Last Sunday during and after Moneytalk, the comments from listeners began pouring in to this Blog. Here are some of the best:
==> From Terry Steinbridge:
Bob is live and really mad at the world today it seems to me. He should just tell everyone how badly he dislikes Trump, and how mad he is at people who like him. Trump and everyone who supports him are "fools and losers" and other insults. The same "fools and losers" who thought Trump might create GDP growth and see the tax cuts result in wage increases.
Bob also harps on the deficit growing because of the tax cuts. He fails to mention that revenues to the government are up by many, many billions
==> From Jim:
Brinker is sure showing his Globalist colors today, calling those who favor protectionism idiots and morons. I guess I'm an idiot then because I think we should look out for #1. He said how low the unemployment rate is but if more people started looking for work again it would be much higher. That statistic is skewed. Brinker didn't want to let the caller make his point about NATO defense spending by saying that's politics. I'm sure the caller wanted to draw a parallel between NATO defense spending and trade. It may be politics but it's also financial too, just like trade that Brinker always talks about.
==> From MK:
Regarding Bob's comment about tariffs: If fools, morons and idiots are the only ones who are in favor of tariffs (or other protectionist trade policies) then at worst we are on a level playing field with other countries since other countries (particularly China) readily employ tariffs and other protectionist trade policies in their dealings with us.
I also suspect that Bob equates protectionism with isolationism.
I also suspect that China has more to lose in a trade war than do we since the balance of trade is currently in their favor. However in China the people really have no say in whether or how aggressively their government would conduct a trade war. They can't vote Xi out of office for making their lives miserable. In the USA on the other hand if we decide we don't have the intestinal fortitude to endure a little hardship in order to strengthen ourselves, we can vote our leaders out of office and elect an appeaser who will bow down to foreign powers.
==> From Tom Logue:
He also somehow conflates cyber security with free elections. The voters are free to look at any information and determine for themselves its credibility. Each political party for security reasons can elect NOT to use digital media connected to the Internet to store their sensitive information. Or decide NOT to use email for sensitive communications. They don’t have to store emails on personal servers. Eric Snowden showed us the folly in assuming security can be backfired onto the IPv4 network of protocols.
==> From TFB:
I have made this point before, but for those who never read it before: Free Trade is often credited to David Ricardo. It is sort of a Columbus discovered America thing. Ricardo essentially popularized the collective theory of economic theorist before him and added his own organization and insight. Hence he is credited with origination.
Hence Da Brinks animist. You think you have an economics education only you find out what you were taught and believed does not have salient predictive power in the world around you. The issue is, you only learned part of the theory.
==> From Seattle Doc:
I followed your link this week and was shocked by his dialogue. The guy has turned into a mean old man. His treatment of callers that don't praise him is terrible and embarrassing. I wonder if his personality has been affected by his age and rather than addressing caller's concerns he talks over them and cuts them off. I never met the guy or listen anymore. When I played the cut for my wife she said he's the type of guy that tells Junior someone coming into his house and stealing his underwear while he sleeps. Mean Bob can you tell us what you had for dinner last night?
Disclaimer: no medical diagnosis is implied or assumed. I’m not that kind of doc anyways. As always this is just my humble opinion.
==> From Bluce:
Regarding Frank's guest summary on the front page, Honey wrote: Honey here: Thanks Frankj….It is a little scary when unelected people and bureaucrats have so much control over our lives, because there is no way to vote them out. And worse, it's almost impossible to get them fired.
It seems this practice is also seen running wild in the "justice" system.
Back to basics: The Constitution grants "specific, enumerated powers" to the government.
The Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) were included because some of the framers worried that liberties could be infringed upon because they weren't mentioned in the Constitution -- which was, and is not -- the point of the Constitution. But they made their case and won the argument, and as we see now, they were absolutely right. Too bad a piece of paper doesn't stop "the devoted advocates of power."
So to make clear that the purpose of the Constitution was to grant specific, enumerated powers to the federal government -- and not to list specific rights of the people -- the Bill of Rights was included.
