(I was asked to add a link to the comments here since the link is difficult to find at the end because of the length of the Summary.) Here ya go: Summary Comments
Moneytalk Summary, Commentary and Bob Brinker Excerpts, October 18-19, 2008. Dow: 8852.22; S&P 500 Index: 950.55; Nasdaq: 1711.29; Oil: 72.05
Bob Brinker opened Moneytalk Saturday by saying: “Another volatile week in the financial markets around the world….. Here in the United States, volatility is in at unprecedented levels recently and that continued this week.”
Brinker went on to say that on his program last week he talked about a couple of things that he thought could be done that had the potential to make a difference in the financial situation going forward. He said: “We can now say that one of them has been done, although unfortunately, the other has not been done.”
Brinker comments paraphrased: The one that has been done was the massive $250billion injection of government capital into the banking system – part of the $700billion Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 which was passed by congress a couple of weeks ago. This program followed “exactly” along the lines that he had talked about last week on Moneytalk.
In Brinker's opinion, it is a good program. It involves the purchase of “straight preferred shares in the banks” – not convertible to common shares, not convertible preferred and non-voting, so "Uncle Sam isn’t running the bank." The preferred shares are callable on par within 3 years. The program was called a voluntary, mandatory program. Voluntary in that the banks had to accept it, but mandatory in that they were given no choice – as described by the Treasury Department. There are executive compensation restrictions and there is an equity kicker in the form of warrants which amount to about 15% ownership in the participating banks (and for the nine large banks, their participation is mandatory). The rate is 5% for the first 5 years and then kicks up to 9%, but the banks can pay them off if they choose.
About $125billion goes to the nine largest banks, including Bank of America, J.P. Morgan, Wells Fargo and Citigroup, also Morgan Stanley, State Street, Goldman Sachs and Bank of New York Mellon. The other $125Billion will be spread in banks across the United States. There is a 90-day foreclosure restriction, designed to get credit flowing again and reduce systemic risk. And it’s part of a correlated effort that includes providing short-term commercial paper relief to corporations aimed at improving liquidity.
TROUBLED ASSET RELIEF PROGRAM Brinker said: “This is all fine and I think this is a really good use of the money and I think it’s way better than the troubled asset relief idea that as we have said is troubled from the get-go because of the conflict of interest that is inherent in the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Remember we talked about this………I’m not talking about the $250billion that was injected into the bank’s capital structure. I’m talking about the remaining $450billion that supposedly is to be used to purchase troubled assets. And the problem with that program is from the taxpayer point of view, you want to put out the minimum bid on the reverse auction so the taxpayer doesn’t over pay. But from the bank point of view, you want to get the highest possible price so as to reduce the impairment to the capital of the bank. This is an inherent conflict of interest, and it may be a gaping difference. We know that Merrill Lynch is sold some troubled assets in July at 22 cents on the dollar. We know that some of these banks are carrying these troubled assets at 50, 60, 70 cents or more on the dollar…………..I think this is a problem that will not go away……….it will always be an issue at every auction…….
.......Now the other part of the program which we talked about last weekend has not been implemented and that’s a shame because we do have the brain power in Washington to do this. We do have the resources to do this, so it’s very unfortunate that nothings been done…….Now we have given already a mortgage guarantee program idea here on Moneytalk that has not been acted upon……..Most people make their mortgage payments in a timely manner so guaranteeing mortgage payments would not cost Uncle Sam a dime on most mortgages…….. The renegotiation part of the program would simply involve providing better terms on a delinquent loan to turn it into a performing loan. Renegotiate the loan. Keep the people in the house……..And the third category would involve foreclosures, which is the resolution trust corporation solution. Where the government making the mortgage guarantee payments to the bank on a monthly basis, the government would take possession of the property, and eventually would resell it over a period of years as things normalize in real estate……….that is what was done with resolution trust and it worked………no reason to put people out in the street…..”
Brinker told caller Loren, that most people would rather stay in their home rather than move in with parents, live in cars or under a bridge. He said there were other good ideas floating out there such as allowing residential mortgages to be refinanced into a low-cost Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac loan -- the government owns 80% anyway. He said it would be a lot cheaper in the long run than throwing people out in the street. Brinker said another good idea would be to work out an option to purchase later – stay in the home and pay rent, then later on they could reclaim it.
