Sunday, April 1, 2012

April 1, 2012, Bob Brinker's Moneytalk: Summary, Commentary and Excerpts

April 1, 2012....Bob Brinker hosted Moneytalk today.....................(comments welcome) 

STOCK MARKET.....Bob commented that this is the best first quarter since 1998. It's part of what Brinker calls a 29% "melt-up" that began on October 3, 2011.

Honey EC: Not even an inkling from Bob today that he might be thinking the market is ready to top...nada...no bear, no market top yet

INTEREST RATES.... "Very, very low" -- not much change at all.  The 5-year Treasury is in the vicinity of 1%, and the 10-year Treasury close to 2% -- historic lows. Bob said the Federal Reserve continues to be dedicated to keeping interest rates down.

NATIONAL DEBT AND THE INTEREST OWED ON IT:  Bob said: "It's a staggering number. Right now it's at 15 1/2 trillion dollars.....That's the national debt....the money that has been borrowed....
 national debt
I think that a lot of people are not aware of the make-up of the Treasury debt.....The average interest rate that we the taxpayers are paying on the marketable and non-marketable debt as of February data is 2.2% --- one of the lowest numbers ever.  Part of the reason that number  is so low is because the Treasury has chosen to skew their borrowing to the shorter end. That's not a real smart thing to do when you owe 15 1/2 trillion dollars because you, the borrower, in this case the Treasury, you take on the interest rate risk if rates go against you....."

WHEN THE TREASURY DEBT MATURES: Bob continued:  "The average maturity of this debt owed, the publicly traded portion which is roughly 9 to 10 trillion -- the notes and the bills and the bonds is an average maturity of 5 years and 3 months......That's pretty short.....The interest expense on the Treasury debt in fiscal 2011.... came to 454 billion dollars.....The amount of the Treasury debt that is coming due in the next five years is close to 6 trillion dollars....is going to have to be rolled over the next five years...."

ANNUAL DEFICIT FOUR YEARS AT ONE TRILLION DOLLARS: Bob continued: "I think there is a structural imbalance.....in Washington which is the annual budget deficit.  And we are in the fourth year now of annual budget deficits of over a trillion dollars....It's not being resolved....."

70% OF DEBT ROLLS OVER IN FIVE YEARS: Bob continued: "The United States will have to roll over almost 70%  of its privately held marketable securities in the next five years -- almost 6 trillion dollars....And that's unfortunate because the United States right now our deficit is 8.2% Gross Domestic Product. That's a big number, I said we want to see it down 3% or less....We're also running about 68% of Gross Domestic Product -- debt divided by GDP now 68%....."

Honey EC:  I wonder if  Bob isn't  a bit confused about the amount of debt to GDP.  On Moneytalk, July 24, 2011, he stated that the debt was at 90% of GDP.

NATIONAL DEBT INTEREST WON'T ALWAYS BE LOW:  Bob continued: "Here's the problem. There is no basis for anybody in Washington to assume that the rates that are out there today will be out there forever....There's no reason to expect that....What we should be expecting is normalization of interest rates over time....The cost of borrowing goes up fast because the average maturity is only 5 1/4 years and you have all this money to roll over...."

FED MAY DECIDE TO TIGHTEN DOWN THE ROAD:  Bob continued: "The Federal Reserve purchased about 60% of  net Treasury issuance in 2011....The Fed's not going to be in there making purchases like that forever. We don't even know at this point whether there will be a QE3 because if the economy does better, there won't be....There will only be a QE3 if they feel they need it to bail out the economy...These are all factors that could come together down the road." 

Honey EC: In the paragraphs above which are all part of Bob's outstanding first-hour opening monologue, he stated facts, and didn't  seem to be trying to scare listeners, but I found much of what Bob said very alarming. 

CONTINGENCY CASH RESERVES:  Caller Jerry from Virginia asked Bob if he considered three years  of liquid cash reserves adequate.  Bob said he thought three years might be a little long, but for holding them, he recommended low-expense money market funds, such as with Vanguard and Fidelity. (Honey: or Charles Schwab)


PURCHASING GOLD AND SILVER: Caller Brian from Illinois said if the world financial system collapses, bartering would be done with  gold and silver.   Bob said that he did not expect the imminent collapse of the world financial system.  However,  if you buy  gold or silver, never buy numismatic coins because of the tremendous mark-ups. He recommends avoiding the mark-ups by buying GLD, an exchange-traded fund based on gold bullion.