They knew they could not possibly list all natural rights held by "the people," so the Ninth Amendment says: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
And the Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
So the question: Where in the Constitution is the power granted to the federal government to set the price of money, resulting in the endless manipulation of the economy by government bureaucrats?
Here is the key: If free markets (as in the price of money) are regulated, then they are no longer free and fall under the idea of "central planning," a massively failed idea that never works in the long run, as the history of socialism and other authoritarian regulated economies show.
Freedom -- if it can be retained -- always works.
It seems this practice is also seen running wild in the "justice" system.
Back to basics: The Constitution grants "specific, enumerated powers" to the government.
The Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) were included because some of the framers worried that liberties could be infringed upon because they weren't mentioned in the Constitution -- which was, and is not -- the point of the Constitution. But they made their case and won the argument, and as we see now, they were absolutely right. Too bad a piece of paper doesn't stop "the devoted advocates of power."
So to make clear that the purpose of the Constitution was to grant specific, enumerated powers to the federal government -- and not to list specific rights of the people -- the Bill of Rights was included.
They knew they could not possibly list all natural rights held by "the people," so the Ninth Amendment says: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
And the Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
So the question: Where in the Constitution is the power granted to the federal government to set the price of money, resulting in the endless manipulation of the economy by government bureaucrats?
Here is the key: If free markets (as in the price of money) are regulated, then they are no longer free and fall under the idea of "central planning," a massively failed idea that never works in the long run, as the history of socialism and other authoritarian regulated economies show.
Freedom -- if it can be retained -- always works.
==> From Stinky:
About your communique - Dissent is clearly not tolerated in Brinkerland.
==> From Trees:
Bob does have a huge political bias. This will always spill over into investment advice. Not good to mix the two. There is so much of this going on currently. Notice how the partisan financial experts are willing to risk your money for their politics. It is very common. This is a big reason why investment advisors are a poor choice. I want to see their portfolio. What are they risking their wealth on?.....
From J. Wales:
==> From Daddy Paul:
Honey thanks for your blog. I want to know what Bob says but can't stand to listen to him anymore.
==> From Irwin in Skokie:
Brinkers opinions, contentions and tariffs op-eds make for a better show. Rather hear some debate than the rich callers worried if their 5 million will last IRWIN in Skokie
==> From Frankj:
==> From Birdbrain:
After reading Schwab's "What Happened to the Bond Bear Market?" this may be a good time to revisit Mr B's low duration bond recommendation. It has been close to five years (Honey will correct) since the old standby Vanguard GNMA was pushed aside in favor of Double Line Low Duration Bond due to Cap'n Starship's fear of impending rising interest rates.
So, with figures from Morningstar, let us view the annualized five year returns of said funds, shall we?
Growth of $10000:
VFIIX 11280
DLSNX 10866
Only over the last year and a half the price of Vanguard GNMA has declined 5.6% from 10.85 to its current 10.24 NAV. Granted, the Fed may raise rates two more times this year and beyond. Eventually this switch may prove profitable but I suspect nowhere near the magnitude the host imagined at the outset.
I guess you could say that as of now, Mr B's love of low duration has suffered from (ahem) premature infatuation.
==> From Ken Branson:
For the first time, the radio host's screener-producer-shill allowed well-grounded callers to present and debate a little. Apparently, the host was not ready for that.
So why the change? Is the network time slot more valuable to the media company as a paid infomercial for vitamins? Are they trying to gracefully convince the old man to quit?
Seems the host is flipping the bird to many fans of the current President. Fair enough. He has that forum, and can retire comfortably at a moment's notice.
But I think the host's sourness toward the chief executive might be personal.
I can imagine a moment in time when both were traversing "the Canyons of Wall Street" and the host was inadvertently shoved into a deep freezing slush puddle in January near the corner of Wall and Broad as Trump Sr. and Jr. hustled past in the brisk winter wind.
The host might still have the scars on his shin and his water-logged wingtips to prove it. He's kept them in a cold tub of ice-water all these years to preserve the evidence, in case it goes to trial.
