 1995 when there was a short-term government shut down. Bob added that even though we have an August 2nd deadline, the Treasury has said that it found another $14 billion from revenues that came in above projections which could extend the deadline by another week or so.
Caller: What do you think would happen to a holder in a Treasury Bill if the government shuts down? Bob said he think you would get an IOU and that once the issue was resolved you could get your money. Bob said he expected that if the government shuts down, it will be very temporary as the leaders feel the repercussions of that decision so it would be reopened quickly. Bob said he thinks a holder of Treasuries would get their money back.
David Korn's Stock Market Commentary, Interpretation of Moneytalk (Bob Brinker Host), Financial Education, Helpful Links, Guest Editorials, and Special Alert E-Mail Service. Copyright David Korn, L.L.C. 2011
THE DOLLAR'S VALUE: Brinker said that much of what you hear about the value of the dollar is political. For example, even though the Treasury Secretary claims that US policy is for a stronger dollar, he has never seen a policy that actually favors a strong dollar. However, the dollar trades against other major currencies, which has benefited the dollar, because Euro-land and the Yen have had so many problems. Brinker said that whether or not the Fed printing dollars will devalue them depends on the growth rate of the economy. If they grow the money supply in excess of the rate of economic growth, then the dollar will face devaluation.
Honey EC: Over the past decade, the dollar has lost value against the Euro, Pound, Yen and other currencies. It is for this reason that many own gold as a hedge. Brinker recommends GLD (gold ETF), as well as SLV (silver ETF), for those who want a hedge against the falling dollar.
WILL THE US GO INTO DEFAULT? Brinker said: "I just cannot agree with those who say that we will not raise the debt ceiling and therefore we will go into default around the world on our Treasury debt. I cannot agree with that view. I'm sorry."
WILL THE GOVERNMENT PRIORITIZE IF THE DEBT CEILING DOESN'T GET RAISED? Brinker said: "I don't know the answer to that question. Will they prioritize? Will they pay Medicare but not Medicaid? Will they pay active military but not veteran's benefits? Will they pay Social Security, but not pay somebody else. I don't know the answer and for sure they don't know the answer to that question at the Treasury. But I'd be really surprise to see that come out from Washington.....I don't see any precedent for that kind of behavior."
NATIONAL DEBT VS GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT (re-visited): Caller Les from San Jose said: "Last week.....there was a question about the comparison between the national debt, which is about $14.5 trillion, versus our GDP, and you were talking about percentages. Like if it were at 70, it would be okay but if it was above 90%, it might be an issue. I was confused when I heard it. Our GDP right now looking forward is about 14.8 trillion dollars. So as percentage of our GDP, our debt is about 98.14%."
Brinker replied: "On a snapshot basis, you are correct. Now on a normalized basis, one would hope that you're not correct. Now on a normalized basis, one would hope that you're not correct. And hopefully, this that's being drawn to the fiscal issue through this debt ceiling issue is going to bring that to the fore. You know, only a couple of years ago, that number was down around 70%. Now we've gone through an extraodinary period of annual deficits added to the national debt while the economy has not been growing very fast. As a result, you do have the current annual deficit as a percentage of GDP in the 90s percentile, which is too high. That's the snapshot number.... if you take a moving average of the 3 years, it would be well below that."
Honey EC: Another reason to double-check anything that Brinker says on Moneytalk. Just as caller-Les said, it was just last week that Brinker said unequivocally that the debt/GDP ratio was at 70% and specifically said that if it got to the 90's it would be "dangerous." Perhaps all the very smart people who send comments to this blog made Brinker realize his error. Here are my comments from last week's Summary. No equivocation here and no "snapshot" hocus-pocus either:
"GDP AS PERCENTAGE OF NATIONAL DEBT: Brinker said that the total sovereign debt as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product is now about 70%....the danger level comes in at about 90%."
RAISING TAXES: Brinker said: They have a lot of ideas. They're talking this weekend about eliminating the mortgage interest deduction. They are talking about eliminating the deductibility of all the retirement account moneys that go in, like IRAs and 401Ks.....They are talking about changes to Medicare and Social Security."
