They have a nice resume for Brinker on the website:
Bob BrinkerSunday: 1:00 PM - 4:00 PM
Bob Brinker brings more than 25 years of investment management experience to his role as host of the popular weekend financial talk program, Moneytalk. On the program, Brinker answers investment questions from listeners around the country and discusses the week’s most relevant economic issues. The show has been syndicated nationally by Citadel Media since 1986.
In addition to hosting Moneytalk, Brinker publishes Marketimer, a monthly investment newsletter. Marketimer covers stock market timing, Federal Reserve policy, specific mutual fund recommendations and model portfolios for various objectives.
Brinker is a longtime member of the New York Society of Security Analysts and the Financial Analysts Federation. He has served as Investment Council Vice President at the Bank of New York on Wall Street and as Chief Investment Officer for the U.S subsidiary of Guardian Royal Exchange, London. Bob is also the co-founder of the B J Group, an investment management subsidiary of Centurion Capital Management. /http://www.bobbrinker.com/KSFO maintains show archives for seven days after broadcast. You can either listen or download and save so that you can listen at your leisure:
48 comments:
Brinker says we are not heading toward recession. Hmmmm. The ship of fools that he denigrates and mocks are sailing toward a safe harbor. The fools on the ship will be placing their money in government securities of a few strong (perceived) countries. Some on Wall Street say that the 10y will drop to a 1% yield.
With little appetite for taking risk, the market will falter, growth will slow, GDP will decline. More ships of fools will set sail to seek safe harbors. There will be no flow of money to spark the equity market until the political fools on Capitol Hill resolve issues that are killing the middle class.
With news that swamp the decks of the USS Foolishness, such as the information below, there will be little chance that we stay out of recession.
"The California Public Employees’ Retirement System returned 1% on its investments in the fiscal year ending June 30, a substantial miss for the largest U.S. pension fund. CALPERS, which had assets of $233 billion as of June 30, has an annual investment return target of 7.5%, which it had lowered from 7.75% recently."
This is yet another negative sign, more indications of future weakness and more broken promises. No recession, hmmmm.
Chattanooga CooCoo
On CALPERS, apparently the state Constitution bars any reduction in pensions, so who will have to pay for the shortfall in revenue projections?
The ever suffering taxpayer.
From four months ago:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/17/business/untouchable-pensions-in-california-may-be-put-to-the-test.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Birdbrain,
This whole thing in California is getting worse by the day, and taxpayers are getting madder by the minute.
For example: How long are taxpayers going to pay for their own health care, dental care, meds, etc., while paying taxes so public employees get it all free (or almost free) for life?
Here's your link live -- lots of information in it:
California Untouchable Pensions
"For example: How long are taxpayers going to pay for their own health care, dental care, meds, etc., while paying taxes so public employees get it all free (or almost free) for life?"
That one is easy. You will pay as long as you are a resident of California.
But that "free" health care for life you talk about isn't true. They have to pay just about the same as Medicare so where's the beef?
Those retirees have worked all their life based on certain promises which need to be kept.
Change the rules going forward if you can but you can't break past promises.
Sacto
Excuse me Sacto, whom I happen to believe lives on cushy government union benefits and/or salary. You said: "Change the rules going forward if you can but you can't break past promises. Sacto"
The taxpayers NEVER MADE ANY PROMISES, YOU LIBERAL JERK!
For someone who seems to have an interest in Bob Brinker, you sure never listen to him.
How many times has he pointed out that when public employee unions sit down at the table with bureaucrats to negotiate, the taxpayer has no real representation.
"The taxpayers NEVER MADE ANY PROMISES, YOU LIBERAL JERK!"
Maybe you don't understand representative government. You are bound by the deals YOUR representative makes.
I think a lot of people are just jealous because they don't have a pension and probably haven't had the foresight to provide for their own retirement.
That's too bad, but in California you can NOT reduce pensions and the State can NOT go bankrupt.
California pensioners are safe.
Sacto
The notion that past promises are inviolate when it comes to promised public pension and health benefits is beginning to get tiresome, at least to me.
It sounds like a spoiled child's response to an adult explaining why some planned activity won't happen. Bad stuff happens and the mature outlook is to first recognize that there is a problem and then seek solutions.
If the politicians and public employee unions in CA haven't reached stage 1 yet and are moving on to stage 2, then new leadership is needed. Good luck with that!
