Sunday, November 5, 2017

November 5, 2017, Bob Brinker's Moneytalk: Stocks, Bonds, Economy and Investing

November 5, 2017....Bob Brinker was live on Moneytalk the first hour, the second hour was re-run calls, third hour guest Jeffrey Gundlach. .........(comments welcome)

STOCK MARKET....Blog comments earlier today right here:

KC said...

Just curious what everyone thought of the call,  about halfway through the first hour from the caller asking about paying $500,000 for the building of his new home. He started to ask Bob about how to withdraw the construction fees from his investment account. When the caller mentioned a reference to something in the November newsletter, Bob quickly jumped in and cut the caller off with a generic answer and waiting until the start of 2018 to defer the capital gains taxes. Any ideas on what the caller was going to reference in the November newsletter that Bob did not want disclosed over the air?


Honey here: Brinker did indeed interrupt the caller, Bob in PA.   Brinker said that there was nothing in the November Marketimer that would give any reason to be worried about the stock market.   He replied that since the caller had "already spent" his money, he should go ahead and raise the cash - being sure to consider the taxes, as you pointed out.  I have read the latest issue of Marketimer,  and I agree with Brinker - nothing there to worry about. 


BOND MARKET....(This was a rerun call from April 5, 2015 that BB played in the second hour - excepts from my summary on that date:)

Connie from Kansas City called with a couple questions. She and her husband are 60, plan to work to age 70 and have a cool million in equities. Bob advised a 60/40 or 65/35 allocation, stocks/bonds and pointed Connie toward the Income Portfolio on page 7. A listener with access to the newsletter could better follow this call as Bob jumped back and forth between the Income Portfolio and another one of his (numbered) portfolios that contains bond funds.

Interestingly, Bob said that “we’ve solved the bond market problem…” referring to the page 7 portfolio yielding 3%. Connie said she’s signed up for Bob’s alerts. Her next topic: the business they own has its 401K plan with a company other than Vanguard and she asked about switching to save money. Bob helped her with the math: if they have $2 million in this plan and Vanguard charges 18 basis points and the current firm charges 36 bp, then she’ll save $3600 per year.

Honey EC: Brinker's answers to Connie were very important in that Brinker claimed the risk has been taken out of his bond fund holdings. That is not so because he has added funds with large holdings in  high-yield (junk bonds).  Marketimer has three bond funds in the balanced model portfolio III,  and in his "off-the-books" income portfolio (MWCRX, OSTIX, DLSNX).

JUST RELEASED TAX-REFORM PROPOSALS..... The first hour of Moneytalk was devoted almost exclusively to the new tax reform proposal that was announced by Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, this week. Since we all know that there is a ton of water that will go under the bridge before any of it becomes actual law, I won't waste my time or yours covering the callers' complaints.

BB's LIKES AND DISLIKES OF THE TAX PROPOSAL.....Brinker opined that Paul Ryan should not call the House tax proposals a "middle-class tax cut" because most of the benefits go to corporations.  Brinker said he likes: The corporate tax cuts  (clearly good for business) Brinker does not like the repeal of the death (estate) tax - says it only benefits rich people.

Honey EC: The people who are hurt the most by the death tax are farmers. Truly rich people will easily find ways to pass on their money without paying much tax, but small and mid-size family farms are often lost because the heirs cannot raise enough cash to pay the exorbitant taxes. 

MARK FROM ARIZONA CALL IS  JUST AS MUCH FUN THE SECOND TIME AROUND....(This re-run call was from April 5, 2015 - excerpts from my summary.)

A TREAT FOR ALL FROM DRAHME: audio clip of Mark from Arizona 
(we didn't have this the first time around - ENJOY!)

* Mark from Arizona was one of the most interesting calls in the history of Moneytalk. He met his future wife on an online Christian dating service. They will marry in a few months and she will inherit around $70,000.000. He told Bob that the money was invested in natural resources. Bob told him to look at the fees that are being charged.

Honey EC: What this caller said was either a late April Fool's joke on Brinker or he was about to become shark bait. Brinker played him along by asking if he had known about this money coming to his "future wife" BEFORE he decided to marry her. He said he didn't know about it, that her deceased father's attorney had contacted him after they decided to marry, and told him that her father set it up so that she couldn't touch the $70 million until she married. And then.....yep....wait for it....Then the new husband would be given control of it. ROFLOL!

* Dave from Alabama said he was enjoying todays show. He wanted to know the number for the Christian dating service that Mark was using. He noted the possibility that Mark was being scammed. Bob said if he was ask to wire money so he could get the inheritance he should watch out.

THANKS TO DRAHME: audio clip...the week ahead


FRANKJ'S MONEYTALK GUEST SUMMARY


Bob’s third hour guest on this first Sunday of November 2017 was Jeffrey Gundlach.  Mr. Gundlach is the CEO of the Doubleline family of mutual funds which he started in 2009 after leaving the TCW family of funds.  Bob has spoken highly off JG in the past and has Doubleline’s Low Duration Bond fund (DLSNX) in his income portfolio and his model III portfolio.   You can read more about Mr. Gundlach here: 
Bob must have been beaming behind the microphone when Mr. Gundlach told Bob he’s been a listener since 1986.   (He would have been 27 years old). 
The coming transition at the Federal Reserve:  JG thinks Jerome Powell is a centrist and will follow through with the planned interest rate increases.  Mr. Powell is not a classically trained economist though, he is more of a pragmatist.   The Fed has indicated 3 raises in 2018, while “the market” thinks there may only be one raise. 
William Dudley who represents the New York Federal Reserve bank is close to announcing his retirement so the shape of the Fed could change more with his replacement. 
The guest echoed the sentiments of other, recent guests regarding the Fed’s diligence at telegraphing their plans.  He referenced Ben Bernanke’s unfortunate reference that led to the taper tantrum in 2013.  This Fed is doing a better job at carrying out a “no surprises” approach. 
There was the usual talk about GDP and 10 year Treasury rates.  JG said that the 10 year rate often moves close to what the GDP is.  Interesting.
It takes population growth and productivity growth to increase GDP.    This is a topic we’ve heard often enough with guests – readers better assume it will be on the final exam.  The guest said he sees GDP only at 3% on the high end.  He said those predicting higher numbers might be mathematically challenged.  We are only looking at 0.7% population growth and 0.7% productivity growth.  Those numbers aren’t enough to get us to 4% GDP.   Again, he echoed what other guests have said about measuring productivity – it is hard to do with the amount of automation in factories. 
Other countries:  Russia is looking at a projected fall off in population.  China had a lot of population growth but they “fixed” that with their one-child policy which slowed down their growth.  India’s labor force is going to explode and he sees this as a positive.  He recommended the INDA ETF as a long term holding. 
Junk bonds:  They are not signaling a recession right now.  When their yields depart widely from treasury bonds however, watch out.  Hew  He HHh    If you own any “bank loan” type mutual funds you might want to take note:   Loans are being issued to borrowers without covenants.  Issuing WITH covenants used to be the way things were done … having these in place protects investors in these funds.  Now, it is thought that placing covenants on a borrower means the borrower is too risky and there must be something wrong.   Read your prospectus.
Is the Fed creating inflation?  That was the question from Carl, a repeat caller listening to WLS in Chicago.   By alluding to 3 rate hikes in 2018, is the Fed inadvertently creating inflation?  Mr. Gundlach said, as much as they would like to have some inflation, no, he did not think enough people even knew what the Fed was, much less would act on what they thought the Fed might do.
Mike in Vallejo, CA threw a hanging curve ball to the guest.  “Is this a good time to invest in a bond fund?”   Of course Mr. Gundlach, a fixed income expert said “you might want to invest in a low duration fund of 2-4 years.”   Bob stayed silent which might have been difficult since he’s been pounding the table on short duration funds for quite a while and Mr. Gundlach’s Low Duration bond fund is in Bob’s stable of funds, as mentioned above.
The House GOP’s proposed tax package:  First of all, the guest does not think it will pass as written.   He didn’t like the fact that it did not do away with the “carried interest” provision that allows the hedge fund operators to pay capital gains tax rates on their earnings, versus ordinary income rates.   He said the package is bad for top wage earners and said his taxes in California are going to go up.  It is very good for the heirs of the wealthy. 
Was it live or is this Memorex?  Remember those old TV ads?  The consensus seems to be that the second hour was pre-recorded.  This third hour sounded like the usual, live third hours.  
Radio Station 
710KNUS Denver
WNTK
KKOB770



128 comments:

m said...

That's just what Trump said Bob, 401Ks would
not be messed with.

Honeybee said...

Dear Mr. Brinker....I hate to think that you are lying, so I am going to say that you may be getting past the time when you should be doing the show.