Bob  said: "Another way to go about it is to buy gold bullion coins, that you purchase for the purpose of acquiring the actual physical gold that is in the coin. This does not have to do with numismatics....The United States Eagle gold coin is trading at $1745.88 with a $75 dollar premium, but that premium only represents 4 1/2% of the value of the coin....Because of their portability, these coins tend to retain the premium....Now there are other Mexican Peso has a premium of less than 1% right now. The Maple Leaf has a 4% premium, as does the Krugerrand, but these are gold content coins, not numismatic coins." 

Honey EC: Bob seems to be branching out a bit more with the advice on buying gold bullion coins. He still maintains GLD on his Marketimer list of recommended individual issue -- no price or amount advice to go with it, however. 
 
HOUSING MARKET:  Bob said: "I was reading this week that there have been some bidding wars developing. And I don't even know the last time we had any bidding wars for real estate, but we've seen some bidding wars in places like Seattle, the Silicon Valley, Washington D.C. Even though prices are close to  six-year lows, we have certainly seen some activity and as a result the bidding wars in a few markets."  

Honey EC: In neighborhoods near me close to Santa Cruz, homes are selling like hotcakes, sometimes even before they go on the market.

ESTATE TAXES: Caller Sam from Silicon Valley asked Bob what to expect next year on estate taxes. Bob said that no one really knows for sure since Washington didn't even know. But there are "some people"  who think it will be around  $3 1/2 million per person -- $7 million married couple. Bob said he thought $1 million is too small.


MODEL PORTFOLIO III WITHDRAWAL RATE: Caller Andy from Oregon asked Bob what would be a sustainable rate of return  out of model portfolio III -- and when does one reach the Land of Critical Mass.

After Bob explained that the Land of Critical Mass is a wonderful land where you only work if you want to -- like Ross Perot, Bill Gates  or Warren Buffet, Bob said: "I'm okay with 4% and I'll tell you why. Because most of that 4% is generated by investment income and that's the reason that I say that. You take the investment income in the form of the interest that you earn on the interest bearing securities in the balanced model III in the investment letter. You take the dividends that are paid by the equity investments in that portfolio and then you have capital gains from time to time. Various funds pay capital gains distributions. You put all of that money together -- in a taxable account, it's all taxable -- and you put that toward your 4% annual withdrawal.  In some years, it will exceed 4%, which gives you the ability to put money back into the portfolio. And other years, it will be shy of 4%, you might do a little bit of fund liquidation in order to get up to 4%. But it should be pretty close most years. And I think that is a number I am comfortable with -- 4% withdrawal rate."

Honey EC: Bob is right that the Marketimer model portfolio III is a balanced portfolio -- roughly 50-50 stocks and fixed income. Last year, it was the only one of his official model portfolios that didn't lose money. It was up 1% for the year, exactly the same as the Wilshire 5000.  Bob told Andy that some years, he may have to sell some funds to raise the 4% withdrawal. Well in 2008, the portfolio lost 23.9%, so that year would have been equivalent to selling  almost  28% of your fund holdings to withdraw 4%.

As we know from past Moneytalk discussions, the portfolio contains  20% Wellesley Income Fund (VWINX), 20%  Vanguard Ginnie Mae Fund, 30% in Vanguard Total Stock Market Fund (VTSMX), some very small holdings in Vanguard International funds and the most recent and surprising addition, the Akre Focus Fund (AKREX)

PRICE OF OIL POLITICAL CALL AND BOB BLAST OBAMA FIRST TIME....Caller George in Tennessee brought up the subject of oil and gasoline prices. Bob said: "I am extremely disappointed in this president in terms of his energy policy.  Some of the decisions coming out of this administration are so disappointing to me, I really have to restrain myself when talking about it. I want to be specific. I have nothing against wind and solar, but to make it the top priority of your energy policy when it only accounts for 1% of all of the energy produced in the world, to spend this much time talking about it makes no sense. It's pure folly as far as I'm concerned. What about the other 99%? And why haven't we unleashed the incredible potential of natural gas in the United States?    All of our trucks and buses should be propelled by natural gas. Easy to do, and the government could lead the way by an executive order from the White House stating that all government vehicles henceforth must run on natural gas.....No good reason not to do.....The last straw was this recent decision regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline. If ever I saw a no-brainer, it was to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. So I would have to give energy policy in the White House today a failing grade."