Benefits will have to be reduced to get out of this problem. You cannot tax people into oblivion -- people who for the most part, had no say in establishing the benefits in the first place.
That's too bad, but in California you can NOT reduce pensions and the State can NOT go bankrupt.
If the taxpayers leave the state where is the money going to come from - illegal aliens of public aid?
With the Internet making where you live irrelevant to knowledge workers (which are the high value jobs) you have to ask what is the future of these high tax states.
tfb
I hope Bob Brinker responds to this on Sunday.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huEI2oj6EKkay.
"If the taxpayers leave the state where is the money going to come from - illegal aliens of public aid?"
Since no State can declare bankruptcy, the money will come from the Federal government bailout.
And since the California Constitution says that pensions may NOT be reduced the Federal government funds will pay those benefits, if necessary.
So tfb, the US taxpayer will ultimately be on the hook for California pensions so it would not make any difference where you move. You will pay.
Sacto
Sacto pontificates,
Maybe you don't understand representative government. You are bound by the deals YOUR representative makes.
I understand that politicians will say and DO whatever it takes to get re-elected, including changing rules, laws, and agreements, even if it means slitting your throat.
Perhaps you don't understand representative government. Just watch the liberal politicians around the country to see what these cut-throats are capable of doing.
Just ask the republican Jeep and GM dealers, and the mom and pop GM bond holders.
Jim....I also hope Bob Brinker listens to and addresses the fact that Bernanke said that.
Here's your live link at Youtube
"I understand that politicians will say and DO whatever it takes to get re-elected, including changing rules, laws, and agreements, even if it means slitting your throat."
Oh I do understand that pig. I think that's why they put a provision into the California constitution that pensions can NOT be reduced.
The politicians can NOT change the rules without amending the state's constitution which is not an easy thing to do.
Personally, I think it is a good thing so those faithful retired state employees don't get screwed over by the politicians.
Don't you agree?
Sacto
I don't think any solution would involve taking back benefits of already-retired people. I think the greater fiscal problem for pensions lies with the yet-to-retire group. Those are the ones who will have to give up something in order to help the situation.
Sacto, why are you so confident there will be a federal bailout of CA pension obligations?
-- Frankj
"Maybe you don't understand representative government. You are bound by the deals YOUR representative makes."
Bullfeathers.
Declare bankruptcy then void all contracts. Also you can go after the pensions as illegal since they came from a corrupt exchange of political backing and money (reelection contributions) in exchange for the very same pensions all sides at the table know the taxpayers would not vote for if they understood what was being sold by the crooks in Sacramento.
Vote NO on all CA tax increase proposals. The students will have to pay more for tuition. Tell them they need to pay more so state workers can retire early. Tell they they are lucky because they will have to work into their 80s to pay back the bond debt to keep funding this.
"Sacto, why are you so confident there will be a federal bailout of CA pension obligations?"
I agree with you Frank that it is the future employees who will not have the benefits enjoyed by the present retirees. That's already the case for almost everybody including civil servants.
Pensions are a thing of the past for the most part but today's pensioners shouldn't be penalized.
Now as far as a Federal bailout of CA pensions, what I am saying is that CA goes busted and requires Federal assistance I think such assistance will include honoring existing CA state pensions.
The Federal government can't reduce those pensions without amending the California constitution and I don't think Washington can, or will, unilaterally amend any State's Constitution.
Don't you agree?
Sacto
http://www.calpers.ca.gov/eip-docs/about/facts/retiremem.pdf
RETIREE INFORMATION (AS OF JUNE 30, 2011)
Average monthly service retirement allowance all retirees: $2,332
Average years of service, all service retirees: 20.3
most workers paying into social security will have over 50 years of service with an average benefit of $1,230
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/13/~/average-monthly-social-security-benefit-for-a-retired-worker
Keep voting NO on ALL CA tax increases and then share these facts as to why. Say you will vote YES only when the two numbers (average time paid into the system and average retirenement benefit) are equal.
The Federal Government has no obligation to bail the States out - period.
They may make the commitment, but there is no obligation.
tfb
Personally, I think it is a good thing so those faithful retired state employees don't get screwed over by the politicians.
Don't you agree?
Naw I am for them ALL committing mass suicide as their first act of actual public service. It would solve the problem very neatly and make the world a much better place.
This link may be of interest. It is an article on how to allow the state's to go bankrupt which is under consideration. I think President Romney would be amenable to such an arrangement.
Personally I would love to see some payback on the parasitic public employees.