Pure irony that Mr. Host's greatest claim to fame is as a NYC financier but he can't stand another of the same who has done it better than him.
Honey here: Here's the link to all of these and other interesting comments about last Sunday's Moneytalk.
22 comments:
Great read.
My LLBean card recently switched from a Visa bank to a Mastercard bank. In updating my auto billing transactions, I have noticed that Brinker has steadily moved his Moneytalk on Demand transactions up a half a month since 2015. I have checked every January since 2015. In January 2015 the transaction was posted in the middle of the month. Each January since, the transaction is a few days sooner. For January of this year, the transaction occurred at the end of the previous month and has remained that way into this summer. I no longer have my statements to check before 2015. It looks like Brinker is latching on to the Moneytalk on Demand income sooner and sooner as time goes on. Several years ago the same $4.95 covered both a Saturday and a Sunday broadcast. He then eliminated Saturday with no change in the fee. He, now, rebroadcasts around half of the Sundays, still with no change in the fee. He certainly knows how to work the system.
I am looking at a closed Fund....VPMAX. My thought is that Flagship and Flagship Select Members may be able to buy into a closed Fund. Any thoughts?
Gabe
.
Hi Bob Wemer….That is very interesting, and is probably something that most people would not notice.
I want to be sure that everyone understands that the $4.95 cost of Moneytalk on demand is MONTHLY - not yearly.
So if you prorate the cost of getting actual new content, it becomes much more expensive. Nothing in the reruns is new content!
2018:
January 14: Reruns
February 11: Reruns
March 11: Reruns
April 8: Reruns
May 13: Reruns
May 27: Reruns
June 17: Reruns
July 1: Reruns
July 8: Reruns
From Bob Brinker's website:
Your credit card or checking account will be billed $4.95 every thirty (30) days as long as your subscription remains active.
Gabe: VPMAX. Good fund. Managed. Just call Vanguard and ask them about getting in.
And, it pays distributions annually which are taxable so consider what type of account you're putting it in.
It looks like Brinker is latching on to the Moneytalk on Demand income sooner and sooner as time goes on. Several years ago the same $4.95 covered both a Saturday and a Sunday broadcast. He then eliminated Saturday with no change in the fee. He, now, rebroadcasts around half of the Sundays, still with no change in the fee. He certainly knows how to work the system.
Oh my gosh! I had no idea,he charged 4.95 a month to listen to his show? Are there extras or something or is it literally the same show as on the air? That is nearly $60 a year! That is the price of mid tier meal out for two, two or three oil changes, a radiator flush and fill, enough to feed a child in a developing country for over a year(footnote 1), 3 decent pizzas, 5 years of income for Obama's half brother George who lives in poverty in Kenya (footnote 2, 3), or in more financial terms the equivalent of the dividend yield on $3,333 invested in the total stock market.
Well. it seems somehow,you find value in it,so good for you. But frankly I do not get it, given the alternative uses for money.
It seems to me Da Brink ought to try and do the right thing for a change and openly donate 100% of the proceeds from MoneyTalk on Demand to charity.
I won't hold my breath waiting.
tfb
Footnotes:
#1 WFP. "Hunger Price Tags." www.wfp.org. World Food Programme, 18 May 2012. Web. 29 May 2012
#2 McKenzie, David (August 23, 2008). "Behind the Scenes: Meet George Obama". CNN. October 26, 2008.
#3 Pisa, Nick (August 20, 2008). "Barack Obama's 'lost' brother found in Kenya". The Daily Telegraph. London. Archived from the original on August 20, 2008. Retrieved August 20, 2008.
FrankJ: Thanks for your input. Yes, I am aware of the tax implicationsIt since it is going into a taxable account. I have a call into Vanguard and awaiting a reply with regard to getting into the Fund. I believe I read somewhere that the initial investment is $25,000 which is manageable . It has a solid track record as you implied. It does have a sister fund (Core) which is a blend of growth and value. Also solid performance but not as good as the former. I'll check with my CPA re: tax implications. I am afraid he'll say NO. Taxes are killing me......thank heavens for my racing stable and my rentals.