The announcement came out DURING MONEYTALK last week and I posted it right on this blog while the show was in progress that congress would not be changed the 401K.


So for you now to give Moneytalk listeners a big line of bull about changing their minds is just shyster garbage and embarrassing!

Honeybee said...

.
That's right m....President Trump had put knowledgeable people at ease when he Tweeted that he would not allow the 401Ks to be touched - long before Brinker's jawboning.

Anonymous said...

I think Bob did all that hyperventilating last week, assuming he could "take credit " for the outcome this week.
Give me a break Bob! It was a lay up. I guess these days a slam dunk.

Pavlov's Cat

MikeE said...

That post by "m" should have read "MikeE"

Honeybee said...

.
Here is only one of the posts I made during the program last week. Note that the time is in the first two hours of Moneytalk PDT:


Honeybee said...
.
Fox News just sent a bulletin totally disputing what Bob Brinker has ranted about through the whole program. WHAT A COMPLETE WASTE OF EVERYONE'S TIME:

Americans 401Ks Will be Safe GOP Leaders Set Record Straight
October 29, 2017 at 2:58 PM

Jim said...

I guess Brinker learned (perhaps from this blog)that he wasn't up to date on 401K legislation going into last weeks program so now he's making stuff up to cover his you know what.

MikeE said...

I do not believe there will be a tax reform bill passed, just like there was no un-afordable care act repeal passed.

Fritz Zener said...

Mr Brinker takes credit for Congress changing the 401K tax proposal.

Mr Brinker takes credit for the bull market in stocks.

Mr Brinker takes credit for people reaching critical mass.

Mr Brinker is superman!

Honeybee said...

.
At the beginning of the second hour, Brinker is no longer live on air.

The show has become reruns. Very confusing because he is supposed to have Gundlach the last hour.

House Doc said...

He probably PRE-RECORDED the interview. HA

Honeybee said...

.
I'm certain now that he has not been live on air this second hour.

Sure hope all is well.

Frankj and I are standing by to see what happens the third hour.

MikeE said...

I am certain also as the call on right now, I remember it. About the marriage and the bride getting a large amount of funds, around $70 million

frankj said...

Call of Fame: 2nd hour, 38 minutes in. $70 million coming to a gal when she gets married -- fiancé calling.

Honeybee said...

.
Oh my goodness...This caller Mark from Arizona, the man who is marrying a younger woman who comes into a $70 million inheritance when she gets married. He said her father's attorney contacted him after they got engaged.

LOL! Anyone remember how far back this one was?

Bob (not THAT Bob) said...

Honeybee said:
"So for you (THAT Bob) now to give Moneytalk listeners a big line of bull about changing their minds is just shyster garbage and embarrassing!"

------

Honeybee,

You Go Girl!!!

KC said...

Just curious what everyone thought of the call about halfway through the first hour from the caller asking about paying $500,000 for the building of his new home. He started to ask Bob about how to withdraw the construction fees from his investment account. When the caller mentioned a reference to something in the November newsletter, Bob quickly jumped in and cut the caller off with a generic answer and waiting until the start of 2018 to defer the capital gains taxes. Any ideas on what the caller was going to reference in the November newsletter that Bob did not want disclosed over the air?

tom said...

This must be a whole show segment he is replaying as the next caller is talking about it.

tom said...

So, this may be a scam. Huh.

MikeE said...

Now they are making fun of Mark from Arizona, shame, shame.

Warden Gordon Borden said...

He keeps saying it's a mating service and not a dating service.

Anonymous said...

April 2015

tom said...

Lol, what's a mating service? Sounds like something Jane Goodall would be spokesperson for, lol.

Honeybee said...

.
Heeeee's baaaaack! I think. We'll see if we get phone number when the guest appears.

MikeE said...

He's baaaaaack.

Unknown said...

Thanks BB for replaying that callers' call who will be entering into the 70 million windfall from being a lucky member of a Christian dating site – an all-time favorite Golden Oldie!

All I could say is… all together now!

Oh lord won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz.
My friends all drive porsches, I must make amends.
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends.
So oh lord won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz

Oh lord won't you buy me a color TV.
Dialing for dollars is trying to find me.
I wait for delivery each day until 3.
So oh lord won't you buy me a color TV.

Oh lord won't you buy me a night on the town.
I'm counting on you lord, please don't let me down.
Prove that you love me and buy the next round.
Oh lord won't you buy me a night on the town.

Oh lord won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz
My friends all drive porsches, I must make amends.
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends.
So oh lord won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz -- Janis Joplin

tom said...

Yeah, live again. Is Bob running replays like disc jockeys played InAGadaVida ( -ie- smoke or bathroom break)?

Honeybee said...

.
MikeE...I'm not positive that this isn't recorded. We'll see if he gives out numbers.

HouseDoc may be right - gundlach may have been pre-recorded.

No worries....Frankj's on it....

Honeybee said...

.
Thank you to anonymous for that date.

I'm going to re-post the calls. He also played Connie from Kansas City - an interesting call.

Jim said...

Did Brinker actually interview Gundlach during the second hour? Is that why we had reruns? Maybe Gundlach could not do the interview during the third hour. I don't think Brinker will take any call for Gundlach.

Honeybee said...

.
I did not think of that Jim. Perhaps that is what happened.

It's just too darn bad that Brinker isn't inclined to be honest.

How doggone hard would that be?

He is definitely not on live the third hour with Gundlach - no calls at all....

Honeybee said...

.
Fascinating! They never gave out the phone number. Hmmmmmm......

Wish someone here would try to call....1-800 934 2221.

tom said...

They are talking about bonds. Personally, the way the market has gone up I am thinking that I should take some money off the table and buy some short-term bond funds and buy back into the market on dips.

Warden Gordon Borden said...

Gundlach was quite bullish on the India etf inda.

dRahme said...

I remember that one - from your April 2015 Blog!

* Mark from Arizona was one of the most interesting calls in the history of Moneytalk. He met his future wife on an online Christian dating service. They will marry in a few months and she will inherit around $70,000.000. He told Bob that the money was invested in natural resources. Bob told him to look at the fees that are being charged.

Honey EC: What this caller said was either a late April Fool's joke on Brinker or he was about to become shark bait. Brinker played him along by asking if he had known about this money coming to his "future wife" BEFORE he decided to marry her. He said he didn't know about it, that her deceased father's attorney had contacted him after they decided to marry, and told him that her father set it up so that she couldn't touch the $70 million until she married. And then.....yep....wait for it....Then the new husband would be given control of it. ROFLOL!

Anonymous said...

that was a great show !!!!

Jerrod Clarkson said...

Honeybee quoted:

"He said he didn't know about it, that her deceased father's attorney had contacted him after they decided to marry, and told him that her father set it up so that she couldn't touch the $70 million until she married. And then.....yep....wait for it....Then the new husband would be given control of it. ROFLOL!"


Honeybee,

That is really weird.

I wonder if her late father's attorney "practices" in India? Also, did this "communique" come via an email from India?

JC

Anonymous said...

that's so funny about that guy marrying into 70 mil. i must have met her sister on line too she just needs 20tho to go through probate i'm gonna send it to her on the 5th of never .. and it's even better i'm 70 and she is just turning 28 gotta go get some vigara and blood pressure meds i'm all sexed up and i know i'm gonna get screwed one way or the other

burt said...

House Doc, you said, "PRE-recorded." Isn't anything recorded, PRE? You can't POST RECORD anything can you?
Maybe the reason the second hour was not live was Bob had to go to loo to get rid of all the crap he espouses?

Biker said...

No disrespect intended to Mark from Arizona, who sounds very sincere. But I just can't help but replay this funny video while waiting for Honey's summary to be completed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcUDqKsBgsk

Trace Adkins - Marry For Money

frankj said...

The Nigerian Scam -- transplanted to Arizona.

Anonymous said...

Why in the world would Brinker's producers or Brinker himself re-run that embarrassing Mark from Arizona call?

The call was clearly an outlier on the reality scale, with BB's dumbfounded mumblings almost stoking the laughter fire. If ol' Bob is so defensive about his reputation, then why regurgitate that call?

The play caller on the Money Talk Radio Show production staff needs some guidance. It hurts to hear a once venerable and venerated weekly touchstone go down in Hindenburg-like flames.

On the other hand, he might be combatting flagging listenership with purely ridiculous entertainment. TV does it all the time.
Jim, Newport RI

gabe said...

Medical and dental deductions was eliminated from the proposal. This is a "biggie".


Gabe

Jim said...