Honey EC: It's astonishing how they always want to make cuts that affect those who have worked, paid into the system and saved.
NATIONAL DEBT DAILY INCREASE: Brinker said the National Debt is growing by over 4 billion dollars a day and that is simply not acceptable.
BULLY-PULPIT POLITICS...Brinker said: "Put me down in the column of fiscal responsibility that is consistent with protecting above all the full faith and credit, around the world, of the U.S. Treasury. And these people that want to destroy the country's credit rating and put the country into default. In my opinion, these people are not qualified to serve."
Honey EC: Brinker continued to preach his political views throughout the program. To me, he seems to contradict himself. On one hand, he ranted and raved about the deficit and national debt and how it is unsustainable. On the other hand, he continually slammed those in Washington who are showing some fiscal responsibility. Having it both ways seems to be the Brinker way in more than just the financial arena.
Brinker's guest-author was Gretchen Morgenson, "Reckless Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon" (If there is enough interest in this guest-speaker, I will write a summary of her rather short appearance on Moneytalk later in the week.
Moneytalk on demand and to go with Bob Brinker, is available for FREE audio/podcasting at KGO810 radio for seven days after broadcast. I download and save all three hours, including the third hour guest-speaker. (The program is archived in the 1-4pm time-slots.) If you don't download it from KGO within seven day, it's available at bobbrinker.com by paid subscription. KGO Radio Sunday Archives
This is my beautiful and amazingly smart, Persian cat (from before my Himalayan siblings). He died when he was seven years-old from kidney failure. I gave him "kitty dialysis" for about a year to extend his life. Click to see him close-up. :)
59 comments:
Dan G said...
I'm thinking that this debate about the debt limit is just plain silly. The debt limit has never stopped a single dollar from being spent. They simply raise it in the nick of time.
The debt limit is similar to the mechanical rabbit that runs ahead of the dogs in a dog race. The dogs (debt) never catch the rabbit, which just keeps a little ahead of them.
Stooooopid! A balanced budget amendment would be fine, with some exceptions made for war...DECLARED war! This would keep our finaces in check as well as keeping our noses out of every little "police action" that the President wants us to get into that are often none of our business.
July 24, 2011 10:51 AM
(Post copied from here.)
BB has declared the debt ceiling will be raised and there will not be a default.
Let's see if he is still sanguine about that this weekend (July 24) and, what he has to say about the effect of the stock market, if indeed, there is not a default, but if the ratings agencies lower the credit rating of the US Gov't anyway, because the perceive not enough will be done about spending.
-- Frankj
(Copied from prior thread.)
Don't be surprised if you hear from the FBI. You are committing felonies several time a day by stalking and slandering me.
It is also a crime to impersonate someone else, and sHE has been doing it for years.
s
GO GET EM, girl! You have multiple cd's and dvd's filled with proof .
Frankj:
In my post, which HB copied here, I had a typo, I meant to type, the "effect ON the stock market."
I listened to all but the first few minutes of the first hour. I did not hear any comment from BB on the potential effect on the stock market, nor did I hear any questions from any callers.
Given the lack of BB's prognostications on the equity markets for months now, I am starting to think he has decided to reserve his revelations for his subscription-paying customers, exclusively. The radio-listening crowd can "take the hindmost."
Gretchen Morgensen guest... finally.
July 24, 2011, 6:26 p.m. EDT
DJIA futures down over 100 points Sunday night
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- In thin electronic trade Sunday night, U.S. stock futures were down by nearly 1% as U.S. lawmakers failed to reach agreement on a plan to raise the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling. Dow Jones Industrial Average futures fell 114 points, or 0.9%, and S&P 500 futures also declined by 0.9%.
I listened to some of the "Lynn Jimenez MoneyTalk Show" today and was surprised to hear a guest host named Tinker (or something like that) substituting for her. I guess the stock market is not his main suit because he never mentioned it. He appparently specializes in political commentary.
But he seems to be a big supporter of unlimited increases in the national debt, insinuating that anyone who did not support an increase is not worthy of being elected dog catcher.
I'm kind of surprised since he also seems to believe that those that ran the debt up this high are also not worthy of being elected dog catcher either.
