STOCK MARKET....Several times today, Brinker told retired callers and those near retirement age, that he was still comfortable with a fully invested 50-50 (stocks-bonds) asset allocation -- and he recommended dollar-cost-averaging. All Marketimer model portfolios are fully invested -- two of them are all stock funds.
DON'T HAVE INVESTMENT MONEY IN CASH...In response to Cindy from Iowa who was paying to have her portfolio managed, Brinker made this statement: "I would question having a large percentage of a portfolio in a cash position."
ASSET ALLOCATIONS AND MARKETIMER BOND FUNDS.....Frank from Pennsylvania asked about his asset allocation 3 years from retirement.
Brinker replied: I think I would be moving toward a 50-50 balanced portfolio to begin with given how close you are to retirement. And I would dollar cost average any money you are going to add to your stock market portfolio. But on the bond market side, if you are following the investment letter, then I am comfortable with the bond funds that we are recommending in the investment letter. I'm comfortable with investing in those funds. We have a short duration of less than two years and we have an excellent current yield of 3% in that portfolio. So I'm comfortable with that side of it, but on the equity side yes, I would be dollar cost averaging.Honey EC: Brinker was referring to his off-the-books bond fund portfolio in Marketimer which now contains four bond funds: DoubleLine Low Duration (DLSNX); DoubleLine Total Return (DLTNX); MetroWest Unconstrained (MWCRX); and Osterweis Strategic Income (OSTIX).
BRINKER'S BRILLIANT NEW IDEA FOR RETIREES: Brinker said: I recommend that investors who start the withdrawal from their portfolio in retirement, that they start out with a 4% figure in your number one. See how that works each year. Remember each year you see how the past year worked so that you can make a decision on where to go forward. And I have another idea which I think is a great idea. And that is, take one year aside and always be one year ahead. In other words, if you always have one year expenses reserved and you're going to use that, then you don't have to be taking money out of your portfolio that year. If you are in a dire situation, then you don't have to do it. So I like the idea of keeping one year ahead and then using the 4% withdrawal guideline and reevaluating it every year.
Q1 GDP REPORT WAS SOFT AND HERE'S WHY....Brinker comments: There is going to be a revision to that weak first-quarter Growth Domestic Product report that came out earlier this month. That was the one that said that the first quarter real GDP growth was at an annual rate of 0.2%. And we talked about the reason that the first quarter was such a weak number -- and don't expect the revision to be a gonzo-upside revision. It's going to stay very, very soft for the first quarter even after they revise it.… There were many factors – we talked about them on money talk – that West Coast port strike headquartered in Long Beach… There's no doubt that the strong dollar has an impact on our exports account because it makes our goods more costly overseas… And the fact that you've had a major slowdown in capital spending in the energy sector due to the change in the level of oil prices.… And of course, the first quarter was a rough weather quarter – you could throw that in the hopper.…
WHAT WILL ECONOMIC GROWTH BE FOR Q2 AND END OF YEAR....Brinker comments: So what kind of the second quarter might we look for when that number is announced several weeks down the line this summer.… Right now, based on the data that's coming through on a weekly basis, I think there's every reason to expect that slow to moderate growth is the best we can hope for in 2015. I mean we've already dug a hole this first-quarter… So we have to climb out of that hole for the next three quarters in order to get the annual rate of expansion for the economy. So there's no change in my view that when it's all said and done at the end of the year, it'll be something in that 2 to 3% range.… We've been in that range year after year – so no shock there.
DON'T WORRY: INFLATION IS MUTED AND LACKING.....Brinker comments: It's interesting what's going on with the lack of inflation. Did you see that wholesale price report that came out this week? Wholesale prices in the United States declining in the month of April. So inflation remains very well contained. If you're worried about inflation right now, you're wasting your time. The Producer Price Index declined 4/10 of 1% in the month of April after gaining 2/10 of 1% in March. Now you put those two months together, that's an annual rate of decline of over 1%.… And that 2% increase in March was the first time in five months that the wholesale price index had shown a positive sign before the number. So there's no doubt about it we have a muted inflation situation.
DON'T BOTHER BRINKER ABOUT THE 100% BRIDGE TOLL INCREASE…… Brinker continued: I know there's somewhere that somebody will pay $.50 for a bridge token that used to be a quarter and they'll say inflation is 100%. I've heard it many times over the years. Of course it's not true because when you talk about inflation figures, you're talking about a basket – throwing in a lot of things, not just the cost of a bridge token.