A few random thoughts:
If caller Bob was worried about the stock market after reading the November Marketimer it could be because Brinker mentions the the mid-term election year corrections. Maybe caller Bob was worried about losing as much as 15-20% to one of these corrections.

Gundlach's take on bond funds seems a bit different than Bob's. I don't think Gundlach was quite as bullish on junk bonds as Brinker. Also Gundlach thinks a duration of 2-4 years is OK. In fact, Gundlach's bread and butter fund (the Total Return Fund) currently has a duration of 3.75 which falls within that range. Meanwhile Brinker thinks that's too long and only has a duration of 1.5.

Brinker thinks getting rid of the death tax is a mistake. Did Brinker always feel that way? I'm thinking long ago, maybe 10 years ago. Maybe I have Brinker confused with another financial program but I heard a host of some program once say that they think it's pretty heartless for the government to tax someone when a person dies.

Brinker acts like the tax proposal does not help the middle class. In my situation I come out ahead. My Federal tax goes from 15% to 12% and since I always take the standard deduction I benefit from that as well.

Anonymous said...

Bob used to give good advice in the 80-90's. I actually learned a lot from him then. But now he comes across as an angry liberal huckster clown selling a news letter.

Anonymous said...

Other than Super Bowl Sundays, or when he has phone difficulty, does anyone ever recall MT being live for only one hour?

Steve from Harrisburg

Trees said...

I did read from my investment letter (yes I'm monthly subscriber for now) the comment of intermediate treasury bonds beat short term even in time of rising interest rates. Such as IEF. It looks like close to 3% returns currently. May that have been BB solution to keep low risk and improve to 3%? To not take his short term advice. Honey, posted he is into more junk for additional return. That would be a more risk move, I'm guessing.

I did notice Wellesley has intermediate bonds as well. I was thinking at that time who was in error. BB or Vanguard?

The investment strategy that I will use for 30% of investment portion is the simple 2 TAA system that index funds fully invested in market. Exit only when the Quant analysis flags a high risk or coming recession or large correction. I do like that unlike most "free" newsletters, there is no hype only analysis. In easier to read format. Even at that I have to read a couple times for learning. The financial community is wrought with hype and news buzz that is mostly worthless. This process will cut to the fundamentals that have proven worthy over time. It does talk of weaknesses, such as the SPY buy and hold would have beaten this system given the tremendous long term gain. But, hopefully after a correction or crash that will not be the case. Since the 30% I'm playing with is already out of the market gaining nothing, this seems to be a good choice methodology to invest. This system will provide some insurance upon purchases with high price tag and lower expected returns. The info will be used for a 401k and HSA account as well. The problem is I could invest in a couple years of subscriptions before gaining important actionable moves. Or maybe tomorrow given the news we may have to go alone against North Korea and the Republicans valiant effort to quietly introduce controversial legislation. Meaning they could have greatly simplified the tax code reform and achieved 90%. I'm thinking this side has plenty of saboteurs that won't sign off until gumming up the progress. Interesting discussion with Steve Forbes that is quietly shaking his head. So, regulation reform going good, political process not so good. NK, not so good and the talk of President for one term only? One can see a strident change in policy if the weather problems increase and mass murders motivate public to put someone in charge for Obama II. The public is only treated to hysteria and anger with this Administration, so the public may want good weather and no mass killings and some more of the promises of easy living per government wealth creation. I do think political winds have a huge impact on markets. We know this to be true. The public would once again enjoy good vibes if this were to happen. We have many forces in the mix and unknow ground to cover. This time it may be different, but these factors do impact the financial indicators. Meaning we need not overthink, just pay attention to stats.

Chris in ATL said...

"Mark from Arizona" was an April Fool's prank.

Anyone remember the time Bob opened a 4/1 show by welcoming listeners to the "final broadcast" of Moneytalk? I think he waited until the second hour to reveal it was an April Fool's joke.

tfb said...

Honey EC: The people who are hurt the most by the death tax are farmers. Truly rich people will easily find ways to pass on their money without paying much tax, but small and mid-size family farms are often lost because the heirs cannot raise enough cash to pay the exorbitant taxes.

It depends on how you view hurt. Farmers are not hurt any more than any other small business owner with equipment or real estate. Very often the children of farmers do not want to go in the family business. Often small farms are a part-time endeavor for the farmer and often there is more than one heir. What those factors mean is it is difficult to get a loan to cover the taxes because there is not enough income coming in from a tenant farmer to cover the interest and the children often disagree on the disposition of the property. The easiest decision for the heir(s) of farmland is to simply get a tenant farmer who covers the annual property taxes and sit on the property awaiting further appreciation.

The family farm thing is simply propaganda. The Democrats always talk about "for the children" to get what they want and republicans use "the family farm" as their favorite heart tug to get their way. The plight of the small family farm is no different than the plight of the McDonalds or Dunkin Donuts franchisee (actually they have it far, far harder for a myriad of reasons).

The estate tax exemption is 11 million for a couple or 5.54 million for an individual so only those with large tracks of land or highly valued tracts are likely to encounter it. Take a look at a real estate site that deal with farm land (such as www.landandfarm.com/) and see how much land we are talking about. The reason the family farm disappears is when that land comes up for sale it is often bought by a larger corporate farming concern if it is viable fro farming verses development. So the land tends to stay in agriculture and the heirs do obtain the full value of the land less taxes on the amount above the exemption. The farmers who tend to squawk about this tax are not only obviously well heeled but tend to have land that is priced for development and no longer would be viable as a farm operation in the first place. Once again, I don't see how farmers are any more oppressed by this tax verses any other type of small business.

Something worth looking at is the shift in who owns small farms. Many of the so called small farms are owned by the very wealthy who have taken to gentlemen farming as a way to store wealth in an appreciating diversified asset with tax benefits.

Now if there should be an estate tax at all is another conversation entirely. But this "family farm" refrain is just a bit of market tested message hyperbole that plays well on main street.

Once again if you kick the tires on the "family farm" issue, it doesn't pass the smell test. This is marketing hype. The real discussion is if there should be an estate tax in the first place. Farmers are no more disadvantaged by this tax than any other small business person.

tfb

House Doc said...

Burt, I have viewed and listened to hundreds of show that announce either the preceding show or the show just viewed or listened to was pre recorded. It is an industry term. I do find it interesting that you chose to call me out on my terminology vs the fact BB runs a show that only a few can tell is a rerun presented as a live, new show. Best wishes to all. No harm intended.

Biker said...

Out of curiosity I checked the current holdings in the Doubleline Low Duration Bond Fund recommended by BB. While Jeffrey Gundlach runs Doubleline, he is not listed as one of the managers of this fund.

~80% investment grade bonds
~60% US, ~20% Cayman Islands, ~20% other foreign
Duration 1.35 yr
Yield 2.29% (DLSNX), 2.54% (DBLSX)
Expense Ratio 0.70% (DLSNX), 0.45% (DBLSX)

I am surprised by the high quality (not much junk) and foreign holdings. But it looks like the Cayman Islands Dollar value is tied to the USD, so there appears to be minimal currency risk due to the holdings there.

BB's current bond fund picking criteria seems to be to find funds with short durations and yields noticeably higher than the duration. Vanguard doesn't seem to have any short duration funds that meet the criteria.

Jeffrey Gundlach's Doubleline Total Return Bond Fund (DLTNX, DBLTX) duration has stretched out to 3.84 years, and no longer meets either of BB's criterion.

Honeybee said...

.
A reminder that if you want to join in the conversation, please establish a handle, or simply sign them, so that we can get to know you.

I mostly do not publish those that simply arrive from "anonymous."

frankj said...

Ditto to tfb's comments about the family farm. It has become shorthand for politicians when what they mean is an estate with largely illiquid assets. Such an estate could include farmland or any other illiquid asset.

Some years ago when no one knew what Congress might do about the estate tax, some financial advisors pushed Irrevocable Life Insurance Trusts (ILITs). These would provide a death benefit that would not be considered part of the deceased's estate. The idea was the death benefit would pay the taxes owed on the estate.

Congress ended up raising the estate exemption.

BTW: tfb, if you still have my e-mail would you contact me? I have an question that is in your wheelhouse. Thanks.

birdbrain said...

Before too much time and energy is expended combing through the House tax bill, which is currently being debated, let's see what it looks like after the Senate modifies, adds, removes certain parts of the plan. With the Senate having more budget restraints than the lower chamber, the final product may be measurably different to what is currently reported.

One result I've been following is, assuming the bill passes both chambers and signed into law by year end, if it will be retroactive to Jan 2017. The longer this process plays out the less likely Americans will reap any benefits this year.

Honeybee said...

.
That has been my opinion ever since Brinker starting using it to fill up two hours of Moneytalk!