I'm a bit confused by that, but politics often confuses me.
PS--I see the Dow futures are now down 111 points. Could this be the mother of all buying opportunities shaping up...or just a mother?
Dan G said...
But he seems to be a big supporter of unlimited increases in the national debt, insinuating that anyone who did not support an increase is not worthy of being elected dog catcher.
I'm kind of surprised since he also seems to believe that those that ran the debt up this high are also not worthy of being elected dog catcher either.
I'm a bit confused by that, but politics often confuses me.
Dan I too am confused. I think the main thrust of the tea party is to have a balanced budget so as to not go deeper into debt. Brinker says that people who have signed the pledge not to raise the limit have no room to negotiate. My question for him is why would they want to negotiate. They proposed a balanced budget amendment and the other party said no. If we do nothing and the debt ceiling is reached the government is still collecting taxes but can't spend more than they are taking in. It seems to me that the end result is the same as having the balanced budget amendment in place.
What the House needs to do, is go back to Obama's campaign and make a bullet point list of what he actually ran on, you might recall he RAN as a moderate. Then they should go back ad bullet point what they were elected for which was essentially to repeal Obama care and cut the spending.
The next step is to hold a press conferences where they state Obama was given the go ahead by we the people to act as a moderate, he went to the far left, and the next batch sent was elected specifically to reign him in.
And then toss the whole mess back at him for not heeding the will of we the people by acting in a moderate, fiscal conservative manner which is and remains the mandate of the people. They need to stop playing with this punk and man it up, go for the jugular.
Thank gosh for Congressman like Joe Walsh who stand up to the media and political bullies/
8:44 was by tfb - that cute little adorable ball of fur
"And then toss the whole mess back at him for not heeding the will of we the people by acting in a moderate, fiscal conservative manner which is and remains the mandate of the people. They need to stop playing with this punk and man it up, go for the jugular."
Right, pointing the finger of blame and screaming should really solve the problems.
REC
BULLY-PULPIT POLITICS...Brinker said: "Put me down in the column of fiscal responsibility that is consistent with protecting above all the full faith and credit, around the world, of the U.S. Treasury. And these people that want to destroy the country's credit rating and put the country into default. In my opinion, these people are not qualified to serve."
Bob just who are "these people" who want to destroy the country's credit rating and put the country into default. I can name no person in either party who has that position. Now there are people who are committed to not raising the debt limit but that is a different cup of tea. Taxes would still be coming in at a rate of about 60% needed to cover total government expenditures. It would be up to the president and the treasury secretary to decide what bills get paid. I don't think they would make a conscious effort to default on bonds.
"Taxes would still be coming in at a rate of about 60% needed to cover total government expenditures. It would be up to the president and the treasury secretary to decide what bills get paid. I don't think they would make a conscious effort to default on bonds."
Would the government pay bond interest first and let Social Security and Medicare slide?
There's not enough money to pay all.
Anonymous ask:
"Would the government pay bond interest first and let Social Security and Medicare slide?"
The bond interest represents 5% of the total payments due. That would still leave you with 55% to decide what you pay or do not pay. Social Security and Medicare account for 34%. The entire defense budget is 22%. Social programs account for 13%. Physical, human and community development is 15%. Law enforcement and general government is 2%. The president would be faced with some tough choices. As Bob Brinker told a caller yesterday the president does not like spending his time on issues like this.
I see no reason to discuss the Norwegian murderer here on this blog. Please do not send any more comments or links about it.
.
Right, pointing the finger of blame and screaming should really solve the problems.
Liberals only understand crayons and temper tantrums. Look at whom they elected: a petulant child.
tfb
Cut the Dept of Education. Send 'em home for what is left of the summer.
Cut the Dept of Agriculture. This agency is all about giveaways.
I'd say cut the Park Service by closing the National Parks, but the people you'd really be hurting are the private operators of the concessions (lodging, restaurants, etc.)
Bring troops home from Europe unless essential for the base at Frankfurt.
Likewise Iraq -- haven't we already declared victory?
Likewise Afghanistan. The country is hopeless. Not one more life should be lost there.