Let the States declare bankruptcy
In June, the beautiful little California town of Scotts Valley, nestled prettily in the Santa Cruz Mountains just five miles from the ocean, passed a new parcel tax to "save the schools" from sure damnation -- or that was the way it was sold.
Okay, you say well if the voters passed the measure, what's the beef?
Here it is: The measure was SOLD and passed as a result of the promise being made to senior citizens that if THEY voted YES, THEY would be given an exemption from having the new parcel tax added on to THEIR property tax.
Is there any HONEST person who thinks that was okay?
They need to ask BOB.
NOVI, Mich. — For weeks, John and Kathy Matthews have agonized over the choice: accept $818,000 in a lump sum from General Motors to buy out Mr. Matthews’s pension or keep collecting a check of $4,854 a month.
John Matthews, center, talking with fellow retirees, said he was considering taking the buyout in part because it might allow him to give his children a larger inheritance.
They have consulted nearly a dozen financial advisers, spent countless hours on the Internet, discussed scores of possible outcomes, and lost a ton of sleep. And with the deadline to decide on Friday, they still don’t know what they will do.
“It’s not an easy decision because we don’t know how long we’re going to live,” said Mr. Matthews, 63, in an interview with his wife at their airy condominium in this suburb west of Detroit.
G.M. has made similar offers to about 42,000 of its 118,000 former white-collar employees and surviving spouses. Those who decide to keep the monthly check will be switched to an annuity provided by Prudential Insurance. Those who take the lump sum will be saying goodbye to G.M.’s financial embrace forever.
Mr. Matthews, a former engineering manager at the Technical Center in Warren, Mich., who retired in 2008 after 41 years, meets weekly at a diner with a coterie of retired colleagues, and the pension choice has dominated recent conversation.
Mr. Matthews said most of his friends were leaning toward the monthly checks. But for him, the calculation was not so simple.
Although G.M. won’t put it quite so directly, by Mr. Matthews’s math, the company predicted that he would live for another 21 years and used that estimate to come up with the $818,000 offer.
In addition to his pension check, Mr. Matthews receives Social Security, and he also has an individual retirement account. Mrs. Matthews, 62, works part time at a hospital as a registered nurse, and has a home-based business selling nutritional products. When she retires at 66, she will not receive a pension.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/business/retirees-wrestle-with-pension-buyout-from-general-motors.html?pagewanted=all
"Keep voting NO on ALL CA tax increases and then share these facts as to why. Say you will vote YES only when the two numbers (average time paid into the system and average retirenement benefit) are equal."
That's ridiculous. California workers are more highly educated and are better skilled than the average worker in the United States and therefore have a higher average income.
They deserve to get more than the average Social Security recipient and they do!
The new workers are covered under a 401K plan so they won't get so much in retirement benefits but they will still be paid more because they are just plain better qualified and more educated that the average US Worker.
Frankj:
Assuming GM is not low balling on the lump sum offer, I would lean toward taking that because the money becomes your property and it will stay in his estate/pass to his spouse, whereas a pension will end at his death, or be reduced in size if he checked the box for a reduced survivor's benefit.
Much depends on their ongoing expenses and how much they need that current, monthly check of $4800.
Tax implications come into play too, in taking the lump sum.
I'm not a CPA and I don't play one in the movies ... isn't that how answers like these often end on MoneyTalk? And for good reason, I'm not bashing BB.
In response to me Sacto said:
"Now as far as a Federal bailout of CA pensions, what I am saying is that CA goes busted and requires Federal assistance I think such assistance will include honoring existing CA state pensions.
The Federal government can't reduce those pensions without amending the California constitution and I don't think Washington can, or will, unilaterally amend any State's Constitution."
I agree that Washington DC cannot unilaterally amend a state constitution. But they could use a carrot and stick approach and tell the state to put their house in order and ONLY THEN will help be forthcoming.
This is all about politics in my opinion. Won't happen before the November election. And may not happen even if the incumbent manages to stay in office, in my opinion. Reason being that senators and Congressmen from non-hurting state will howl -- as they should.
I can't envision a "stings-free" bailout. And it isn't just California, I believe Illinois is in even worse shape.
-- Frankj
correction to my typo, should have read "strings-free" bailout.
-- Frankj
"California workers are more highly educated and are better skilled than the average worker in the United States"
Hey, good one, Carlos! I'm still laughing! :)
Dan,
I'm still laughing too. That may win the prize for the funniest sentence of the week in next week's Moneytalk summary.