I've tried to avoid his pontificating about what he knows so little about - as do we all.

Last I heard, but cannot confirm it as true - the bill was not going to be retroactive.

But as we both just said, no one knows what will pass the Senate. And I suppose it is remotely possible that if they put something in or leave something out that President Trump strongly objects to, he will not sign it.

I think all the talking heads assume he will sign anything. I don't believe that....

Honeybee said...

.
Post above directed at Birdbrain.

Biker said...

Honeybee said:
"Last I heard, but cannot confirm it as true - the bill was not going to be retroactive."

That is correct and you can confirm for yourself here:

http://3hm75d2ak36959oew3zvzim1.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Tax-Cuts-And-Jobs-Act.pdf

(Summary of the key points from the Ways and Means Committee.)

Jerrod Clarkson said...

Honeybee,

It appears that our dearest friend Bacon Boy is having a wonderful vacation in France, (specifically at Le Chateau de la Roche, in France’s Loire Valley).

https://goo.gl/TiqkLo

JC

gabe said...

Market is fluctuating today. More than likely. awaiting more information on tax policy.

Gabe

Honeybee said...

.
Yep, Jerrod....That's our Bacon Boy living high on the hog! :)

Billy said...

If Congress repeals the Estate tax, what happens to "Step-up"? I believe far more people will be affected by this than than those with 10+ million.

Has anyone heard about this?

gabe said...

If there are minimal changes in the tax bill or no changes (doubtful), corporations will highly benefit. Corporations are flush with cash most especially large ones. And so, corporations will place a low priority on creating jobs but will pass of this windfall to its investors in the form of dividends and buy backs. I am pleased at that possibility!


Gabe

Honeybee said...

.
Billy, I'm sure that it remains as is.

gabe said...

The Russell closed off by 1.26%. Not good! The Russell is viewed by many as a proxy for the tax bill's passage. So...hold on to your hats!


Gabe

MikeE said...

There will be no Tax Bill passage. It will be voted down. The clowns in Washington can not agree on anything. If a Republican wants something it will be voted down by the Dems and if the Dems want something it will be voted down by the Repubs.

Honeybee said...

.
Your opinions, MikeE.

MikeE said...

Is it alright for me to state my opinions are should I not do that?

Anonymous said...

MikeE,
HB did not tell you to shut up. She simply said it's your opinion.

Pavlov's Cat

the ever adorable: tfb said...

Frankj,

The fluffy one will have to pass his e-mail to the HottieBee. My e-mail provider of 15 years disappeared overnight.

I suggest everyone go to this url and read what is written there and reflect on how you would react to seeing it. This can happen to others.

www.muchomail.com

This is not a case where my e-mail provider went out of business, it is a case where their business infrastructure was abruptly terminated on them.

I lost all my e-mail contacts, treasured e-mails, the file system, everything. 15 full year of Internet based correspondence etc, all gone in a heartbeat.

So it is something so ponder in terms of back-ups etc.

Regards…

Jim said...

MikeE,
Whatever the Democrats think about anything should be irrelevant right now since the Republicans have the majority. The question is whether the Establishment Republicans want to help move Trump's agenda forward or continue to obstruct him.

Honeybee said...

.
TFB....

I am so sorry to hear about that incredible loss of emails. I never gave a thought to backing up emails. Maybe I will re-think and at least find a way to back up all of my contacts.

I did a search of my email and found communication between you and me going back to 2011, when you were doing some ancestral research. There had been some photos attached but they did not remain in my reply back to you, unfortunately.

The latest one I found was in February 2016.

It is good to know that you are okay.

If you want to email me and don't have my private address anymore, this is the one I use on this blog: honeybee.roses@gmail.com

Honeybee said...

.
Fluffy...Reading through some the emails. Gulp....LOL! :)

Trees said...

The most important part of tax bill is lowering corp tax. If you dig into the crazy U.S. corp tax rate and the damage that has done to the country, well let's just say it is about the dumbest thing we could have done. Even BB is on record saying this aspect of tax bill is very much needed. The $2 trillion that would come to our shores would be a big bump into our GNP. This money will make it's way through the financial system at every level. No one sector will win it all. This is why it is calculated that a large portion advantages wage growth. Sure stocks prices will go north. It is humorous on how the public influences tax law per biases. Churches do good vs evil corps that make profit. If you are desperate you could get free lunch at the church, but if you want to make a living where you going to go?

I was thinking of returns on S&P 500 buy and hold strategy that Bogel touts. First we have been through the two largest drawdowns in my lifetime, '01 & '08. If you screwed up investments during these periods you had the potential of great harm to portfolio. Hope you kept true to course with no panic. Did the 60/40 investors do better?

S&P 500- 5 year return 14.6%
60/40- 5 year return 9.5%

S&P 500- 10 year return 6.9%
60/40- 10 year return 7.0%

Well, this isn't surprising given the drawdown of '08 recession. The 20 year stats about the same with both approaches equal in returns. So, the 60/40 achieves only less volatility or less draw down in bad times. A good thing. But, what is the logic to always have 40% bonds? Meaning if in a recession why hang onto bonds if the stock market got waylaid? Is't bonds analogous to cash? Wouldn't the investor attempt to wring in spending within recessionary times? We can flex our spending and even go back to work or sell off some assets. So, it would help your investments when in retirement and within recessionary times, to keep stocks and spend bonds and to minimize your spending. It should be smart to even sell bonds and buy more stock. I never hear this advice. The financial advice seems to be always rebalance to 60/40 no matter, as we need to take all thinking out of the equation as there might be risk in decision making. I would counter to use an analysis tool or decision making guide to facilitate better and timely investment change. Maybe to utilize unemployment rate, Dow Jones averages, or S&P daily averages for action point to put more in bonds or more into stocks. It could be a dead simple stat that accomplishes a rough gauge to transition.

Trees said...

I was thinking of my two sets of parents from our family tree and how they succeeded and handled retirement finances. It's funny, but my Dad had equivalent money as myself at retirement. As a grade school child I remember he had $100K in bank and just bought a great new Ford Galaxy 500 for $3,000. So, I updated the inflation with current price of mid level Ford and was surprised. Also, his Social Security is the same after inflation except he took his earlier than I expect to. The big difference is my wife had decent income to almost double our benefits. My Mom was a stay at home person.

So, my Dad achieved retirement funds via stocks. My FIL through real estate. The real estate path offers impressive or attractive living standard and enjoyment. The stock path not so much. Real estate is not flexible and demands constant capital stream with harsh consequences if unable to meet the requirements. Not so with stock market holdings.

What went wrong? Father kept stock market investing and doubled his competence within the field. He ignored professional advice and made a very risky investment in high tech company. That loss did hurt his happiness factor. My FIL had a loss of managment job late in life that almost cost him his expensive lake house. He had to sell early and quickly invested in two condo's. Also, he attempted stock market investment with poor results. Only invested in CD's after that.

So, the lesson I've learned is to minimize financial risk, but still invest in quality return instruments or funds. Minimal risk is a loser as high risk. Pay off everything to increase floatation. Avoid leverage and speculation. Do not overbuy on housing or real estate. Income property holdings is a good thing, if you have personal capability and a good track record. I would not do a start up. Also, from these two families history, I will say to not delay enjoying life. Maximize your enjoyment now as that usually doesn't cost much. Illness will strike and probably sooner than what you planned. If one spouse gets sick, the fun usually ends. Also, to plan ahead with go slow to no go years. Where would you enjoy living the simple slow lifestyle. Medical resources/cost, weather, and support family? Make it easy for support family and attractive for their visits.

MikeE said...

Thanks Cat, I think I will just keep my opinions to myself in the future. Anyway, I never received a reply from Honey, only from you and Jim.

Honeybee said...

.
MikeE....Perhaps you don't realize that the moderator (me) alone decides what gets published here.

So if you see your comments, they passed muster.

However, if I want to make a point about them, that is my prerogative.

Biker said...

Trees said:
"But, what is the logic to always have 40% bonds? Meaning if in a recession why hang onto bonds if the stock market got waylaid? Is't bonds analogous to cash? ... It should be smart to even sell bonds and buy more stock. I never hear this advice."

If you reread the quote from Bogle regarding Tactical Asset Allocation that I posted in last weeks comments, that is exactly what he did say. He endorsed a small amount of TAA based on stock valuation (e.g., Shiller CAPE). For example, a 50/50 investor might gradually underweight to 40/60 in 1999-2000, and gradually overweight to 60/40 in 2002-2003. A few gradual moves per decade at most. (Not a dozen trades a year.) One can never know when is the right time and sometimes you will be early and sometimes too late. But might add slight improvement to portfolio returns over time compared to strict 50/50 buy and hold. Only for those who are comfortable enough to sleep at night with such shifts in stock allocations.