Need someone to tax? Tax the high speed, high volume traders. Correct the tax code so hedge fund partners pay ordinary income tax, and don't get to call their earnings capital gains.
Reduce the earned income tax credit.
No automatic within-grade, step-pay increases for any federal employee.
Let younger people out of paying into SocSecurity.
Like it or not, both SocSec and Medicare are going to be means tested in the future.
-- Frankj
What good is a debt limit? It has never stopped any rise in the debt because it's always raised "in the nick of time". Not a single dollar has ever been "saved" by any debt limit. So who needs it?
If I ask my bartender to limit me to one drink, but as soon as I reach the end of one, I tell him to raise the limit by one drink, and continue to do that until I fall off the bar stool, what good was any of those "limits"?
Self-control is what is needed, not a useless, movable limit. If the legislature will not exercise self-control, vote the bums out
Dan, I agree to vote out the people who cause the mess. Problem is, the ones who get voted out tend to be relative newbies and the ones who really caused the mess seem to stay.
54 incumbents in the House of Representatives were voted out in 2010. Most of them Democrats. And 36 out of the 54 were elected in 2006 or after.
It's the old warhorses we need to get rid of but with their lobbyist backing well established, they're dug in like boll weevils.
Even when the "lose" sometimes they win, for example, going to work as a lobbyist, or getting appointed to this or that gov't post.
wikipedia, "2010 house race" for a wealth of info.
Frankj
Excellent example by Dan G of the fallacy of govt and self control.
As of this year Social Security has a $2.6 trillion surplus invested in Treasury securities which has been borrowed (stolen) by members of Congress. With all the talk of possible reforms to the system (increasing eligibility age, means testing) I am still waiting for one politician to declare "there is no need for reforms. We simply need to repay SS. I propose a ten year plan,
$300 billion annually, to restore our theft and keep our promise to the American people. These funds will come from the following cuts in spending..."
Hey, it could happen.
Maybe not.
In Sundays summary Honey Bee wrote:
Honey EC: It's astonishing how they always want to make cuts that affect those who have worked, paid into the system and saved.
Ditto, Bravo, and well stated!!!
Honey EC: Brinker continued to preach his political views throughout the program. To me, he seems to contradict himself. On one hand, he ranted and raved about the deficit and national debt and how it is unsustainable. On the other hand, he continually slammed those in Washington who are showing some fiscal responsibility. Having it both ways seems to be the Brinker way in more than just the financial arena.
Yes, the contradiction is there. The conundrum for the stock market investor like Bob and others is that the Government is such a big player. It spends and controls so much money that a downsizing of the bloated government, (however desirable), will reduce corporate revenues. For the equity investor that is a bitter pill to swallow.
Yours Truly, Col D. Brewski-------7/25/2011
Hi Col.D Brewski,
Thank you for your comments.
As I read them, I found myself wondering if you listened to the guest that Brinker had on Sunday. If so, did you find her interesting?
.
Birdbrain, after offering a plan for the federal government to repay the Social Security funds that they stole from hard-working Americans, said: "Hey, it could happen....Maybe not."
And maybe I'll see Mr. Pig roller skating over the Santa Cruz Mountains in the fast lane of Highway 17. :) :) :)
.
FrankJ,
Is this the link that you are referring to when you said:
2010 house race?
.
Wise DanG said: "Self-control is what is needed, not a useless, movable limit. If the legislature will not exercise self-control, vote the bums out"
The next opportunity will be November 2012, right?
.
FrankJ,
You offer a lot of good suggestions for places the government could start cutting. I agree with most of them.
There's a couple that gave me pause for thought, but I certainly agree with the first two. :)
.
Honeybee said...
I found myself wondering if you listened to the guest that Brinker had on Sunday. If so, did you find her interesting?
Thanks Honeybee.---- I’ve been too busy. But you peaked my interest. If I get a chance I will download the broadcast.
Col.D Brewski
Well friends, I spent all afternoon at the courthouse in Santa Cruz waiting while two lawyers and a judge kept 50 of us captive and tried to decide which 12 of us would likely give a fair verdict. :)
I'm not done yet, they just called another group to the stand after the lawyers dismissed a whole passel of contenders.