Again, thanks.
Gabe
Answer to tfb's question:
The $4.95 per month is for the Money Talk on Demand podcast that Brinker usually mentions. It can be downloaded and listened to from a portable mp3 player whenever one chooses. I used to listen to the show from my local station at the time of the original broadcast but, now, my local station preempts the show for sports so much of the time. Now that I know about this website (Honey's), I always check to see if the show is a rerun and then decide if I want to listen to it again.
.
Bob Wemer….Your post about deciding whether or not to listen to reruns, made me wonder if everyone realizes that they are not simply reruns of old programs. It might actually be preferable if they were. If he just announced that "this is a repeat of last week's show" and then played it in its entirety. That would make them much more current and timely.
However what he (or someone) does, is pick out old monologues about the purpose of Moneytalk, each family needs someone to handle finances, critical mass, etc., - things he has been saying for decades.
And then he (or someone) picks out old calls from prior programs - some fairly recent, and some from years back - and replays them.
Now I'm wondering if I should continue calling them "reruns." I'm open for suggestions from anyone who might have an idea of a more descriptive word I might use to describe what the programs are when Brinker is not on live.
HB: How about using the word.....Pre-recordings.
Gabe
HB, great question.
The possibilities are endless, such as re-tread calls, previously ignored calls, fake new calls, prior genuflecting calls from millionaire "subscribers", prior shill calls, prior best beer buddy calls, prior "you owe me a favor" calls, prior "hey, don't stiff me on this" calls, prior "I'll pay you to call me" calls...
And of course, previously heard "I'm not a fool, you're a fool" calls, and previous "don't call me because I'm getting a wax" calls, and ultimately (______________)(fill in the blank) calls.
By the way, the selected comments from the peanut gallery on the "front page" are a great addition. Must be more work for you but it rings with immediacy and motivates to read more.
On a tangent, I raised cash from some over-weighted individual holdings specifically for a re-test. Still waiting, patiently, checking the calendar every half hour.
But to his credit, he intimated like a Russian spy during a late night bowl of Borscht in a Queens coffee shop near JFK last year that it could take awhile, trust me.
Now I'm wondering if I should continue calling them "reruns."
How about hacked-together, deceptive, gently-used, rebroadcasting.
tfb
Honeybee, I see your point, Brinker's reruns are not of a single program. I'm trying to think of a one-word term to describe them - the shortest that I can come up with is "past collage". Perhaps someone can think of a better term.
Regurgitation
Pavlov’s Cat .
I've been reading this blog and others to better understand current or up to date thinking on investments. One author claimed there was no real new investment advice. The hard part was to hammer the basics home and do so in interesting ways such as story telling. Financial business is full of shysters that promise wealth if taking their advice and offer newsletter subscriptions to do so.
Our financial decision making strengths and abilities lie with common sense and positioning our investments in acceptable risk for the returns. The hardest part is to put our emotions in neutral and work conservative investments. There is no right or wrong portfolio and much of success is due to pure luck. You know just by living in this part of the world you have already been mighty blessed.
A diverse portfolio will offer steadier returns with less risk up to a point. Low ER portfolio achieves a guaranteed bump in returns. Index funds and especially ETFs offer low cost and minimized exploitation of your investment money.
Brinker's lure to bait customers is his money ship of critical mass to live happy and care free. Well, there is no money ship or magical powers in his self serving money generating news letter. His radio show is a infomercial to entice listeners to sign up for a low cost newsletter. This gives Bob more clicks on his website and commissions on his suggested investments, if his registered investors would bite the hook. Bob's portfolios offerings probably generated or at least impacted on his commision negotiations. This is normal for investment advisors should you not be so informed. Funny, that his earlier investments were high ER funds. Not so funny to think these funds probably would pay the higher commissions. This is your money paying the bill.
You have to laugh at the thought of critical mass and live happy from now on. Folks, critical mass has a long compound wealth factor. Meaning it usually takes time and time is our most valuable resource. Good health time is the creme de la creme of retirement. It's a time when we care not of stuff and care more of experiences. Forget the Fidelity advertisement of drinking champagne with lonely beautiful widowers on a cruise ship. To be real it can be as simple as early morning coffee at premium location with your loved ones. In our latter years it is not so much wealth and BMWs but breathing fresh air on a new walk.