On a lighter note

MEGA-MILLIONS LOTTERY TICKET WINNER....Bob said it's impossible for him to have the winning ticket because he doesn't buy lottery tickets. He reported that there are winners, one in a small town (Redbud) outside of St. Louis, one in Maryland and one in Kansas. He said the  take-out on the mega-million dollar lottery is 50% -- expensive gambling. (Honey EC: I'm with Bob on this one -- never bought a Lotto ticket in my life. Mostly because I know I won't win. LOL!)

BOB'S HOUR-TWO OPENING QUOTE: "Our money is your money, we print it for you to use." Bob said some have asked him about this and explained for us young sprouts that  it's  an old-time comedy team, Bob and Ray --  said he  was "always  a huge fan."

Bob's guest author-speaker today was Barbara Weltman:  J.K. Lasser's Your Income Tax 2012: For Preparing Your 2011 Tax Return

 KSFO 560: 1-4pm  (KSFO offers FREE  Moneytalk on Demand  for seven days after broadcast.)

19 comments:

Honeybee said...

Note to the person sending the link with the RSS feed to Moneytalk podcast.

Please send the link to me via email. I'll check it out and then publish the link.

I don't click on links that I don't recognize from people who do not even sign their comments.

Thanks... Honey

honeybee.roses@gmail.com

Anonymous said...

If you are so afraid to click a link, I suggest you first visit DAR.FM, its a service that records radio show. Then you can post the link if you are so inclined.

I leave my name off posts due to the contentious nature of many of the posters that show up here thinking this is a fan site, but then find its a bash site.

Honeybee said...

Anonymous... Who are you kdding? No one has asked you to post your real name -- no one cares.

But I see that you are even afraid to use a throw-away email address to send me the link for fear of your identity being discovered.

As for the intent of this blog being deceptive, that is comical. But if you want a blog that only kisses Bob Brinker's ring, rather than present the TRUTH on both sides, then you are in the wrong place.

Anonymous said...

In my continuing policy of fairness to Da Brink, I listened to the first hour today while pruning my peach trees (oh yum yum) and his opening monologue and affiliated commentary on the deficit was excellent. I always thought Brinker was good radioshow host and if he would stick to that instead of deceiving people about his newsletter and the bullcrap called market timing. It really was a good opening segment.

One interesting thing. MY understanding is tht Da Brink gives no how to advice on implementing his newsletter (no intro when you buy a subscription) and I think this easily curable defect manifested itself again today with a caller who was confused over the place of cash reserves in Da Brink’s model portfolios. And Brinker confused it even more by bringing up his 100% invested position. I cannot figure out why he does not take the time to write an explanation on how to use his portfolios when you buy a new subscription It is baffling.

But on balance, in the early segment, it was Brinker at his finest.

tfb

Honeybee said...

TFB,

You sent you note just 15 minutes before I published my summary at 10pm here.

I agree. Bob's opening monologue today covering the whole debt-deficit thing was outstanding.

I have transcribed that whole segment that you mentioned as being one of "his finest."

I broke it into easily read pieces and titled them so it's easy to find the subjects.

This information in critical in my opinion.

Thanks Bob.....Great job....

Honeybee said...

Also, TFB,

Your other point about Bob not having more "how-to" info in his newsletter, is a good one.

I will address it tomorrow. I'm exhausted now, the clock is striking and Cinderella is turning into a white mouse. :)

Bullerbear said...

"Bob told Andy that some years, he may have to sell some funds to raise the 4% withdrawal. Well in 2008, the portfolio lost 23.9%, so that year would have been equivalent to selling almost 28% of your fund holdings to withdraw 4%."

I'm not sure what you mean. A person would still withdraw only 4% of her entire portfolio even though the entire portfolio may have been down 24%.

You still withdraw only 4% regardless of whether your portfolio is up or down for the year. And that number is flexible too, you can take more or less.

Honeybee said...