CHINESE CURRENCY A THREAT TO US MARKETS? When caller Barbara from Oregon asked if the US stock market might be negatively affected by the Yuan's affect on the dollar.....Brinker replied: As far as our currency is concerned, the dollar has been one of the strongest currencies on the planet.. It had a tremendous rally.. It's given back a portion of that rally, but it's still been very strong on balance..… As far as the yuan is concerned – the Chinese currency – I don't have any problem with wider acceptance globally of the yuan in the financial system. We are nowhere near a point in the development of the yuan where that currency could become the world's reserve currency....
SHARKS SCARE PEOPLE INTO BUYING SOMETHING FROM THEM....Brinker continued: Barbara, let me comment on something you said about the various things you read online or maybe even in print. Keep this in mind.. The best way for you to sell something is to scare a person out of their wits.. Remember that. Listen to a lot of the advertising that you hear and that you watch and noticed how much of it is aimed at daring you to death.. And then the sharks figure if they scare you enough, maybe you'll buy something from them and they can make a big fat commission.. That's the way the game is played Barbara..
Honey EC: Brinker needs to take a look in the mirror. Over the past couple of years, he has "scared" many people out of investing in the stock market with his cautions on the air and in Marketimer about looming trouble ahead from lack of stock market corrections. For months on end, he warned that he was being "vigilant" and that subscribers should watch for a "special online bulletin." He has cautioned to only dollar-cost-average new money into equities "on weakness" which he never defined -- and for the most part, never came.
DON'T BE SCARED: WHAT COULD CAUSE THE DOLLAR TO COLLAPSE...In answer to Tom from Minnesota's follow up question about the dollar collapsing, Brinker said: The real question is, what would cause the dollar to collapse? I know the same people that have been saying the dollar was going to collapse for years, and they've been totally wrong – 100% wrong – they are still saying it. That's because I think they are trying to scare people.… It's very hard to make a case right now that I could believe that the dollar is going to collapse.
FRANKJ'S MONEYTALK'S "SUPER SUNDAY" GUEST INTERVIEW SUMMARY:
Today’s super star guest was Dr. Alan Blinder, former member of the Federal Reserve and a professor of Economics at Princeton. Dr. Blinder has been a frequent 3rd hour guest and is a sometime columnist for the Wall Street Journal.
From about 3:15 down to the bottom of the hour the discussion covered when interest rates might go up. Dr. Blinder said, “It’s gonna happen sometime…”
He made these important points.
· “Liftoff” at probably a 0.25% increase is a “so what” increase if you’re an investor.Dr. Blinder said the Fed uses a metric known as the Personal Consumption Core Index as an indicator of inflation. To them, it is the Holy Grail. It is now at 1.3% and they want to see it at 2%.
· If you’re a trader in NYC, London, or the Far East, it is a much bigger event and WHEN it occurs matters a lot to them.
· The guest thinks the Fed will raise in December, not September however …
· He cautioned that a rate increase is dependent on the Fed seeing some upward movement in inflation and wages. There will need to be improvements in the labor market.
Before the break Bob swerved into one of his favorite topics, the notion that the Fed should be audited. The guest pointed out that they are already audited in the conventional way. The populist proponents of this “audit” talk want Congress to have oversight on monetary decisions of the Fed. Bad idea to politicize monetary policy by allowing Congress to meddle.
After the half-hour break, Bob immediately went to calls.
Mark from Minnesota would have been first at bat, but he never got into the batter’s box. “Earth to Mark, turn down your radio if you want to get on the air.”
Jim from Des Moines thought the name Fed was a misnomer because it is really a private organization operating in a clandestine manner. Blinder said they operated in secret decades ago, but now they are the most open central bank on the planet.
Al from Santa Clara posited that the ultimate source of inflation was the practice of fractional reserve lending by banks. This led to a discussion of banks who are sitting on excess reserves which they hold at the Federal Reserve and are satisfied to receive 0.25% interest vs. lending the money to businesses. Bob said banks report that they can’t find qualified borrowers. Dr. Blinder said he can’t believe that’s true. I don’t think Bob believes it either. Blinder liked Bob’s suggestion that the Fed should reduce the interest they pay the banks on these reserves.
Bob and the guest wandered off in a discussion of productivity with Dr. Blinder pointing out productivity is not increasing and this needs to recover (increase) for the economy to get going again.