MikeE said...

That is what I thought, I just did not understand your original comment. I took it to mean you didn't like for me to post my opinions, that is why I questioned your comment. So personal opinions are alright to post, correct?

Honeybee said...

.
MikeE...I have tried to be very clear about discussions about the tax reform bill - documented facts are preferred.

I do not want to turn this into a political spitting match here.

I obviously give a little leeway, but I am not going to open this blog up to all "opinions" about it - we all have them.





Honeybee said...

.
Great news for all investors. From Marketwatch:

Dow’s 1-year gain since Trump’s win is its biggest post-Election Day rise since 1945
Blue-chip stock gauge has climbed 28.50% in 12 months, just shy of its 29.83% gain after FDR won a fourth term

Jerrod Clarkson said...

Schwab article on proposed tax changes. Enjoy!

House Tax Reform Bill: What Investors Need to Know

https://goo.gl/jhocZW

JC

MikeE said...

Very good, Honey, I understand.

gabe said...

WSJ reported today that President Trump advised a Democratic committee meeting yesterday that they would like the Senate's version over the House version on the Tax Bill. Supposedly.it included deductions excluded by the House such as medical and state and sales taxes. So.......hang onto your hats and await tomorrow.

Two horses going this weekend.

Gabe

Anonymous said...

Dow’s 1-year gain since Trump’s win is its biggest post-Election Day rise since 1945
Blue-chip stock gauge has climbed 28.50% in 12 months, just shy of its 29.83% gain after FDR won a fourth term

LOL, Market Watch should know better tying stock market performance to Presidential occupancy. It makes no sense. Art Cashin gives Trump a generous IMO 1/4 credit for the stock rise. World Markets up as much and more = global expansion, interest rates still low, earnings amazing.


smile

Anonymous said...

THIS JUST IN, circa a few days ago, BobBrinker.com no longer offers a free stock price lookup on it's home page.

What a shame. Loved to check my individual holdings there, especially when using an unsecure wifi at the local donut shop.

Everyone loves plug-n-play, but now it's pay-to-play. Must be the maturing of that wild and crazy internet.
Mr. Debits

Trees said...

Yes, I did read Biker's post of Bogle comments on TAA. My take was that basically a confirmation of possible better results with the caveat of not going over 15% per possibility of bad decision making. So, that's good and affirms the TAA system. The best investor books and thoughts are adapting in some form the TAA systematic decision making guidelines. The analytical process is a few grades above guessing what was Bob's concern. Even at 15% swings one should adapt TAA principles to increase odds.

Vanguard Wellington active managed funds utilize this practice. Meaning quant analysis within a framework to produce actionable investment change. That's why I like them as they can slide the scale 15% between stocks and bonds when conditions exist for extra benefit. Those that merely establish a 60/40 portfolio are advised to always rebalance. This makes little sense to me. First we all read concerns of overheated markets, high P/E ratio, with future of lower returns. Most agree the future will entail higher risk and lower returns. So, wouldn't it be prudent to increase your bond holdings percentage. Given that expert advice ranges for 80/20 to 50/50 for retirees. So, what if you just stayed within these brackets?

Having bonds is like having cash in that it can be utilized in down markets at close to original cost. If you wanted to maximize returns why not treat the asset as cash? If you had cash you would buy the dips. In a major correction it wouldn't really matter that much of timing. You convert bonds to cheap stocks. In a recession it would be good to reel in living expenses and minimize the sale of cheap stocks. Even Bogle said before in recession stock purchases are on sale. Good to double your investments in stocks.

I just watched a video of Bogle commenting on EFTs he was concerned as investors were losing 2% return off of buy and hold index funds. They have a new variety of ETF every day and investors are getting suckered to leave low risk investments. True, his research proved the danger. The ETF trade so cheaply that investors are ruining long term gains. So, is the ETF to blame? No, its the investor.

The S&P index buy and hold is a good tool during the capital accumulation phase. If you are out 10 years with no need of income, it looks to me that bonds shouldn't be part of your portfolio.

TFB said...

The HottieBee posts:

Dow’s 1-year gain since Trump’s win is its biggest post-Election Day rise since 1945
Blue-chip stock gauge has climbed 28.50% in 12 months, just shy of its 29.83% gain after FDR won a fourth term

 
I am going to try and explain this.  After starting a series of profitable small businesses I became a business consultant (among other ventures) assisting others in realizing their dream of small businesses ownership a reality and aiding in their expansion plans.  I often worked with budding or established franchisee looking at multi-unit “ownership”(see footnote #1) Up until 2008 business was booming.  Then things changed.  From a small business standpoint things radically changed in this country in terms of attitude, perception and cost of doing business.  Entrepreneurs were told you did not build that business.  Moreover the risk, reward, profit profile was legislatively and administratively altered.  Entrepreneurs were sacked with an out of control ADA costs(see footnote #2) when they attempted to retrofit units or come up to the latest franchise standard as well as Obamacare mandates for those with 50 or more employees (easy to do in a restaurant, especially for a multi-unit franchisee.   Minimum wage laws were enacted that greatly increased the cost of doing business for many.   And a plethora are making money off the business owner even when he operates at an economic loss (see footnote #3) Consultants like myself, more and more counseled clients to alter their plans, go to smaller footprints, forgo expansion, redirect capital, not open the business, look at a different opportunity, or consider automation.

For years would be entrepreneurs and budding small business folks sat on their money, dreaming planning, only to find the business climate decidedly negative.   Most people do not go into business to provide healthcare for their employees or because they want to provide a comfortable defecation experience for someone who may or may not even be a customer. They go into business because they either want to make a profit and often at something they are passionate about.   Under the prior administration the entrepreneurial spirit was broken, businessmen were seen as bad guys, they were targeted with negative demagoguery, many folded their tents, others simply continued to work for someone else instead of venturing out to attempt to fulfill their dream, or other deployed capital elsewhere (often in the equity markets).   For folks like me, phones went dead.  No one was asking me to evaluate a franchise opportunity, and if I did advise them I probably would have counseled them to reconsider anyways.

And then Trump became President.  In a couple of weeks it was like a light switch was flipped.  Slowly but surely inquiry after inquiry began to flow.   Entrepreneurs  are dusting off old plans, franchisees are well into their planning stage now for expansion, people are carefully looking at the available labor market, there is a buzz in the air, commercial realtors are getting nibbles on lease locations…the engine of capitalism is being unleashed.

That is my explanation for the stock market.  Business momentum is building, labor markets are tightening, and soon employees may have a little more disposable income in their hands, the pent up urge to splurge is getting ready to erupt. That is the tension I feel and I suspect other, in the direct business community feel it too. 
I remain,
tfb

TFB said...

(footnotes to above comments)

Footnotes:
#1 As a franchisee you really do not own a business as much as you own a limited duration depreciating license that allows you to use the processes, trademarks, and methods of the franchisor. 

#2 One franchise I do a great deal of franchisee consulting for was stuck with a ADA rest room remodel cost of roughly 70K per unit in order to get into compliance with new standard when they remodeled.    Folks that is for the restrooms only.  This particular chain makes a 6 cent profit on each burger they sell on their dollar menu…and it is their most popular item.  To put that in perspective they need to sell some 1,166,666 burgers in order to pay the cost of the government mandated bathroom remodel.

#3 A number of fast food franchisees are not generally profitable for the franchisee until AUV hits 1.1 to 1.4 million.   Let us think of what that means.  By the time the operator has sold one million dollars’ worth of meals he has not made a single dime!  Yet in many communities the State and municipality has made at least $100,000 in just sales tax.  That does not even consider property taxes, TIF fees etc.   Think about that, you are the franchisee, you are in your store for 12-16 hours a day to reduce payroll costs and try and turn a profit and at the end of the year you still have to dig into your personal savings to pay your bills because your business has not made a single dime of profit, yet the government has profited by 100 thousand dollars off of your sweat, your capital, your labor. 

Anonymous said...

TFB, The major indices which have run up are mostly large cap. not small franchises. eg.FANG stocks are killing it.

Eps growth is key to this market advance.

Even if you ignore the growth cited above for causation, if you try to explain by policy change so far there are no major policy changes which would explain the advance which takes you back to EPS growth.

I've said it before and I'll say it again the passage of tax reform is not in stock price surge so far, if it was I would be out of this market. You can see this from the failure to repeal and replace yet market still higher.

Jan. 20th would be the start date for counting if so inclined, but in doing so one also would own any major declines which occur. It is a losing game to claim any link to stock market fluctuations.