Bullorbear,

My intention was to say that if you withdrew 4% from Bob Brinker's Marketimer model portfolio III in 2008, that would be a 28% decline in its value that year.

That's a large drop for someone in or near retirement depending on it to maintain their life in this wonderful Land of Critical Mass. Don't you agree?

Honeybee said...

TFB said: "One interesting thing. MY understanding is tht Da Brink gives no how to advice on implementing his newsletter (no intro when you buy a subscription) and I think this easily curable defect manifested itself again today with a caller who was confused over the place of cash reserves in Da Brink’s model portfolios. And Brinker confused it even more by bringing up his 100% invested position. I cannot figure out why he does not take the time to write an explanation on how to use his portfolios when you buy a new subscription It is baffling."

TFB,

Your understanding is correct. The truth is, most of Bob Brinker's Marketimer leaves a lot to guess work. No advice on practical matter such as how much emergency cash one should keep on hand.

Many times, callers will ask him how to get invested in his model portfolios. Usually, he will give an answer about dollar-cost-averaging or doing sideways moves.

As you said, he told the caller that his model portfolios are fully invested (as they have been since 2003) and make no provision for emergency cash.

Anonymous said...

So instead of focusing on 2008, an admittedly bad year in the market. Lets look at what Bob has done recently.

On 9/22/11 Bob issued a special subscriber message to newsletter subscribers saying the market was now "attractive for purchase." S&P 1129.56 that day.

Today the S&P is at 1,418.63, a gain of 289.07 as of right now or a gain of over 25% since then.

My portfolio was fully invested per Bob's recomendation, and I too benefited from this years rise.

Hopefully the wise took advantage of that call.

As for saving for a rainy day, Bob mostly comments on your investment portfolio, which should not be all the money you have in the world.

Bullerbear said...

"That's a large drop [28%] for someone in or near retirement depending on it to maintain their life in this wonderful Land of Critical Mass. Don't you agree?"

Of course nobody likes to see their portfolio drop in value but the market goes up and down and the investor has to deal with that.

Obviously, the person withdrawing only 4% doesn't need nor depend on their portfolio to maintain their life in critical mass.

If a fluctuating market is going to make them nervous in retirement then they shouldn't be IN the market.

Up 28%, Down 28%...who cares in the long run? You shouldn't have ANY funds in the market that you are going to need in the near term.

Bullerbear said...

"As you said, he told the caller that his model portfolios are fully invested (as they have been since 2003) and make no provision for emergency cash."

Once again, emergency cash needs is a personal thing and therefore recommendations are meaningless. Some people are going to need a lot more than others and you just can't make a broad recommendation.

Anyway, ANY emergency cash is a separate item and is NOT included in ANY investment portfolio.

Some advisors say you should have 3 months salary in cash, others say a year's salary.

Maybe the real number is really more or less. I guess if you run out in an emergency, you should have had more. LOL

Anonymous said...

Bullbear,

The point is he has model portfolios. To the best of my knowledge (and s I do not subscribe I do not know for sure)there is no instructions. What would it hurt to say these portfolios re for the portions of your assets you decide to dedicate to the financial markets exclusive of your emergency cash reserve, real estate investments, commodities, LPs etc, etc.

And that these portfolios NEVER consider tax ramifications and you need to review all decisions with your CPA and a competent financial planner and estate planner. How hard would this be to do? For $185 year I would think your should get something of substance when you start a subscription.

Also it makes no sense to cherry pick the calls of a market timer. You need to take their views in holistic manner. Brinker has been a bull since before the market down turn and told people to lump sum in from 1450 on down. So if you listened to Da Brink and jumped in at 1450 you still are not back to parity after ½ decade. So to be clear, if you followed Brinker’s advice long term you had no money to put in last fall because you dumped it in at S&P 1450 years ago. So you tell me, for a long term Brinker subscriber where did they get the money form to invest back in the fall of 2011? And what percentage of their portfolio would any money they had likely to have been? So the reality is, for long term subscriber Brinker’s call in the fall of last year was just another in a series of bullish calls that were pointless, because no subscriber who listened to this guy had any money left to put in.

To subscribe to your view point you would have to have a crystal ball in order to divine which of Da Brinks many bull calls to listen to.

Brinker should stick to deficit discussion because he cannot time an egg.

tfb

Anonymous said...