David from Virginia Beach asked whether the Fed’s low rate policy slowed the recovery and is it continuing to do so? Alan Blinder seemed to give this some credence saying that monetary expansion (low interest rates) reaches a point of diminishing returns. The Fed’s computer models predicted things would have been much worse had they kept interest rates at say, 2%. Monetary policy alone has not revived the economy.
Phil from Myrtle Beach asked a long question about banks as trading houses. The guest said the larger banks do trading but not as much as they did in 2007. The more local you get the less trading takes place; small community banks do no trading.
Bob wrapped up at 3:51 pm.
JEFFCHRISTIE'S MONEYTALK FINAL EXAM QUESTION:
When you rollover into an IRA and maintain the same asset allocation it is called:
A) A dangerous move.
B) A smooth move.
C) A sideways move.
D) A dumb move.
ANSWER
NOTE: Los Angeles KABC 790 (Thanks to StevieD for this update): KABC since March now airs all three hours of Money Talk with Bob Brinker Sunday nights at 9 PM. You can listen to the stream live using TuneIn Radio on the web, Android or iOS apps. Or catch the archived podcasts going back to early March at feeds. MoneyTalkBobBrinker.
Summaries posted at 6:30pm PDT
90 comments:
KABC since March now airs all three hours of Money Talk with Bob Brinker Sunday nights at 9 PM. You can listen to the stream live using TuneIn Radio on the web, Android or iOS apps. Or catch the archived podcasts going back to early March at http://feeds.feedburner.com/MoneyTalkBobBrinker
Thanks StevieD...I will update my list.
In my policy of fairness...
As many of you know, I oft of late have taken to criticizing Da Brink for his guidance on the obsolete 4% rule. There is a litany of issues with the 4% rule, however I applaud Da Brink for taking a step in the right direction and putting some parameters around the implementation of the 4% rule.
I believe he needs to do more, but today was a huge improvement over his past comments regarding the 4% rule.
So I applaud Bob on this date for hearing substantive criticism and responding appropriately.
TFB...I didn't hear anything really different. Would you help me by explaining what it was that you heard that was an improvement over Brinker's former 4% rule advice?
Much appreciated....thanks...
I'm glad to hear that Bob Brinker has relegated the weather excuse for poor 1Q2015 GDP to a very distant #4 in his list of excuses, behind the port shutdown, dearth of capital investment (energy sector), and the strong dollar.
I tend to agree with the direction taken by the new and improved Bob Brinker on GDP, but not on the role of the dollar. I understand what a strong dollar does to the trade numbers, so he'll get no argument from me about that. The problem is what America used to be like under a STRONG dollar. From 1967 through 1971 .DXY tracked closely to 120 on the index, yet average nominal annual GDP was 7.5% during those five years. Contrast that with now. .DXY has been above 90 really only since January 1, 2015, never cracking 100 on the index, and yet nominal GDP languishes down at 0.056%, which they generously round up to 0.1%.
There is a fundamental weakness to the current economy which shouldn't be blamed on net imports. It's normally too small a slice of the whole picture. In fact, you'd think the port shut down would have helped given our import hungry economy. Absent more exports, fewer imports should have hurt GDP less. As they were it was pretty bad for GDP nonetheless. Admittedly whenever everything shrinks down then a small change makes a bigger impact. But that's the point: everything has shrunk.
Anyway, the dollar argument, like the weather argument, is as weak as the economy.
jm
"I'm glad to hear that Bob Brinker has relegated the weather excuse for poor 1Q2015 GDP". The fact that this poster used the word "excuse" instead of "reason" undermines their whole argument. There is no way in the real world that very severe winter weather (during its occurrence) does not put quite a damper on the level of commerce & therefore the GDP.
A "weak" economy is relative. This current one is booming compared to just 7 or less years ago.
jm: I would suggest that the weak economy is, at least in part, caused by a parasitic government. Laws, regulations, paperwork, taxes, blah blah all suppress productivity.
There was an interesting comment in the 3rd hour interview, about how the internet/ investment in information technology investments is not increasing productivity enough for the gain to show up in measures of GDP.
I agree with Bluce. An excess of gov't regs and "oversight" is like dragging a weight behind a car. When the car is hitting on all 8 cylinders there's not that much effect. But when the car is staggering along on 4 cylinders, you notice the drag.