Also, you mentioned "Up until 2008 business was booming." well yeah 2008 thru 3/9/2009 was the worst financial crises since the Great Depression. Nice try but had nothing to do as far as causation with 44.


smile

frankj said...

In my town, the business owners both small and large are constantly being asked to support one charitable cause or another. And, my state has a Business and Occupations tax. This is tax on gross income. Virtually no deductions or write-offs, so you can be at a net loss in your business but still have to pay tax to the state.

Trees said...

My small cap HSA is doing great. No need for S&P 500. Mcdonald's last I saw had great stock growth. Michigan got rid of their closed shop labor law and tax on production equipment. We lead the nation now in job growth since removing regulation burden. The new regulation burden from the prior administration was fast and furious. Farmers had a hard time to think of a way forward to comply. Energy industry was regulated to minimize growth as compared to sensible regulations. Remodeling industry for older homes went to a standstill. Business and investors had a gloomy attitude to their future and government overreach. Remember all the prepper advice and the unsustainable debt spending fears. All the Executive overreach authority actions put citizens in the fear zone of not trusting government. Everyone I knew was collecting pennies for copper scrap value when the hyper inflation hits.

The common belief of CIC ability to control fuel prices is false. Action taken by the administration will have an impact long term, but not on a daily supply demand curve.

Anonymous said...

"We lead the nation now in job growth since removing regulation burden."

Sounds rationale in theory, only. Help me understand your view by naming a significant reg. burden lifted that caused this recent uptick in jobs, growth and the stock market which had a direct and measurable bottom line impact to eps and growth.

As I recall Michigan was in the depths of a depression 2008 - 2009 with at least some from one side saying let Detroit go BK. That is not what happened as you recall policy wise. The forest and individual trees are relevant as are facts.

EPS growth is key in my view. Global Expansion and growth.

smile

Trees said...

Your kidding right? Fed regulation and Grandholm movie star anti GW politics put Michigan into a Depression. The rest of the country was in the Great Recession. Even the left was hurting for a change in policy. You need statistics. How about my living here.

Anonymous said...

wrong, what Fed reg.

living there doesn't mean you have command of facts. Everyone has an opinion few have command of facts. So far not seeing any coming from your direction.

Very simple question asked because I am trying to understand your view:

"name a significant reg. burden lifted that caused this recent uptick in jobs, growth and the stock market which had a direct and measurable bottom line impact to eps and growth."

This I think was your position right. Somehow this conversation got in the weeds with a couple here trying to explain why the marketwatch link headline was a money shot. While I stated it was ridiculous.

If you can't answer the question specifically no problem.

I think this reg. burden stuff is rubbish. If it was such a burden guess who pays, companies pass on the cost of doing business to customers. It might impinge on a couple bps of margin but then again maybe not.


smile

Biker said...

Senate Finance Committee's 2 page summary of their proposed tax reform plan:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4178521-SFC-Tax-Reform-Summary.html

gabe said...

I nibbled a bit today. Got bored; my two horses were scratched for this weekend because they were sick.

I am amazed at the number of sexual misconducts covering many corners of this nation and the individuals involved. It seems that each passing day another story is revealed.

Gabe

Honeybee said...

.
Gabe and all,

"Sexual misconducts" is not a topic for this thread.


BWV said...

Did anyone notice how many more typos the November MT had than usual? Normally, there are few, if any, typos. Bob is a pretty good writer & he has had a good editor & proofreader. Not so this month. I wonder why this sudden, abrupt change.

Trees said...

It's no secret the financial stocks have performed well on the expectations of repeal of Dodd Frank. My community bank went through three buyouts in attempt to maintain solvency as result from the current regs. Now it's popular to have a video teller due to financial stress and keeping costs to a minimum.

We spend $3,500/person on average for energy. My COOP informs us that rates are going to continue to increase due to regulations. New pipeline regs will make it more expensive to construct new lines even though the transport is 4.5x safer/less spillage as compared to other forms of transit and incredible cheaper.

Minimum wage regs is hurting low capability workforce job growth and do away with on the job training. Ag newsletters report the avalanche of new regs per prior administration would put small farms out of business.

We need to understand that complex and corrosive regs work well with deep pocket corps. They love to push small business competition out. My experience within rental property, this increasing expensive and higher liability force only results to push small Mom and Pop business out. It used to be a popular addition to retirement portfolio, now just to much liability.

I was an Industrial Engineer responsible for waste reg conformance. I can say, fed regulations and the way the U.S. administers regulations is more about control, revenue, and politics than what they advertise to the voting public. The free market solutions a better path. Outcome regulations better than the now popular fascist style hammer. Anyways, if you don't understand I couldn't convince you. I could write a book on examples. It is funny when technology or open market solutions exist the bureaucrats will run in front of the marching band to take credit. I do think our healthcare was savaged per this phenomena. There was some incredible technology coming down the tube.

It's funny that back some years taxpayers questioned the public library benefit and the costly union workforce required, since the internet was a good replacement. Wow, a huge PC push to rebuild every facility. Same with public ed, vouchers, and the threat of extremely cost efficient and effective home schooling or hybrid was too much. The huge push to rebuild every public school to Junior College building level. You see if invest in solutions without proper vetting we taxpayers are locked in to less efficient ones. How expensive is this to the country to suffer generations of talent to inferior education as compared to open market actions that reward results.

Same for the IRS. It's basically a regulation house with the reputation of being the U.S. version of KGB. Thirty percent of tax revenue required to run the operations. The cost of compliance is through the roof and huge wet blanket upon efficient decision making open market. Nowadays, it's popular to mine the "system" for max lifestyle benefit with minimum work. We have to many citizens dedicated to this.

Trees said...

Health care- Wow reading the Grand Rapids direct pay health care blog. This one doctor claimed he typically had 2-3 people behind every health care worker to administer the insurance and government regs with the old system. They needed to turn hundreds of patients per day to cover overhead costs. No time to talk. With direct pay they spend 20-30 minutes on average and personally get to know the patient. They will even make house calls.

The introductory letter claimed the facility had customers all across the state and even some in Guam. They have such good telecommunications and online solutions one can gain value on trips or distant location. They said their elderly patients give up Medicare B and all the supplemental insurance as this system is a better service and cost. Their procedures are cheaper than insurance deductibles. I really can't see why this health care with a high deductible insurance for catastrophic risk should be the path for all? Why is the total political system demanding the citizens use some variety of their solutions? Both left and right want you to.

Jerrod Clarkson said...

An update on tax reform. This one compares House/Senate versions.

Opinion: The Senate version seems to be a "Why Even Bother? Plan."

https://goo.gl/13gVPx

JC

Anonymous said...

"I was an Industrial Engineer responsible for waste reg conformance."

So getting rid of regs. would get rid of whomever is now in your old position and thus save companies' money. Or maybe a redirect use of that person to more productive work?

I think I understand... busy work job killer without sacrificing addtl safety... got it.

What there needs to be IMO is a review of the regs. intent if for addtl public safety and environment protection which is provable then that is a good reg. and should be kept. The cost of compliance is a cost of doing business in the US which is passed on to the consumer of the products. Profit margins are not impacted if there is price elasticity which is dependent on the demand for the product... ergo Apple Iphone can apparently charge just about whatever they want for a phone and still have iphone customers. My understanding which is limited was the EO was worded such that for every new reg. established you have to do away with two old regs. Whatever.

I still maintain that any compliance to regs. is a cost of doing business via SGA expenditure and is therefore a cost of product which is passed to consumer. So I continue to say rubbish since we started from the marketwatch link which was rubbish and end up here with no real impact margin wise to companies except maybe to a redirect of productivity.

All this rubbish about reg reduction sounds like a talking point without any provable measure of impact to margins or eps and thus has nothing to do with stock market gains IMO or to the rubbish marketwatch link showing gains from election day.

I hope I did not overuse the word rubbish... but it was very appropriate in the context of this discussion.

smile

Trees said...

I think you have a naive take on government/political value. It's not the cost burden of business to fulfill the values that the public demands. It is a cancer. A misjustice and purely political ploy. One must be indoctrinated to the idea that every business desires and earns a profit when polluting or hurting employees. That is nonsense. Employees and management are just like the rest of us whom are very concerned of environment and welfare of its employees. If your partake in PBS and NPR specials or the typical literature of high school "the Jungle" you will will loaded with bias.

So, do your think the general public works for good or evil. Do you then need government force to push citizens to behave or do you need citizens to push politicians to good? I have visited and learned from the belly of beast on the operations of typical the political sector. Same with top management forces. Per my experience the business people are the people you want to know and identify with. Politicians remind me of old english aristocracy.

Unknown said...