Brinker said: "But I ask you a question, where is the creativity in Washington on this score? I just talked about three separate solutions that get to the core of the housing issue, which is people in troubled loans…….Where is the creativity in Washington on this? What are they doing?...........They really eventually have to address this issue. They cannot ignore it………”
When Loren expressed her concern about people who have struggled to make their mortgage payments and have played by the rules being treated unfairly by having to pay for these bailouts, Brinker said: “I’m sorry, but they have no horse in this race……. This is not about them. It’s time for them to stop feeling sorry for themselves that played by the rules and did everything right. They don’t need help – they’re fine. They made their payments. We are talking about a situation here where you have an alternate choice of throwing people out of their house, having an empty property with no revenue and weeds growing against trying to renegotiate a deal and get a more positive outcome ……..”
STOCK MARKET
Saturday, only one caller mentioned the stock market. Caller Craig said: “You know when you had a cold last week, I noticed the whole stock market had pneumonia, so I really hope you are better."
Brinker chuckled then replied: “I don’t think the two go hand in hand. The stock market had a little better week this week which is good to see, but obviously the stock market has a lot of work to do over a long period of time given the damage done.”
INFLATION: Brinker said he expects very low inflation in 2009. He does not believe the bailout plan is inflationary.
WASHINGTON IGNORES BRINKER: Brinker complained at length that “Washington” has ignored his ideas and suggestions for resolving the mortgage/banking crisis. Brinker said that because Moneytalk is broadcast all over Washington D.C. on WMAL radio, it would be impossible for the powers in Washington to not have heard his suggestions, but so far, “nobody in the government has shown any interest in this.”
Honeybee EC: [chuckle] In light of the fact that Brinker has been completely wrong on everything he has prognosticated for more than a year now, one wonders why he thinks anyone should follow his advice now.
Brinker was wrong when he was calling for new stock market highs in January, 2008. And he has been wrong to advise investors to remain fully invested as the stock market declined over 35%. Brinker was wrong to say the stock market would respond “inversely” to the price of oil. Brinker was wrong to act like he had no way of seeing the banking mortgage crisis happening – he had talked about it for months. His excuse-doggies just don’t hunt. 8) And Brinker was especially wrong each time he called new market bottoms in 2008 and then rescinded them.
* Aug 16, 2007 - January 4, 2008 @ 1411: Mid-1400's
* January 20th -- rescinded mid-1400's (recommended dollar-cost-average only)
* Feb 10, 2008 @ 1331: Low-1300's
* Aug 5, 2008 @ 1285: 1240 or less
* Sept 2, 2008 @ 1282: Low-to-mid 1200's
* September 16th -- rescinded low-to-mid 1200's (recommends dollar cost-average only)
Sunday, there were no questions about the stock market (again) but there were several callers who asked about the safety of California muni-bonds. Brinker recommended that investors keep those holding small enough that it would not be a “life-altering event” in case something goes wrong with them.
Honeybee EC: Brinker seems to think that Arnie is good for California. Brinker said he gets “ill” when he hears people "bash Arnie."
Well, Bob, some of us rare Californians of more conservative political persuasion do not agree. Arnie is better than the impeached Gray Davis, but not much better. And FYI, I get “ill” when I hear you using a “money talk” program to demagogue your own political opinions like you did when you said "Joe the plumber" was "fiction."
Or like when you spoke so disparagingly about Sarah Palin -- as you so typically do with all strong women. I'd be happy to tell you this to your "face" but all I get is busy signals even when I call every 15 minutes. Do you have your calls set up for the whole program ahead of time? Sure seems strange that there would never be a call from anyone who is the least bit unhappy about the huge losses they have incurred by following your "market-timing advice.")
BALANCED PORTFOLIOS: Brinker said: "Now we’ve just seen something happen in the stock market that was unprecedented. But if you had a balanced portfolio which was bolstered by quality bonds, yes, you’ve taken a hit – but it hasn’t been a hit that is something that you cannot absorb, and something that you can come back from.”
Honeybee EC: While that may be a true statement, what he failed to say is that two out of three of his Model Portfolios are not balanced and are fully invested, including a 15% holding in RYOCX. The numbers are not yet in for October, but we know that the market has dropped at least 20% in since September 30th.