By any measure it wasn't a "severe" winter. Not in the top 10, not in the top 20. Everyone managed in Boston except John F. Kerry, who served in Viet Nam, who was too cheap to shovel his snow and was fined for it.
jm
Oh what difference does it make if it's the weather, too much government or my mother-in-law's mewling?
I just use the old couch potato portfolio ...half in the total stock market and half in the total bond market and fuggeddaboutit.
No newsletter, no advisors, no nothin and I beat most of the "experts" consistently.
From the Weather Channel "February 2015: One of the Coldest on Record in Many Midwest and Northeast Cities"
All of these cities are highly populated/ commercial areas.
Based on other comments here though, I may be just wasting my text. Seems like this is prime RWNJ territory.
John R.:
Tell it to the National Climatic Data Center:
Snow cover averaged 1.19% below the baseline since 1967 for the first quarter.
For average temperature the first quarter ranked 95th warmest out of 121 years, 5.6% above the baseline.
For minimum temperature it ranked 96th, 6.7% above the baseline.
For heating degree days it ranked 75th, just 2.3% colder than the average. By contrast 1Q2014 was 6.8% colder than the average, and the 18th coldest by this measure since 1895.
For cooling degree days, a measure of uncomfortable warmth, 1Q2015 ranked tied for 12th warmest winter at 40% above the baseline. 1Q2012 was the warmest in the series at 136% above the baseline.
Better to blame the languid GDP on the heat than the cold.
jm
I don't recall government regulations, oversight, taxation or anything else about so-called "government interference" being at a markedly lower level than today during the tail end of the LBJ Great Society movement years 1967 through 1971, when it was cited we were rockin' and rollin' at an average nominal annual GDP growth rate of 7.5% and had a strong dollar tracked by .DXY at close to 120.
Greetings HottieBee,
It is I the fluffy one, in the fur : )
FB...I didn't hear anything really different. Would you help me by explaining what it was that you heard that was an improvement over Brinker's former 4% rule advice?
What heard him assay that was knew, is he is now recommending that you keep an additional 1 year reserve in place in order to buy you time in the event of an equity decline. Basically he was trying to avoid liquidating equity assets during a market downturn because once you liquidate an asset it has zero chance of recovery. This is one of the many banes of the oft misunderstood 4% rule. An equity decline in the first 10 years of retirement can devastate the long term viability of the portfolio. I do not find his commentary to be adequate but it is certainly a step in the correct direction.
In addition he now said to review the 4% rule periodically and then went on to talk about decreasing to perhaps 3% etc. To my ears that was very new, especially when taken in conjunction with the cash reserve.
To me Bob is starting to acknowledge there are issue with the 4% rule and is starting to reveal the tip of the ice berg to callers and I hope he gets people thinking. So I credit him for this shift and loudly applaud him for it.
However, I believe the shift needs to be far more dramatic. In Brinker’s defense if he actually revealed what is now considered a safe withdraw rate for the masses it would create all sorts of problems for him (the same reason the Government does not do more to correct this). But there is still a lot he can do to outline the issues and inform people without having to shoot himself in the foot.
tfb
I see Brinker is back to a strict position on his 50-50 (stocks-bonds) portfolio asset allocation in retirement rule, apparently regardless of the retiree's income stream from fixed assets like pension, Social Security, rental property income, etc. A couple of weeks ago he seemed much more flexible on that iconic Moneytalk position when he agreed with a caller that it would be acceptable to count those kinds of ongoing income streams in the fixed income "50" half of that equation.
In which case, if one needed, say, $5000 per month in retirement and received a reliable $2500 per month from the above kinds of income, wouldn't that mean he could be 100% in stock equities for the remaining $2500 per month needed and still be within the 50-50 rule?
I was a bit surprised by Brinker's new-ish flexibility on that issue a couple of weeks ago but seemed to be the only one who noticed. hmmm. Did I not understand his response to that caller's question a couple of weeks ago?
Sorry about the typos "assay" knew vs new etc - I am tired...
tfb
All 4 horses that ran this weekend ran off the Board! Oh well.
Gabe
"All 4 horses that ran this weekend ran off the Board! Oh well."
According to the 4% rule you may now eat one.
I agree with the assertion that His Lack of conviction in 2013 and 2014 weren't good. He was vigilant when he should have been aggressively investing in the markets. It really should have been a buy signal. Specially when the markets had significant gains during those two years.
"It really should have been a buy signal"....says Jesse.
How can he issue a buy signal when he brags that he has been fully invested all along?