Numismatic gold coins are sold at high premium. Could that be because they are created by US mint, a US government agency, therefore certified and guaranteed as 100% REAL gold?

For non-numismatic coin, how can you tell or prove it is not a counterfeit but 100% real gold or silver coin?

Thanks,
Oro

jeffchristie said...

Honey

Good catch on the debt to GDP issue. I think the current debt of $15.5 trillion equals or slightly exceeds this years GDP. Here is what you documented on 24 July 2011:

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 extraordinary 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%."

Anonymous said...

Okay I confess I did not know this:

BOB'S HOUR-TWO OPENING QUOTE: "Our money is your money, we print it for you to use." Bob said some have asked him about this and explained for us young sprouts that it's an old-time comedy team, Bob and Ray -- said he was "always a huge fan."

Be honest, did anyone else think that was a Ted Kennedy quote?

It always sounded like Ted "Gurgle-Gurgle" Kennedy to me!

tfb

Bulllerbear said...

"What would it hurt to say these portfolios re for the portions of your assets you decide to dedicate to the financial markets exclusive of your emergency cash reserve, real estate investments, commodities, LPs etc, etc.

And that these portfolios NEVER consider tax ramifications and you need to review all decisions with your CPA and a competent financial planner and estate planner."

Well I guess it wouldn't hurt anything tfb but it seems a little self-evident to me.

I would think that a newsletter reader would have the sense to realize that Brinker's portfolios wouldn't include his house or beach cabin. Nor the $15,000 he has hidden away from his wife for a rainy day.

And tax considerations are the same deal. No newsletter I have EVER SEEN have addressed tax considerations because each reader tax situation is unique.

Don't you think the average reader is smart enough to know these things on his own? If not, he probably shouldn't be investing in the market anyway.

And please, I'm not cherry picking ANYTHING. I didn't even mention Brinker's record.

But YOU seem to be cherry picking when you mention Brinker's call at 1450! Why did you pick that date...just to make it look bad?

Why don't you judge Brinker's record since he began? That would be the fairest IMO.

Anonymous said...

Bullbear writes,

Well I guess it wouldn't hurt anything tfb but it seems a little self-evident to me.

To you perhaps but I do not hear any form of sophistication form the majority of Brinker's callers,in fact they are decidedly plebeian in nature. especially those who indicate they are long term subscribers.

I would think that a newsletter reader would have the sense to realize that Brinker's portfolios wouldn't include his house or beach cabin. Nor the $15,000 he has hidden away from his wife for a rainy day.


It is obvious from the caller on Sunday that this is not the case.

Don't you think the average reader is smart enough to know these things on his own? If not, he probably shouldn't be investing in the market anyway

Brinker's target market apparently are very unsophisticated individuals.

But YOU seem to be cherry picking when you mention Brinker's call at 1450! Why did you pick that date...just to make it look bad?

No, I picked it because it was his first all in buy that I know of during the end of the last bull cycle.Hence the point where anyone who had anything left would have bought into the market, hence there would not have been any 1300, 1250, 1100 levels.

And tax considerations are the same deal. No newsletter I have EVER SEEN have addressed tax considerations because each reader tax situation is unique.

I don't expect him to address individual considerations but it bears mentioning that his returns posted raw numbers that do not reflect taxes. also blurb that you should consider taxes when he makes a portfolio would be appropriate.

I do not subscribe ny more but Mark Skousen, Alexander Paris, Eric Kobren, and Richard Band ll use to make comemnts about taxes at least the did at one time.

Why don't you judge Brinker's record since he began? That would be the fairest IMO.

My knowledge only goes bac to 1987 or so via HoneyBee. If you look at that record he has been a failure, sitting out the bull run after 1987 etc.

Honeybee has asked for old newsletters. Can you contribute?

tfb

JayCeezy said...

@tfb and bullerbear - tax situations - Bob has often explained that timing decisions are not based at all on tax considerations. His thumbnail example is, "if your gain goes to zero, then you don't have have a tax consideration...problem solved!"

As far as "timing" and those who claim Brinker is not a real "timer", Bob has identified "gift horse" buying opportunities where lump sum purchases are advised, 'buy signals' at lesser advantage, and when his Timing Model shows no obvious advantage, he advised "dollar-cost averaging".