It was funny to see the different methods that people use to get excused. One even told the judge he would not follow the law. He was sent packing right away-- justifiably so.
I have to return tomorrow. The odds are I will not be chosen this late in the game, but we shall see.
.
DanG said: "I guess the stock market is not his main suit because he never mentioned it. He appparently specializes in political commentary.
But he seems to be a big supporter of unlimited increases in the national debt, insinuating that anyone who did not support an increase is not worthy of being elected dog catcher.
I'm kind of surprised since he also seems to believe that those that ran the debt up this high are also not worthy of being elected dog catcher either."
Dan,
You may have noticed that I said pretty much the same things that you did about Brinker's politics, but not nearly as eloquently. :)
What did you think of the guest-author Sunday? Did you find her interesting enough for me to do a summary of the hour?
.
Does anyone think that the guest-author was interesting enough for me to write a summary of the third hour of Moneytalk?
.
...Balanced budget amendments are silly distractions. The latest Balanced Budget Amendment, supported by every Senate Republican this week, would cap total spending at 18 percent of GDP, even in recessions, and require a two-thirds majority to pass any tax increases. This plan is worse than silly. It is, as Ezra Klein rightly notes, dangerous and delusional.
Not a single year of the Bush administration would qualify as constitutional under this amendment [all deficits]. Nor would a single year of the Reagan administration [all deficits, and he technically raised taxes in 1986]. The Clinton administration would've had exactly two years in which it wasn't in violation [but he raised taxes in 1993, too].
Read that again: Every single Senate Republican has endorsed a constitutional amendment that would've made Ronald Reagan's fiscal policy unconstitutional. That's how far to the right the modern GOP has swung.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arch....mendment/73349/
So anonymous, what is it about the runaway freight-train spending, that has been picking up speed exponentially over the past few years, is unsustainable, do you not understand?
Frankj:
Yes, HB, that is the link.
Soros to wind down hedge-fund operation:
CHICAGO (MarketWatch) -- George Soros, the wartime Hungarian emigre who went on to become not only one of the world's most famed investors and one of the world's richest men but also a prolific author and philanthropist, is hanging up his hedge-fund hat, Bloomberg News reports. The 80-year-old Soros -- whose Soros Fund Management has served as primary adviser to the Quantum hedge funds, established by Soros in 1969 -- is perhaps best known for having "broken" the Bank of England by aggressively, and successfully, betting against the pound in 1992.
He made news early this year for having sold the bulk of his firm's stake in gold and silver, having called gold in September 2010 "the ultimate bubble." In a letter expressing gratitude to Soros Fund Management investors, Soros's sons Jonathan and Robert, both executives with the firm, said the firm would return to outside investors their approximately $1 billion in invested cash and continue to operate the business as a family office rather than an investment firm.
"What did you think of the guest-author Sunday? Did you find her interesting enough for me to do a summary of the hour?"
I listened to a little of it out of the corner of my ear while occupied with something else, so don't remember much of it at all. She may have been quite good, but I just don't know. But if you think it was interesting, I'd be interested in reading a summary. If not...well, don't waste your time. We can get it on the KGO archives for a week.
PS--I hope your "stalker and slanderer" has given up his/her ridiculous venture. Some people have just too much time on their hands!
Anonymous said...
...Balanced budget amendments are silly distractions.
I completely agree. There is no need for a balanced budget amendment. All they have to do is NOTHING and the federal government is forced to have a balanced budget as long as they don't increase the debt ceiling.
PS. Don't bother to ask me what doesn't get paid. It is not my responsibility it is president Obama's.
I would not summarize the 3rd hour. It is easy enough to listen to on the KGO archive for several more days.
Frankj
jrlevine3
Actually, the last Republican president to balance the budget was Chester A. Arthur, so they'll outlaw McKinley, T. Roosevelt, Taft, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford, too.
It's hard to see how it's possible to run a country when one of the two parties is completely disconnected from reality.
Lakshman Achuthan talk about the economy:
Bloomberg appearance today
MORON DETECTOR
jrlevine3 claimed:
Actually, the last Republican president to balance the budget was Chester A. Arthur, so they'll outlaw McKinley, T. Roosevelt, Taft, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford, too.