So Bob...Why do you suppose that Bob Brinker has issued many "buy signals" since he has been fully invested -- since March 2003, to be exact?
Hmmmmmm?
Thanks TFB....Hope you slept well. :)
"So Bob...Why do you suppose that Bob Brinker has issued many "buy signals" since he has been fully invested -- since March 2003, to be exact?"...wonders the HB.
Beats me. I must have missed the sell signal. Where does Brinker get the cash for these buy signals if he is fully invested?
Bob...Nope, you didn't miss any sell signals. There haven't been any.
In fairness, Brinker does say that his buy signals and dollar-cost-average advice is for those with new money to invest in the stock market.
Brinker doesn't scare people to the degree that some sharks do but there's no question he takes advantage of scared investors. He knows many are scared of bear markets so he tries to fool them into believing that if they subscribe to Marketimer he will help them sidestep the next bear. He knows there will always be scared investors even though history has shown that the market has recovered from every bear market.
The 4% rule is only a guideline affected by inflation, other sources of income, market action, age, etc.
Gabe
"The 4% rule is only a guideline affected by inflation, other sources of income, market action, age, etc." says the horse whisperer.
I agree gabe. Nobody is going to steadfastly adhere to a 4% rule in all kinds of weather.
If you had a really bad year in the market and you can get by on a smaller withdrawal, of course any thinking person will cut back.
It's a starting point that makes sense for most folks. To say that it's carved in stone and must be adhered to regardless is just plain irresponsible and dangerous.
Bluce said:
"I would suggest that the weak economy is, at least in part, caused by a parasitic government. Laws, regulations, paperwork, taxes, blah blah all suppress productivity."
After looking into this a little bit for data, I am shocked by the estimates just for the costs of regulation to the economy. The National Association of Manufacturers estimated last fall that the total cost in 2012 was in excess of $2 trillion.
The Code of Federal Regulations has exploded by over 200% since 1970, so it is entirely plausible that the costs in the past were proportionally much smaller than they are today, contributing significantly to higher stated rates of GDP growth in the past.
jm
Aren't the $2 trillion cost of regulation included as part of the GDP? Doesn't the GDP include the value of ALL goods and services?
It seems to me, whether you like it or not, that increasing regulation costs would itself contribute to a higher GDP growth rate, not lower.
Bidder: "It seems to me, whether you like it or not, that increasing regulation costs would itself contribute to a higher GDP growth rate, not lower."
That might make sense in isolation but if increased regulation costs result in reduced activity or productivity then the GDP growth rate would drop. Regulations have consequences as well as benefits.
I agree with tfb.
The costs of regulations are borne by the consumer in higher prices for the services and products that they affect.
Complying with regulations, like taxes, are another business expense. They get added, directly or indirectly to the final cost. This is just basic mathematics.
It has been estimated that the average new car costs around $5,000 more because of federal mandates.
Thank you for the tip on KABC radio re-broadcast of the show. Although, the website schedule doesn't show that change I will listen next Sunday.
My Portland, OR station KXL no longer has the full broadcast, cutting out the first hour to a local realtor infomercial...boring.
I have learned how to record the first hour from 1460AM & 101.1FM Monterey,CA on my CC Witness radio.
I thank Honeybee and contributors for their help and reflections on self-investing finance.
All time highs on the Dow and S&P!
Took some off the table.
Gabe
"The costs of regulations are borne by the consumer in higher prices for the services and products that they affect."
Again, like it or not, if regulations result in higher prices then the cost of those regulations and the higher prices themselves are reflected in a higher GDP number, not lower.
What I'm saying is there does not seem to be a way to easily say that GDP would be higher if not for government regulations. That's only an unsupported supposition.
Bidder said:
"It seems to me, whether you like it or not, that increasing regulation costs would itself contribute to a higher GDP growth rate, not lower."
I think that's right, but it's "wasted" spending at some point, depending on how well you prefer your meat, fish and poultry inspected, and on whether you would like one less worker's finger in your hot dog than is common in [insert country name here], or one more bottle of gin available on the shelf, as happened to me today, than otherwise would be the case if I didn't live in my highly liquor-regulated, union-labor state.
Also, many companies would prefer to avoid what regulation does to the bottom line, and so they relocate abroad to increase profits, which guts the economic base on which other businesses here depend on, reducing GDP.
jm
Bidder: All I'm saying is that regulations and corporate taxes raise prices artificially higher than they otherwise would be.
If someone likes paying higher prices, well then that's fine.