What intellect that took to make that statement. LOL!!!!
"California workers are more highly educated and are better skilled than the average worker in the United States"
You can laugh if you want but it's true. That's why the average salary and retirement benefits are higher than the average Social Security salary.
It's mostly because California employs a higher percentage of professional people with college degrees than the average Social Security worker that includes everybody even high school dropouts.
Almost everybody who ever held a job is counted for Social Security and that is not true for California.
Yeah those silicon bimbo blondes, Hollywood idiots, illegal aliens from Mexico really top the scales on the IQ and education level.
And those lettuce pickers have such high skills, only those folks are no counted in Social Security now are they, though they often reside there, traveling from one crop location to another.
Btw, I could care less, I suppose one state has to have an overall higher level of education or income but it is not California. In terms of income it appears to be Maryland, in fact California is 9th on the list.
StateByIncome
In terms of education California isn’t on the radar.
In terms of highschool graduates California is in 48th place! Wow that is some educated population (rejoice though you beat Mississippi).
California takes14th Place it terms of undergraduates and 14ht in terms of advanced degrees(hey at least they are consistent).
StatesByEducationalObtainment
Hey, but nice try, facts are a real female dog of a mistress.
tfb
Once again tfb doesn't get it.
I didn't say EVERYBODY in California was smarter or made more. I said California STATE EMPLOYEES were smarter and made more than the average Social Security worker.
I think tfb just proved that.
According to Wickipedia, those "highly educated and skilled California workers" occupy more than 500 state government agencies, departments and commissions. Of course they all will receive lucrative pensions. Is it any wonder why California is broke? And getting broker by the day?
So Carlos,
Have you now insulted enough people for one day? It might carry a little more weight if you backed up your assertions with some hard, cold facts.
Or if you told us what your education and IQ level is....Come on, don't be chicken now. Tell us what kind of STATE EMPLOYEE you are.
I know you work in Sacramento. Tells us more if you have the guts.
Earth to Carlos:
If the state employees of CA enjoy higher remuneration than do the average worker (Social Security worker as you put it) then it is not because the they are better educated.
It is because the unionized workforce is represented by a leadership that has been successful in ratcheting up the salary and benefits, and elected officials/state assembly that has been INEFFECTIVE in keeping the lid on.
But you keep your postings coming in, they are providing entertainment for more people than you think.
-- Frankj
Honeybee. The only difference between the average worker on Social Security and the average CA government worker is most paying into Social Security don't have teacher and prison guard unions trading votes and endorsements for cushy pensions and overly high salaries.
Also, we have an "education bubble" where dorks think getting worthless degrees in soft sciences so they can get a gobmint "job" is equal to getting more difficult degrees in hard subjects such as law, medicine or engineering. Anyone "not stupid" knows the education is more a "gating function" to easily find the top people for private sector jobs... but the really smart ones don't even bother finishing school or do just the minimum amount of school (college or grad school) to get in the door. Just ask Bill Gates or Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg how smart they are compared to the "average CA worker" with far better edumikation. What a joker this guy is on your board.
That's ridiculous. California workers are more highly educated and are better skilled than the average worker in the United States and therefore have a higher average income.
Dearest Carlos,
Above is an exact quote. That single sentence is even in its own paragraph indicating a singular thought (ya'll should be a knowing that with yer suckperior edikation). There is no context of Government employees. So ya'll are discredited yet again.
It must really suck to think you are the bee’s knees around the water cooler with all your jerk-off welfare consuming co-worker Government employees, but what always happens when life time bottom feeding public sector employees encounter the real world is they fall flat on their face. This is simply because those who gravitate to the public sector are selected based on ineptitude, incompetence, and overall laziness. But then that is why you are probably so touchy about the issue. Well that and your small dick, but don’t worry your enemies often have it in for you so your wife at least gets satisfaction somewhere.
Wow, tough day for you. You find out you are an idiot, your dick is too small, and your wife is a whore; but cheer up ya’ll still have your pension.
Love,
tfb
California State employees ARE better educated than Social Security workers...
“The story of public sector workers in the U.S. and in California is, in large part, one of education,” Allegretto said, noting that of California’s full-time workers, 55 percent in the public sector hold at least a four-year college degree, compared to 35 percent in the private sector.
California taxpayers are NOT overpaying or overcompensating their state and local workers compared to private sector employers, according to a policy brief released today (Monday, Oct. 18) by the Center on Wages and Employment Dynamics at the University of California, Berkeley’s Institute for Research on Labor and Employment (IRLE).