Did you go to public school? That is revisionist history. The longest streak of balanced budgets was from 1920 thru 1930. Three republicans were in office Harding Coolidge and Hoover. Here are the figures:
1920 - 291 million
1921 - 509 million
1922 - 736 million
1923 - 713 million
1924 - 963 million
1925 - 717 million
1926 - 865 million
1927 - 1.15 billion
1928 - 939 million
1929 - 734 million
1930 - 738 million
http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php
Conservative revolt casts doubt on House GOP plan
By ANDREW TAYLOR - Associated Press,
WASHINGTON (AP) — Conservative Republicans on Tuesday balked at House leaders' pleas to stop whining and back their plan to slash spending and increase the nation's borrowing ability, throwing into doubt the GOP's proposal to rescue the nation from an unprecedented government default.
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, is trying to round up the votes for his plan to cut spending about $1.2 billion and extend the debt ceiling for about six months, one of two rival plans amid the struggle between President Barack Obama and Congress to settle on an elusive compromise.
Washington and the nation are staring down an Aug. 2 deadline to raise the debt limit or face national default.
http://news.yahoo.com/conservative-revol....-165838223.html
The G-Men are monitoring this very sensitive Blog. Keep up the good work and continued vigilance, HB!
signed,
J.Edgar Hoover's girdle
Moron Detector, here is your hyperlink:
History of Deficits and Surpluses
Anonymous said...
Conservative revolt casts doubt on House GOP plan
By ANDREW TAYLOR - Associated Press,
WASHINGTON (AP) — Conservative Republicans on Tuesday balked at House leaders' pleas to stop whining and back their plan to slash spending and increase the nation's borrowing ability, throwing into doubt the GOP's proposal to rescue the nation from an unprecedented government default.
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, is trying to round up the votes for his plan to cut spending about $1.2 billion and extend the debt ceiling for about six months, one of two rival plans amid the struggle between President Barack Obama and Congress to settle on an elusive compromise.
YOU ARE JOKING RIGHT. THAT IS FUNNY
"trying to round up the votes for his plan to cut spending about $1.2 billion"
WE ARE BORROWING $4.1 BILLION A DAY AND HE IS TRYING TO CUT $1.2 BILLION.
That History of Deficits and Surpluses link also shows the following":
Nation's Debt Ceiling Was Raised 7 Times While George W. Bush Occupied the White House
One of the most common questions that I have emailed to me is - how many times was the debt ceiling raised while George W. Bush occupied the White House?
To start, it's important to realize that both Republican and Democratic presidents have signed off on raising the nation's debt limit. Congress has enacted "74 separate measures that have altered the limit on federal debt" since March of 1962.
As the nation's debt load has surged from $1 trillion to $10 trillion to its current level of $14.3 trillion, the debt ceiling limit has also been raised accordingly.
If you’ve ever wondered what kind of items makes up the deficit, an article in today’s SJ Merc clearly shows an expenditure, that IMO, should never have been made.
Yosemite National Park has recently started up its new Solar Electricity Project. 680KW of Photo Voltaic Cells. It’s going to save the park $50,000 a year off their electric bill.
Sound great, right?
Well, the system cost $4.4 million. $4.4 million to save $50,000 a year!. That’s an 88 year pay back. And that is assuming no maintenance costs. The last I’ve heard is these kinds of systems only have a life of 15 to 20 years. OK, inflation will help those calcs some. Using 4% inflation over 20 years, the saving works out to be $1.4 million savings for the $4.4 million expenditure. Still pretty crappy!
Now if the park had just put that $4.4 million in a savings account at 4%, the interest would return $176,000 the first year. Even when using $50,000 of that interest each year to pay for that electricity for 20 years, the saving account would grow to $7.9 million.
With this kind of economic logic, just what hope do we have that Congress even understands how to get the deficit under control, let alone has the grits do the actual work needed to get it under control. I guess this comes under the heading of “spending your way out of debt”.
Just my 2 bits….