We also know that at the stock market all-time-high last October, Brinker’s Model Portfolio I was valued at $302,561. On September 30th it was valued at $224,888.
OIL BLACKMAILERS: Today Brinker talked about the drop in oil prices from the perspective of gloating about the “oil blackmailers," getting a comeuppance, but he made no mention of the fact that he was completely wrong about the “inverse correlation" between the price of oil and the stock market. He stopped mentioning this theory when oil and the stock market began to drop in tandem.
July 13, 2008 (S&P 500 @ 1239.49 -- Oil at 144.95) Moneytalk Bob Brinker said: “One of the topics we’ve been talking about on Moneytalk is what has been going on in the stock market and how that has been related to the price of a barrel of oil and the correlation that we’ve been discussing on Moneytalk. I think the stock market really is marching to the drummer known as oil right now. I think oil prices are the ax right now in the stock market."
Oil was about $125 per barrel when Brinker wrote the following: August 5, 2008 Marketimer, Page 3; Paragraph 3; "In Summary, we continue to regard oil prices as the key variable for stock prices."
"Industry insiders have called the Securities and Exchange Commission’s ban on short selling against financials a failure following the regulator’s decision to end the three week old action on Wednesday at midnight.
One motivation for the short-selling ban was to make it more difficult for companies to drive down the price of financial stocks.
Among other provisions, the SEC expanded disclosure requirements to force companies to reveal bets they made against companies. The regulator also toughened a rule against naked short selling, which prohibits fund managers from betting against a company's shares if it has not borrowed the securities.
The SEC said it let the ban expire following the president’s signing of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, the much-heralded bailout designed to ease the credit crunch.
Global financial stock prices have continued to fall despite the US ban and a similar short selling ban imposed by the Financial Services Authority in the UK which is expected to end in January.
For instance, the exchange traded fund iShares S&P Global Financials is down 27.5% for the month through October 8.
Peter Bottini, the executive vice president of trading at on-line retail brokerage optionsXpress, said he was relieved at the decision to drop the ban.
Bottini said: “This has been a failure. The numbers say it has not done what its goal was.”
Brinker’s Saturday guest-speaker was Paul B Carroll: Billion-Dollar Lessons: What You Can Learn from the Most Inexcusable Business Failures of the Last 25 Years
Brinker had Scott Rasmussen scheduled to be guest-speaker on Sunday, but he was a no-show.
If you missed Moneytalk this weekend, I highly recommend that you go to KGO810 Archives. You can either listen or download it to your MP3 players or Ipods and listen at your leisure. They have both programs available for seven day and best of all, IT IS FREE.
.

23 comments:
In the 1990s, Japanese government went on a spree, taking the budget deficit to a remarkable 5% of GDP in 2002. Roads to nowhere, concrete shorelines, bridges and dams. In 1996, the Shumizu Corporation even announced plans to build a hotel on the moon using specially developed techniques for making cement on the lunar surface.
These heroic efforts produced nothing more than farcical consequences. And the Nikkei Dow closed at 8,276 last week.
America has still a ways to go. There are 150 basis points between the Fed's current key rate and zero. Bob hit the bid!
"America has still a ways to go. There are 150 basis points between the Fed's current key rate and zero. Bob hit the bid!"
??????????????
What are you talking about??? "Bob hit the bid" ????
I was expecting more from Bob than what he delivered Saturday. Hope to see more than that in the November newsletter.
josie wrote I was expecting more from Bob than what he delivered Saturday. Hope to see more than that in the November newsletter.
Don't hold your breath. I turned the radio off in disgust after Brinker seemed to blame the Fed for the economic slowdown when they didn't listen to him when he wanted them to stop raising rates at 4% when the Fed feared high inflation.
Well, we have the highest inflation in decades now despite the high rates.
The problems today are not due to rising rates. The Fed could cut rates to zero and if Banks around the World won't lend because the bad loans they made leave them short of capital, then economies will crash as we have seen.
Brinker missed the whole thing while Buffett was correct all along.