"Bidder: All I'm saying is that regulations and corporate taxes raise prices artificially higher than they otherwise would be."
....and labor unions, and liquor control....and the usual litany of conservative sophistry.
I personally don't mind paying a bit more for safety regulations, food and drug inspections and child labor laws.
It would also help if those tax dodging corporations paid at least more than ZERO in taxes.
Bidder: I can assure you that I'm not a conservative.
I personally don't mind paying a bit more for safety regulations, food and drug inspections and child labor laws.
It's too bad that so many contemporary Americans, like yourself, know nothing of the founding philosophies of this nation.
It would also help if those tax dodging corporations paid at least more than ZERO in taxes.
A tax on business just raises the price of their goods or services, as I stated before. The consumer pays the tax which is buried in the cost. From the business's point of view, a tax is just another expense. The money ends up in Washington; the business just becomes the tax collector.
This isn't like rocket science to figure out.
Bluce said:
"Bidder: I can assure you that I'm not a conservative."
That's what the aristocrats said as Bidder's Jacobin pals lead them off to the guillotine. You are already defeated Bluce.
jm
jm: LOL.
I am apolitical.
Would that 200% more Federal Regulations in the Code and trillions more in regulation costs since 1970 be because what used to have 10 regulations attached to it now has 30? Or is it because 45 years of innovation, new industries and new technology development (Internet, personal computers, smartphones, cable/satellite communications, et al) has produced the expected and unremarkable increase in regulations?
Both nominal and effective income and corporate tax rates have been slashed dramatically, first margins, top margins, everything in between, since those touted high-water mark GDP growth and dollar strength years of 1967-1971.
Ask mom and pop if the greatest threat to their establishing and successfully developing a viably competitive product or service and if they cite "regulations" over Wal-Mart, Google, Microsoft and all the other biggest fish in the pond easily capable of gobbling up any new upstart in a single lazy afternoon, then they probably haven't researched the marketability of their product or service very much.
It's too bad that so many contemporary Americans, like yourself, know nothing of the founding philosophies of this nation.
With that post Bluce has now elevated himself to demi-god status. Amen brother.
tfb
Market is zig zagging!
Gabe
"It's too bad that so many contemporary Americans, like yourself, know nothing of the founding philosophies of this nation."
The founders were also rich landowners who regarded black people as chattel. Women fared slightly better but still could not vote for a hundred years or more.
Illiteracy was common as was child labor abuse.
But we had no income tax and few regulations.
I SMELL POT.
jm
I think the notion that gov't regulations somehow boost GDP misses the mark. I think gov't regs are more related to productivity.
Thanks to A.D. for the link to this article:
National Security
U.S. indicts 6 Chinese citizens on charges of stealing trade secrets
The 10 year is steadily working its way up!
Gabe
YIKES!
Marketwatch: Ex-Fed Official Hike Rates Now or Risk a Tantrum
Some currencies may be topping out:
Marketwatch: BofA Says Euro is Nearing its Top
Interest rates recovered a bit!
Gabe
Just a footnote to StevieD's info on Marketimer airing on KABC-AM in Los Angeles. Last Sunday it was not on so I called KABC-AM today and they told me Marketimer is often pre-empted. When it is, it normally airs later - or even MUCH LATER than the listed time on the same evening.
I only get one hour broadcast of bob brinker on 790 radio and is there a station I can get the full 3 hours?? my time for brinker is 11pm and that is only one hour ..help////
Bartee.... Look in the right column on the front page. I have a link there that takes you to my updated list of radio stations where you can listen live online.
Regarding the 4% rule (i.e., generating an income stream in retirement): If I recollect correctly, hasn't Bob's advise also been simply to take dividends, interest and capital gains from one's portfolio as distributions rather than reinvesting them? As long as this gives you sufficient income your principal would stay the same although its buying power would be reduced by inflation.
Market Analysis.....A tired bull treading water!
Gabe
Bonds reversed today! Interesting!
Gabe
Thanks Honey for providing this Brinker summary.
I have not kept up with Bob for 10 years or so after retiring to Thaland.
I do have to give Bob credit for my early retirement.
Luckily I discovered Bob early on in my career and his advice really helped me in avoiding the Sharks.
6 years ago I sold my house in Pebble Beach and with Bobs excellent advice still in my head I have continued to benefit.
I agree with Hulbert that Bob has been the best in his field.
We await Ms. Yellen!