"All this rubbish about reg reduction sounds like a talking point without any provable measure of impact to margins or eps and thus has nothing to do with stock market gains IMO or to the rubbish marketwatch link showing gains from election day."

Earnings drive stock prices. Market gains are due to strong corporate earnings

Honeybee said...

.
Smile,

I was considering putting your response to hung wong through until I say your not funny insult.

Don't try that again here. It is a waste of time - both yours and MINE!

Anonymous said...

HB there was no insult to wong intended. We were sympatico in agreement on earnings driver for stocks. Send that one line to hung... if he or she wants to see it, I bet he or she gets a kick out of it. It was a pun... which may have been clever by half. Political incorrect maybe, maybe not. A world w/out humor... sad. No smiles.

Anyway here it is again without mentioning hung...

=====

Pot calling the kettle on naivite if you know what I mean on guberment/political/company value. It's called keeping them honest. I think we can agree to disagree.

All I asked you for was one example, and nothing to support your claim re: stock market gains and cutting gov. regs. Not to mention the gains are coming from large cap growth Companies. Yes MickeyD's is not a small franchise operation in the aggregate with a market cap of 132.01B and enterprise value of 161.24B.

EPS drives the markets, not the only thing obviously there are interest rates, exogenous events etc.; government and what they do or don't can and does add uncertainty & thus vol but primary driver from election day are earnings and forward look for growth in earnings and revenue.

(edit out the hung line), and what I have been saying from the beginning.

Has nothing to do with reg. burdens (no impact on margins due to cost pass thru and price elasticity) at least that is my conclusion from this discussion confirmed unless you can provide that 1 example I asked you for in the beginning of this discussion which would have to prove the antithesis.

As you ponder remember the start point for this discussion was marketwatch link gains from election day and who or what is responsible - that was the issue which must be proved in your antithetical to support your contention absent this stick a fork this discussion.

smile

Honeybee said...

.
Smile...I can only send emails to those who send me their emails.

That is why I keep my email available for anyone who wants to communicate personally and directly with me.

I accept that you meant no insult, and we agree on political correctness.

Trees said...

Oh, a somewhat funny experience on Economics. I urged my oldest daughter to take the class in high school. She had no interest beforehand and did take the class per my descriptions. I was regretful of that. The class was a total waste. She was frustrated and everyone in the class thought it was a joke. Come to find out the class was at the bottom of teacher's list of subjects to teach. They pushed some guy into it and he taught the class neither to inspire or educate, but to basically set up a PO attitude and bias thinking to kids. The guy was a jerk and had no interest in economics other than negative interests. My bad.

Trees said...

Another story. I said my parents were non political, but I think they were more right leaning? I drove past that remote CCC camp that Dad referred to last summer. Yes, a historical marker on the camp site with wording of Roosevelt's wondrous programs. What a joke. If one is trained in economics, you will quickly see the fault of such actions. The CCC camp was the Chinese method to make the economy better. You know dig a ditch with 1,000 lazy workers. The growth of economy is propelled by efficient markets. This old story is being played out by haters of Walmart and Amazon that both have invented efficient supply chain value. This is really going to hit home when autonomous technology. Garage repair, dent repair, health care, cabbies, truck drivers and the rest. The youth claim we need no more wealth and should stop economic growth. Some of them think it is a glorious lifestyle to walk to villages without petrol cars to enjoy company, wine, and home grown food. PBS had an entire series devoted to this. Everyone was smiling and appeared an orgy was about to break loose. The truth is if your economy stalls, it will go backwards and maybe fast as these generational trends don't correct fast. Think if we froze efficiency in car production. To stop engineering, and to live in the olds days of high auto employment. You know the results.

To the historical record. This stuff gets whacked way out of position over time per biases and generational value system. I was trained and understood to be very careful with pop culture value system. I read an article on George Washington that was entirely different take on this mans position in history. I did some research and found this retired professor and his book as being the definitive expert on GW. So, purchase a used copy on Amazon. This student sold it for cheap and included a snarky remark on how stupid it was and that she was forced to use the book. The books value for history was the removal of CW biases within long term history. This author utilizing GW personal notes for most of the book. Incredible to understand the man's private thinking and attitudes. This author claimed we always needed to go back to source material for understanding.

Most of you know instinctively the impact to economy and equities to have well educated citizenry. This logic goes back to founders warning of keeping a free republic.

My brother educated his kids well. He wasn't a great parent, but I was taken on how well his kids did. I think I now understand how it happened. He was a business contractor with lots of grown up toys. He played hard and worked hard. When he needed money he worked even harder. In youth he did a stint in vacuum sales door to door. He went hungry if not successful. Now, he had such an attribute naturally to his likeable personality, but I think he honed his skills. He hired his kids paid them well, but no freebies and he didn't lecture on the spending. He was a kid himself. A lot of bragging. Those kids are now wealthy and have self employed. They couldn't stand a wage job. Those kids at young age would blow their money on shoes in early years, but became the envy of classmates that wasn't successful in begging to parents. So, I'm now thinking the generational welfare system may be interrupted if the youth had a job and learned to work for foolish expenditures. A good lesson the value of employment. Doesn't hurt to have an inspiring employer that continually talks of possible inventions and business opportunity. They can learn investing and budgeting after they first learn the benefit of work.

Biker said...

I'm not seeing why the Marketwatch link should be called rubbish. All it says is that "On the one-year anniversary of Donald Trump’s win in the U.S. presidential race, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is showing its biggest post-Election Day gain in more than 70 years." Isn't this a fact?

The article doesn't attribute the gain in any large part to President Trump. In fact it says:

"While the returns in Trump’s first year are significantly above that [the average first term stock market rise for a new president], “the question remains just how correlated, if at all, market performance is with the person in the Oval Office,” noted Kully Samra, a managing director at Schwab. “It seems investors may have ceased paying much attention to day-to-day Washington politics, and instead have shifted focus to the fundamentals of individual companies and underlying economic data: a strong dollar, corporate earnings, wage growth and employment numbers.”

...

The outperformance of tech is another reason why the market’s gains over the past year could be viewed as apolitical, as the sector has never been considered one of the major “Trump trades,” or a part of the market seen benefitting from his policies or legislative initiatives. Instead, the group has largely gained on the back of massive revenue growth and better-than-expected earnings."

Are these statements rubbish?

As far as I can see, the only credit given to President Trump in the entire article is this:

"The financial sector, on the other hand, is more of a Trump trade. It has risen in part on hopes for deregulation, although it has also benefitted from a rising-rate environment and improving macroeconomic conditions."

What is wrong with that statement?

frankj said...

No, those statements are not rubbish.

I would also like to comment about "regs" and job loss. Can an existing regulation or a regulation put in place cause job loss? Yes. California recently put in place a regulation that farmers cannot spray crops with (certain) herbicides within a certain distance of schools. So the agricultural area where spray contractors can work is made smaller and one would expect the demand for their services will shrink, resulting in layoffs. This is the loss of an existing job.

Then there are the jobs that were never created because of "regs." Just in my local area there are two and possibly three major projects that may never come to fruition because the permitting process is stacked against them. These are multi-million dollar projects that would employ the local labor force in building the facilities and then solid employment for those operating the facilities. Did I mention the increase in the flow of property taxes to the county when the properties are fully developed?

The larger of the two projects has had two critical permits denied by state agencies over different issues. One was a permit required for development along the shoreline of a major river but most of the nine issues cited in the denial had nothing whatsoever to do with the health of the river. This is bureaucratic overreach by the political appointee heading this agency and an example of how "the regs," as applied by a partisan agency prevent job creation.

Anonymous said...

Biker, you really don't see the article ties the election result to the performance in the market. Look at the chart headings:

Election Winner
date of election
dow close 1 yr later
performance

The chart is rubbish because there is no causal link to the person elected and the performance 1 year later but implicit in the chart is the linkage of election result to performance which is erroneous.

The headline of the article ties the election result to performance where again there is no linkage necessarily established generally speaking.

Clearly linkage is established by Trump:

"The reason our stock market is so successful is because of me. I’ve always been great with money, I’ve always been great with jobs, that’s what I do."

If Trump believes this to be true why wouldn't his voters feel the same?

In order to have linkage you would have to have policy initiatives which led to the result. You have policy initiatives when you get into office Jan. 20 not after election two months before in November. So the election date has no relevance ergo the major flaw of the article.

In summary:

1) rubbish because IMO start date of performance measure has no relevance to the person not yet in office. If the market went down instead of up after election would that be fair to someone who has not taken office.

2) rubbish because other factors are responsible for the rise in stock prices - EPS growth, global expansion and recovery... so instead of citing election year anniversary maybe the article should cite earnings growth and global recovery which is not the implication of the article headline nor chart.