Wages earned by California’s public employees are about 7 percent lower, on average, than those received by comparable private sector workers, according to the report. However, the researchers concluded that when taking into account the more generous benefits of government employees, there is no significant difference in the level of total compensation between the two sectors.
http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2010/10/18/stateworkers/
Ms Honey says to Mr IQ from Sacto, Or if you told us what your education and IQ level is....Come on, don't be chicken now. Tell us what kind of STATE EMPLOYEE you are. I know you work in Sacramento.
Now that brings a tear to my eye. I used to have a BEST FRIEND EVER from Sacto, but his IQ was only 49 and he got busted busted busted posting from his work computer.
He was such a real nice guy and everybody loved him.
Carlos....Your "source" article is even funnier than you are.
You go back over two years to an obscure UC Berkeley article written by a woman who no doubt is a public union employee working for UC Berkeley.
She offers her opinion and bases it on a UC Berkeley "research."
"California taxpayers are not overpaying or overcompensating their state and local workers compared to private sector employers, according to a policy brief released today (Monday, Oct. 18) by the Center on Wages and Employment Dynamics at the University of California, Berkeley’s Institute for Research on Labor and Employment (IRLE)."
Yeah right! So what are we under-educated "Social Security workers" supposed to believe -- what we see with our own eyes and ears, or the liberal foxes out to guard the chicken house while they eat our chickens for decades and decades?
No wonder California, Illinois and other states are almost bankrupt. This mentality is being bred into each new generation without any possibility of stopping the ugly decline into oblivion.
Why is this happening? Because people like you have been given the power to live better off of taxpayers than they live -- and then rub our noses in it.
Some moron is now citing a government funded UC Bezerkeley study saying the government workers doing the survey are not over paid?
Duh... that is about stupid as asking the tobacco lobby to do a study to see if smoking is harmful.
No wonder he could only get a government job in Taxifornia.
Vote no more taxes,
Yes, that is truly hilarious! One would think that such a smart public employee could do better than that.
Notice that he is embarrassed to tell us anything about his own superior qualifications and education that make him feel he deserves more money, pension and perks than "social security" peons who pay for all of it.
" You find out you are an idiot, your dick is too small, and your wife is a whore; but cheer up ya’ll still have your pension."
Will you please tell that asshole to shove his not so funny remarks right up his pizza twirling ass?
"Because people like you have been given the power to live better off of taxpayers than they live -- and then rub our noses in it."
Aha, now we get down to the REAL reason you are bitching about government workers.
You are envious they get paid more than you do and have more benefits too.
Everything would be fine, if you could get on that gravy train too.
Hypocrite!
Anonymous, who has obviously been posting as Carlos:
I allowed you to respond to TFB's comments because it seemed fair, in spite of the fact that you are the one with the demeaning comments that had to make many readers as angry as it did me.
And then you even refused to tell us anything about yourself and why you said: "California workers are more highly educated and are better skilled than the average worker in the United States and therefore have a higher average income."
Your opinion piece from UCBerkeley is a joke and you know it.
So now that you and TFB know how you feel about each other, let's try to keep the discussion rated PG.
Will you please tell that asshole to shove his not so funny remarks right up his pizza twirling ass?
Lol, gee I hit a nerve with that comment; the truth hurts doesn't it?
tfb
Anonymous, who is so shook up he can't even remember to make up a phony name wrote to me:
"You are envious they get paid more than you do and have more benefits too.
Everything would be fine, if you could get on that gravy train too.
Hypocrite!"
Anonymous,
So you admit you are on a government gravy train!
That may be the first honest statement you have made on this blog in many moons.
SHAME, SHAME, SHAME on every public union employee who KNOWS that they are sucking off others who pay for them to work less years, collect more in pensions, have dream health care plans for life and feel they are superior.
This will end, "Carlos" as sure as night follows day. People will not be made fools of forever. There are other options -- just as Bob Brinker has so often pointed out.
You better sock away a few bucks because that gigantic pension might just look a little less gigantic when the day comes for you to collect.
But even then, you are ahead of most corporate workers, who almost NEVER get pensions anymore.
I fully agree with the Hottiebee when she states:
SHAME on every public union employee who KNOWS that they are sucking off others
Not much more needs to be added here. The perfect description of public sector employees.
tfb
Post a Comment