Besides, if Brinker thought he Fed raising rates in 2007 was a problem, then what business did he have getting VERY bullish, declaring the secular bear over, calling for an all in the buy in the mid 1400s, bashing the bears at 1400 this year when they said a recession was coming and worst of all, why did he stay 100% in equities if he thought the Fed raising rates was a problem?
I can't recall every hearing a national FINANCIAL ADVISER figure such as Brinker with such a poor understanding of economics and what just transpired. How anyone trusts him any more then Britney Spears for financial advice is beyond me.
Kirk?
Would you take Sarah Palin financial advice over Britney Spears? I think Tina Fey would beat them both!
Correction: Bob, hit the bid!
(The COMMA was missing.) Hit the bid = Hit the current bid price (for stock markets) = Sell! (Kinda like: Bob, shave!)
"Would you take Sarah Palin financial advice over Britney Spears? I think Tina Fey would beat them both!"
John McCain admitted that he "doesn't really understand economics" either.
I guess we will just have to rely on bulletin board experts.
Where in the world does he find all these boot-lickers?
I'm thinking maybe there's only a half dozen or so and they disguise their voices, and we hear the same ones each weekend.
dan said...
"John McCain admitted that he "doesn't really understand economics" either."
Yes and Bob Brinker stated today that Obama is out of touch with reality when it comes to economics. Bob thinks his plan to raise taxes is about the worst thing anyone could do given the current state of this economy.
newjerseybt said: (PW doesn't work)
"John McCain admitted that he "doesn't really understand economics" either."
--
Pretty modest guy as he predicted the collapse of Fannie and Freddie. McCain's crystal ball appears to have more insight than Bob's.
Is there no limits to Bob Brinker's arrogance?
After his dismal performance in the arena where he has claimed to have such expertise, 'anticipatory stock marketiming", why on earth would anyone care about let alone adopt a two bit radio hosts ideas for dealing with the financial problems he said he didn't understand and was studying?
Honeybee, thank you for your weekend update on Bob's program.
I just could not take anymore of Bob on Sunday so I turned him off. It seems like you have to be in your 70's or 80's and investing in bonds to have your call answered on his show lately.
It is so difficult to listen to Bob's hypocrisy.
Question for Kirk. On Sundays program Bob spoke to a caller about the uptick rule. He said that it allowed the hedge funds to perform bear raids on certain companies. The caller commented that it made him wary of the stock market and asked Bob if it made it more difficult for him to forecast the market. I almost choked on my salad when Bob sort of agreed with the caller. I thought, I don't believe him. The uptick rule was removed in the summer of 07 and I never heard Bob say on air or in his newsletter that the removal made it difficult for him to predict the direction of the stock market. Did I miss something? Wasn't he predicting all time highs on the S&P sometime end of 08 beginning of 09? Also, if Washington is so concerned about restoring confidence to the markets, why wouldn't they reinstate the uptick rule, like yesterday? I am curious about your thoughts on this. Thanks,
Honey, thank you for the excellent buzz.
Anonymous, good comment.
"John McCain admitted that he "doesn't really understand economics" either."
--
Pretty modest guy as he predicted the collapse of Fannie and Freddie. McCain's crystal ball appears to have more insight than Bob's.
Josie said... "Wasn't he predicting all time highs on the S&P sometime end of 08 beginning of 09?
Yes. In December 2007 with the S&P at 1481 Brinker wrote:
“Marketimer subscribers have been able to add to position on this short-term correction based on our recommendation to view the stock market as attractive for purchase on any weakness into the S&P 500 Index mid-1400’s range. Any minor weakness below that level has been contained in the area of the August 15 correction bottom in the low-1400’s. Several excellent buying opportunities occurred during the month of November."
and
"We continue to believe that a bear market (S&P500 Index decline in excess of 20%) is not on the radar screen at this time. We expect the bull market to continue at least well into 2008, and we look for significant stock market gains, including new S&P 500 record highs."
As for the uptick rule, I don't know why they eliminated it and allowed naked shorting at the same time. Naked shorting is done to manipulate the market which is illegal yet the SEC turned the other cheek.
Some say when they turned to penny pricing, it was so easy to generate an uptick compared to when stocks were priced in eights (12.5¢) that the rule was useless, but I've not read any studies to prove it.