Gabe
Anonymous Bob Brinker fan....Thank you for your comments.
You say you have move to Thailand? Would you be willing to share more of your story with us?
Why would you make your critical mass (which allowed you to retire early) in the United States, and then move to Thailand?
Or is Thailand your home, but you just wanted to make your fortune in the US?
Pebble Beach is one of the most beautiful (and expensive) areas in the US and California. Did you enjoy living there?
"Of course, the outlook for the economy, as always, is highly uncertain. I am describing the outlook that I see as most likely, but based on many years of making economic projections, I can assure you that any specific projection I write down will turn out to be wrong, perhaps markedly so."
Janet Yellen (5/22/15)
This is just wonderful. Bob, are you listening?
Profit taking today. low volume.
Gabe
tfb said...
So, translated, you totally discounted market timing once you retired and decided to do exactly what Bob Brinker says not to do, and joined the church of buy&hold?.
Pretty smart guy to ignore Brinker's advice and pretty brave to admit it.
I'm pretty sure I would know how to spell the country that I chose to live in for the last 10 years, unless I was a charlatan posting a phony note. HTH
"In response to Cindy from Iowa who was paying to have her portfolio managed, Brinker made this statement: "I would question having a large percentage of a portfolio in a cash position."
That's a major criticism of Schwabs portfolio management program. They keep up to 20% of your portfolio in cash which they use in order to offer you a no fee deal.
To me that's a bogus deal breaker.
The 4% rule and the assessment of Brinker are two aged old enigmas!
Gabe
Yikes, NotThatBob....I looked up the meaning of the word that I thought was golf misspelled.
I am going to have to edit it out with regrets to TFB, even though I appreciate the joke.
Thanks Honey for providing this Brinker summary.
Yes the HottieBee provides mental stimulation for many, worldwide. Binkey in particular seems to have become infatuated and is known to spend considerable time at XXXX sites as a result and much to Mrs Binkey”s consternation.
I have not kept up with Bob for 10 years or so after retiring to Thaland.
So, translated, you totally discounted market timing once you retired and decided to do exactly what Bob Brinker says not to do, and joined the church of buy&hold?. That is very interesting given you also write:
I do have to give Bob credit for my early retirement.
So you credit him and then you ignore his advice. Apparently you did not take large portions of his advice? In fact, since you stopped listening you missed Bob’s shift from rather expensive managed funds into index funds. In that time frame Brinker had roughly 50% of his portfolio I & II in high expense ratio actively managed mutual funds. But now he shifted to almost all index funds, so you must still be holding those expensive actively managed funds.
I agree with Hulbert that Bob has been the best in his field.
What field would that be exactly, quackery, charlatanism, or maybe cryptozoology because you have as much chance of his market timing working as you have of finding the Loch Ness monster. Actually Bob is seems to be in the same field that Sylvia Browne was in, coning the gullible into believing that fantasy is reality while extracting dollars from the marks pockets. His does it in a very similar manner, throwing enough stuff out there, and then only calling attention to the hits and ignoring the misses. Da Brink totally missed the 2008 debacle, but now he just considers it statistical noise. Well maybe not for those who retired around that time based on his totally irresponsible comments about the 4% rule. Those folks would never see their portfolios recover because they had to draw down their assets before the recovery took place.
My two cents.
(One word (acronym) edited by Honeybee.)
Bob (not THAT Bob) said: "Count me as consternated."
Try prune juice.
Not That Bob requested that I delete his reply to tfb, so I did as he asked.
Bob (not that Boob) said to tfb:
"Yes the HottieBee provides mental stimulation for many, worldwide. Binkey in particular seems to have become infatuated and is known to spend considerable time at GILF sites as a result and much to Mrs Binkey”s consternation."
I wasn't familiar with the term used above, so I looked it up. Now I deeply regret that I did.
Count me as consternated.
---------------------
Why don't you delete it yourself you coward, instead of asking Honeybee to do it for you. You can do that in google you know.
You are going to the guillotine with Bluce.
jm
Honeybee,
OK, so you'll publish my point as your own but you won't publish my comment that proves you stole it from me. It isn't the first time you exercised freedom for thee, but not for me.
"Libertarians reject the idea when it gets too close to home."
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/libertarianisms-achilles-heel
Libertarians are just as hypocritical as anyone else, and sometimes just as disgusting.
jm
JM....I do not have a clue what you are talking about. Please at least be courteous enough to tell me what point you think I "published as my own" that was yours.