Odd...I just wondered if anyone else has observed this. I know a large number of married dual income government employees who have never had children. I find it interesting. Many of them are retiring in their 50s and simply going to enjoy spending every dime of their rich retirement paychecks, which makes total sense as they have one to provide for or care about other than themselves. It is a very high quality lifestyle.
I only know one childless married couple from the private sector but I know an easy 30 married dual income government employees. I asked several people and they all know a few married, childless couples and almost all of the them are both government employees. Anyone else observed this? Oddly most of them are teachers and police officers.
I noticed Bob gets calls like that periodically.
.
Gabe, Smitty, Pavlov's Cat:
I like all the suggestions - maybe I'll use them all - just mix them up a bit. :)
.
.
TFB, Bob Wemer:
I like your suggestions too - I'll add them to my list and "rerun" them also. LOL!
Link to your excellent “communique” posted on Morningstar. We’ll see if it draws some flies.
tfb opened an interesting debate.
As is known, the birth rate in America is falling. Back in the agricultural era, having kids meant creating a labor force to help out on the farm. But with the increased urbanization which came with the industrial revolution, it wasn't so important to have Jr. ready to fill the shoes of Sr., unless maybe in Detroit or the ship-building ports where some nepotism within the labor unions would be accepted.
Nowadays, with urban municipalities demanding teachers for all the schools and police officers to patrol the expanding population, and with city councils caving to the salary and benefits demands of the unions, it's like a carrot on a stick to young folks just getting their start and looking ahead.
When the compensation package equates to "work 25 years and get 60% or more of highest salary for the rest of your life", it certainly becomes a goal. And if it takes two solid salaries to even purchase a home in those cities, well, there's another reason to work maximum hours for maximum pay with no distractions and worry about starting a family later during the "retired" (laid-back second career) years with much more quality time available.
That's just one off-the-cuff, knee-jerk opinion from a "retired" blue-collar hack who's enjoying his laid-back second career.
Trees: I think you are imagining commissions for BB where there are none. If someone listens to his show and invests in a fund he mentions, such as VTI which seems to be the one mentioned most often, he gets no commission. Likewise if someone pays for his newsletter and invests in funds mentioned there. Is the show an infomercial for the newsletter, yeah, more or less.
frankj, hard to know. Just read a article on how financial advisor gets paid. Described as an extremely non transparent business. The financial universe has gotten more complicated. Bobby has a list of portfolios with recommended funds, for his paid and listed subscribers. The sales commission will be paid by someone. Probably the agreement has the company whose product was recommended ponies up the money as marketing expense. The article said to think of it as kick back. It creates a conflict of interest and to my thinking explains why his older funds had high load expenses. These people basically high paid salesmen. This revenue would be dependant on clicks on website and sales volume. My guess the more expensive funds the more revenue. I'm surprised he isn't hawking annuities and insurance for high premium kickbacks. Dave Ramsey has "Preferred Providers" that nothing more than simple references and mainly kick back for the sales lead.
Bob Brinker's money show reminds me of the Saturday morning home repair shows. Call ins get helpful advice, but more experienced builders and home repair folks understand the show's revenue is based on the host talking up expensive products. It's a infomercial. The host has helpful info, but this is key to build credibility and trust to hand you off to expensive product supplies. The financial business is all about building trust. They really have minimal services to offer other than to make people think they have some phony advantage or at least make you feel more secure.
After the '08 correction, I talked to my neighbor whom claimed he did o.k.. They have a "friend" aka financial advisor, but their personal portfolio outside of his management suffered less and made more money on average. Will they pull the plug? Heck no, they like the guy and feel special when meeting him. Sounds like a confidence racket.
Sure Bob doesn't place the order, but I'm sure he gets some privileged kickback for the recommendation if he can prove the source was one of his registered customers.
Post a Comment