Summary of third hour. Bob Brinker had a guest so he could avoid talking about the stock market becasue he does not want to handle calls form people asking how much the market could go down if they do not raise the debt ceiling, he does not want to deal with question like should I sell my T-bills and notes.
He bills himself a market timer but he does not want to call this market, hence the reason he took no market related calls. If the market tanks it will be another unpredictable outlier like the 2008 bear that he rode down. And if the market does not tank he will talking about how he was in the market, the bad news bears etc. But the last thing Brinker, the market prognosticator wants is to be asked what should be done right now. Because he does not know and he has no clue what effect this may have on the financial markets.
tfb
Dow down 134. Keep fiddling, you Washington nitwits!
"But the last thing Brinker, the market prognosticator wants is to be asked what should be done right now. Because he does not know and he has no clue what effect this may have on the financial markets."
tfb
I don't think ANYBODY really knows how this default question will play out.
If anybody predicts anything, it's pure guesswork.
I don't think you can fault Brinker for not taking any action at this time.
42me2
tfb said, referring to BB:
"If the market tanks it will be another unpredictable outlier like the 2008 bear that he rode down. And if the market does not tank he will talking about how he was in the market, the bad news bears etc. "
And BB has said (paraphrasing): "We try to play it right down the middle, that's what we do here..."
-- Frankj
If the United States of America is downgraded from a AAA rating it will be BELOW Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
All those Socialist countries who don't know what they are doing.
I don't think ANYBODY really knows how this default question will play out.
If anybody predicts anything, it's pure guesswork.
I don't think you can fault Brinker for not taking any action at this time.
So then what good is market timing if you will not time the market?
If the market goes down 20% Brinker gets another pass? This is not a blinding event it has been playing out for well over 9 months in very plain view. You are quickly adopting the academic view that there are so many factors in the markets and so many individual decisions that you cannot meaningfully predict market direction. So then what is the point of market timer? Oh so we can attempt to give buy and sell signal when as event falls in the narrow range of my market timing system, which has failed in the past, was recalibrate then failed again and has since then not been tested or apparently re-engineered?
tfb
But the last thing Brinker, the market prognosticator wants is to be asked what should be done right now. Because he does not know and he has no clue what effect this may have on the financial markets."
tfb
I think Brinker stated on a previous program that he feels an agreement will be reached and anyone who sells the market now will have to be prepared to buy back in at higher prices.
tfb asks, So then what is the point of market timer?
To sell newsletters to Goobers and Geezers that have no clue how the timing success is all post effect.
Brinker does little to nothing in the way of timing, but brags about large movements that give the impression that he predicted them, along with prices and statistics that mean nothing, but sound great.
The guy is a charlatan, and a pro.
"So then what good is market timing if you will not time the market?"
I don't know why you all try to time the market anyway? Or pick stocks?
Nobody can do either consistently and those who say they can are lying just like Brinker.
Don't listen to or subscribe to any of them and you will be much better off.
Even George Soros is returning billions to investors saying he just can't do it anymore.
I saw another site that might be good for you guys.
He says you don't even have to think in fact it is better if you don't.
You just follow his model and do what it says. Can't lose.
HB knows who I am talking about.
To Anonymous:
Wall St. Journal article on Geo. Soros said he was returning outside investor's money and going to a "family office." This takes advantage of a provision in the Dodd Frank legislation that does not require the same level of compliance as would be required of normal hedge funds.
In other words, they don't want the hassle of dealing with the SEC.
It was reported that the firm underperformed so far this year. But it was NOT reported that Soros said he "just can't do it anymore," as you stated.
-- Frankj
42me2 said, in defense of Mr B:
"If anybody predicts anything, it's pure guesswork."
Thank you for telling us what we all know. All predictions are guesses, some more informed than others. If you choose to spend
$185 a year for market timing guesswork, good luck.
George Soros, one of the world’s most famous investors and leading philanthropists, appears to have decided that, given current market conditions, he no longer wants to run the risk of messing things up. The media is reporting that the 80-year-old billionaire hedge-fund magnate is shutting down his hedge-fund operations and returning outside investors’ money. Read our report on Soros’s decision to wind down his hedge fund.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/soross-decision-protects-money-legacy-influence-2011-07-26
Post a Comment