3) rubbish because any tie to politics would have to correlate to policy - deregulation EO is only 1 ever mentioned when attempting to give credit in this instance but no one can show any direct and measurable impact to large cap margins or eps which were the drivers for the major indices eg. FANG stocks, due to policy initiatives in office. I asked several times for just 1 example and got nada. I have stated for some time that tax reform passage is not in the current pricing of stocks. This of course is my assessment but may be seen if passage does not occur.

Yup rubbish sums up the marketwatch article and the implicit linkage of election result to stock performance a year after election.


smile

Trees said...

A lot of concern with posts that the stock market is breaking records. That's good. The consternation is that the current executive might get credit. Your know the positive attitude, a fighter against the swamp, business competence, and ability to tweet real time. So, I'm thinking why the concern? This guy is making some really good political judgements that totally frustrate the media control aka drive by. He is well attuned to business needs and job creation. I know we must not think regulations are are problem, but really?

I have lived through the Reagan years. This guy is better. I did love Clinton/Newt years, but this is better. My technological competence leads me to believe we have a very potent change point within the economy. We can adapt and rush forward to lead the international community per our traditional market advantage of public participation or we can follow the Greeks into shared loss of opportunity and gaming the powers of central control per popularity of government power to obtain easy short term money. I do think we are teetering on the change. Be careful on your investments.

Honeybee said...

.
Smile,

That is your opinion and not mine.

Clearly it is also Bob Brinker's because he harkens back top 2001 or 2009 to talk about the market now.. Maybe we could go back to the 1980's.

It is a fact that the Dow is up almost 30% since Donald Trump was elected president.

Now please wind down the political stuff. Thanks.

Jerrod Clarkson said...

Honeybee said:
"It is a fact that the Dow is up almost 30% since Donald Trump was elected president."


Indeed, and as most will recall, stock futures took a precipitous decline on the evening that election results were called (and pre-market into the next morning). Then the market did a 180 degree reversal with massive buying throughout the day. We have continued to witness the bullish market results for nearly all of this year.

JC

Honeybee said...

.
Jerrod.....I remember election night a year ago well - and indeed will remember it the rest of my life.

And as you said, the Dow dropped like a rock when it became apparent that Donald Trump had won. If I recall correctly, it dropped at least 800 points in minutes.

I was celebrating because I was looking for a buying opportunity the next morning. However, that's when it started up and never looked back.


Mr. KIte said...

I hope this is not too political, but it is relevant to the big picture here. I recall on several occasions hearing Brinker state that (paraphrasing here) one should really not base their investments or lack of same on who the occupant of the White House is.

Anonymous said...

So HB & JC there ya go, you give attribution to Trump for the rise in stocks from election day.

It will be interesting to see if both of you give the same attribution if the market corrects or collapses.

That is the double edged sword of accepting credit for something which is unwarranted and attributable to other factors. On the other hand if tax reform goes thru and the market accelerates higher then most would give appropriate credit to 45 from the point of acceleration to higher if it happens.

Biker I hope I answered your question re: what was rubbish.


smile

Trees said...

Brinker said the present CIC should not be a influence our investments. That was then and now he is hyping up the concern. Go figure

I was reading Bankrate article on Fed Reserve impact on economy:

Research by Morningstar Investment Management shows that a slump in bond yields can greatly diminish the lifespan of retirement investments. People who are just entering retirement will be especially vulnerable if their investment portfolios are funded, at least partially, by bonds.

Since certificates of deposit are issued by banks, CD rates usually rise and fall in lockstep with the federal funds rate. So, when the federal funds rate goes, CD rates follow. That means that when the Federal Reserve tries to keep rates low, as it is doing now, investors in CDs usually lose out.

As bonds are a key component of most retirement investments, especially among seniors as they rebalance their 401(k)s, aggressive bond buying by the Federal Reserve increases the market value of the bonds in their portfolios, since the Fed is essentially boosting demand.
Conversely, if the Federal Reserve eases off its bond-buying efforts -- economists call this "tapering" -- then demand drops in bond markets, and the market value of
your bonds will fall.

So, we retirees have to keep a keen watch on government actions as we are in the age of Keynesian government spending to save the day economics. Government actions and screwups can make or break your retirement plans. The agency has already proven they don't put retirees at the top of the concern pile in economic crisis/concern. If ever the country suffered some economic challenge, you can bet all chips are on the table. I remember Jessie Jackson statement during the last recession that retirement accounts should be utilized in paying off the national debt. Basically, just swipe them in an emergency. Who would of thought the agency would take command of personal health insurance? Manage the winners and losers in health costs. Things could get very rough out their for retirees that have savings and thinking they can rely on traditional safety of merely rebalancing bonds and stocks.

Personally, the greatest foundational safety for retirees is to minimize your cost of living and have no debt. This will give you max head room upon a economic curve ball.

Trees said...

As far as economy vs politics, CIC, Fed chair, and public sediment. We retirees should stay abreast to the ebb and flow of such forces. Some think we will or already are experiencing a class warfare hate cycle. We see more generational blaming of problems. This would result in us vs them power struggle for economic benefit and safety. We post on investments, but we are entering into an age, for example, where politics may become the largest factor to that cause. History may not repeat and this time it may be different.

To that end the CIC has wide influence to investment future. Is he a go along guy with corruption of political control? Does he have socialist value system for wealth sharing and disrespect private property? An intolerant war monger or pacifist? A public money spender attempting to excuse heavy hand of government control because the government is the only way? Or does the person think the force is the worst way? Does this person think private business and profits corrupt? Really, this office has the max ability/influence of our future. Yes, on a purely financial measure one can have a good take on maximizing good investments, but so much depends on forces outside of the financial house. These forces can disrupt conventional wisdom and do so with a signature or a new political slogan.

I'm drifting into fear mongering only to make the case that financial security is a broad concern with many facets. You can't go 60/40 and walk away. Actually, if bonds and CDs are a lousy low return investment, you will do more damage to your financial security by following such CW advice. Running out of money is a threat as well. Just like health care was upended for unknown good or bad future, know that the rest of our most important concerns could be as well.

The best financial future would be a slow steady 3% GNP growth cycle. We may be on thin ice now. If so social unrest could be your problem if economy falters with such national debt burden, entitlements, and government control of social programs we are now dependant upon.

Honeybee said...

.
Excuse me, smile.

The Fake News likes to twist and prevaricate, but you can't get away with it here.

I did NOT give attribution to President Trump for the rise in the stock market since election day.

I stated FACTS - the readers can draw their own conclusions.

That said, in general I tend to agree with you about giving president's the credit or blame for the stock market.

Anonymous said...

Seattledoc
personal note to HB. can't take the trump hater on this financial site. I'm taking a break from this site.

Honeybee said...

.
Seattledoc...Sorry to hear that. It may be just what he has in mind.

He has resented me for a long time, but knows that I try to be fair and honest no matter what - so takes advantage of it.

I do censor and or not publish some of his comments. That does not dissuade him, as it would most people.

He is a leftist zealot.

Anonymous said...

Actually HB I am an Independent who is able to think thru problems and situations and make up my own mind. Adhominem name calling is in-congruent here.

BTW HB I really have to compliment you on the quality of your summaries. Very impressive and I'm not easily impressed. You run a tight ship/operation.

To Seattledoc, if I am the cause of you leaving I apologize. I'm a straight shooter but sometimes I go off the rails. I regret putting in one line of my post that prompted HB to tell me to watch it with the political stuff. It was just one line the rest of what I wrote is factual. We all should be using the same set of facts which is one of the reasons I post here.

Trump's early morning victory speech 11/9/16 said it best IMO and IMO what calmed the markets brought them back from limit down to positive. Enjoy!


smile

Kenp11 said...

Trump election offered "THE HOPE". It was THE HOPE that all regulations and burdens on business would be lifted. Case in point.. when the TAX proposals was delayed the market sank.
THE HOPE that EPA TAX AND Coal regulations would change the economy....that is what drives certain markets.

Anonymous said...

HB,
I see you as a person (via this blog) as a person who really understands that freedom has a countermeasure called responsibility.
Seems that a generation ago it was universally understood. Thanks for being reasonable. It is much better than being "fair", which is too subjective. My 2 cents. Maybe 3.

Pavlov's Cat

Anonymous said...

the sink in mkts for delayed tax cuts was knee jerk response, and even still the decline was not significant

also repeal & replace failed and we are higher from there

if I thought any of this was in the market prices I would be 100% cash. i'm not i am unadjusted for pension & soc sec 86:14.


smile

Unknown said...

What is the deal recently with Brinker having poorly edited rerun segments even within live broadcasts?