And accusing me of theft is way over the top and rude beyond belief!
I have never published anything intentionally that belonged to someone else without giving credit.
As for you r"libertarian" comment, again, I have not even typed that word for so long I can't remember doing it.
As for your cute "freedom for thee but not for me" comment. I don'[t recall ever rejecting ANYTHING you have sent to this blog.
I will expect to hear from you soon so we can clear this up.
JM....And another thing, I don't appreciate you calling NotThatBob names. Do not do call other posters names if you want your comments published.
Honeybee,
You didn't publish all of my comments in the thread last year about the asset allocation recommended by the Talmud vs. the Biblical text. No freedom of speech for me, there.
In re your theft, I alerted you to the ability of google users to trash their own comments before you posted same to Bob not that Bob, without crediting me.
You believe in freedom of speech only as far as it suits you. I get that. It's what editors do, but it's not libertarianism. It's called conservatism, which is what libertarians take for a slander.
jm
Honeybee said:
"Do not do call other posters names."
Oh, so suddenly you are a conservative. Well la di da. You let liberals like Bidder use derogatory language, but if I do it suddenly I'm a sinner. HAHAHAHA.
jm
JM....Last year? You say I didn't publish all of your comments about something I now remember nothing about? You have to be kidding? If it was getting into a Biblical debate, I may have not allowed that. It's out of place here. As I said, I don't remember it. If you want to send it again, I'll look it over.
It's also possible I missed it. I get a lot of stuff to handle here, and my FRIENDS will write me an email and ask about it if I miss something of theirs.
As for you jumping to the conclusion this: "In re your theft, I alerted you to the ability of google users to trash their own comments before you posted same to Bob not that Bob, without crediting me."
You are really sounding bizarre now. I never said anything about Google users. I thought EVERYONE could delete their comments. So if I stole your stuff, I sure botched it!
NotThatBob says he can't see the little garbage cans, so I assume he isn't a Google user.
But I simply don't know the answer -- but believe me, I DO NOT HAVE TO STEAL KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THIS BLOG FROM YOU OR ANYONE!
Now I have a summary to write!
JM...One more thing. I don't see a thing that Bidder wrote that was calling others names. Give me a quote.
No, I'm not kidding. I'm not jumping to conclusions, and it's not bizarre. I just have a better memory than you.
You are reverting to marginalizing language, the precursor to demonizing and destroying, the preferred technique of ideologues whether of the left or right.
jm
Bidder said:
"....and labor unions, and liquor control....and the usual litany of conservative sophistry."
To be called a sophist is a slur. Intelligent persons know that. He knows you are not, and got that one by you. That's why you fail in the end, because as your buddy Murray knew, it's not just about the ideas, it's about power. You have some, but don't know how to use it.
jm
JM...You are having a complete meltdown and for some strange reason, you taking it out on me.
The hilarious thing is that if you knew me at all, you would know that your conclusions are beyond ridiculous.
And the fact that I am publishing your attacks --and now you have insulted my intelligence, proves how utterly WRONG your accusations of censorship are....
Get a grip, man. I'm busy, there are people waiting for my summary to be posted, so if you send anymore of these attacks, Don't expect to see them -- at least tonight.
You didn't publish all of my comments in the thread last year about the asset allocation recommended by the Talmud vs. the Biblical text. No freedom of speech for me, there.
Do you still have this information. A long time ago I researched this and found much to like. Especially the Jewish books had lots of interesting bushiness acumen in them.
I believe I would delight in reading your comparison/research (was it the 1/3 in land/ 1/3 in industry and 1/3 in reserve or something else?)
Ever curious,
tfb
Honeybee said:
"and now you have insulted my intelligence"
If you were intelligent enough to publish Bidder's slur, then it was intentional also on your part, not just his.
Which means you are on the side of that commenter.
jm
JM...WRONG! Just because I publish someone's comments, does not mean a damn thing about my own opinions!
It means that I give all opinions a chance to be heard. Beating dead horses will cause me to call an end to a discussion, but that seldom happens.
Now you can apologize any time and regain the respect of most others that read and post on this blog.
No.
jm
to Hottiebees point, she does not agree with everything I say, but usually lets me say most of it...within parameters...usually if I bring up binky, the word sucking and some reference to barnyard animals she deletes the post...
Tfb.....LOL....Love your sense of humor. Yes, I have to censor words that might scare the horses. :)
Post a Comment