Pen-name "newslettercheat" wrote:
Now we have a two bit radio host who schleps a newsletter to goobers and geezers claiming he can tell them when to go to the sidelines and avoid a bear market. The market dropped more than 40% and Brinker has come up with two separate alibis to explain his incompetence. Brinker said he didn't understand the banking crisis so of course he could never have called the bear market LOL.
But today Bob Brinker the failed marketimer who hid the bear market for months, claimed he didn't understand the global banking crisis, claims to be the savior of the world with not just a plan but "my three plans".
In what has to be laugh out loud funny, Brinker chastized washington for not taking his plans--"I know they have heard my plans" he boasts--to solve the financial crisis.
What an arrogant bubble head this guy is. You would think some of that total bullchit would have left the total failure of his marketiming scam--but no, now he's the expert on how to fix what he didn't understand.
Thanks for the nice summary.
Yes, the guy is a blowhard, but I think that in your weekend summary he offers some ideas with which I agree.
The plan for the government to buy toxic assets is flawed because we have no idea what the assets are worth and we have no idea what the underlying real estatate assets are worth. $.22 on the dollar is probably reasonable, but will the banks unload them for that? I read a report that Bernanke testified that the plan was to buy them at their "hold to maturity" value which I think is absolutely ridiculous.
A better way to go, I think, is to do whatever we can to prevent the mortgage default spiral that has undermined the value of these "toxic" assets. I read about a plan in Pennsylvania where the courts have enabled about 80% of homes in forclosure to refinance. I wouldn't mind something like that on a national level. Housing needs to hit bottom before this economy can turn around, and it will never hit bottom while forclosure rates remain high.
As for politics, notwithstanding his views on Palin, I heard Brinker, not too long ago, praise McCain for his tax plan and dis Obama for his. Personally I don't think the next president, no matter who is elected, has a snowball chance in hell of getting a tax increase passed in the middle of a deep recession.
Also I disagree with Brinker about the near-term danger of inflation.
As for "market timing." LOL. It is and always has been a fools errand. It's just a question of who is the greater fool, the guy selling the advice, or the person buying it.
Bluce said: "Where in the world does he find all these boot-lickers?
I'm thinking maybe there's only a half dozen or so and they disguise their voices, and we hear the same ones each weekend.
Hi Bluce,
As I suggested in the Summary, I think it's possible that most of the calls are set up in advance. There is simply too much coincidence in the subjects that callers ask about.
Most of the calls over the weekend either followed Brinker's lead from the opening monologues -- giving him opportunities to expound his viewpoints, or they gave him opportunities to sell his newsletter.
Note the "balanced portfolio" opportunities and the "GNMA's" opportunities. There was no mention of the Vanguard High Yield Fund which Brinker ALSO recommends and has in his Fixed Income Portfolio.
What are the odds that not one person wanted to ask Brinker if he ever thought of issuing a sell signal before or during this 35% bear market?
Drafted said: "It is so difficult to listen to Bob's hypocrisy."
Yes, it is very difficult. But that "hypocrisy" (I would use a stronger word) is exactly why I write this Blog.
IMO, The two Bob Brinker's sell snake oil on the national airwaves via deception and subterfuge.
This Blog is here to provide a true historical record of the ever-changing recipe for that snake oil.
And it is here to provide a place where anyone can voice any opinion about the Brinkers without fear of being censored or attacked.
You cannot post a message at the Bob Brinker website unless you kiss the Brinker-ring. And the Marketimer website message boards were shut down years ago because they wouldn't allow criticism.
I recently posted a friendly comment and question on the younger Bob Brinker's website and it was wiped out. In its place was an invitation to become the "first" to leave a comment on his site -- another LIE.
Taxman said: "Yes, the guy is a blowhard, but I think that in your weekend summary he offers some ideas with which I agree."
Taxman,
I often agree with Brinker's ideas. Mostly, I just try to report them without commenting pro or con on them, even though I will occasionally present opposing opinions from others -- usually just to show that there is one. 8)
.
I received this via email this morning. The author has unfortunately encountered a problem posting his comments, so he has asked me to post them:
"From Les
I have been following Brinker from his WMCA radio days for about 25 years. (I wish I never heard of him)
He has made some great buy calls – a couple of decent sell calls especially 2000 and several disastrous missed calls. This past year leads the pack. Bob has skillfully stayed fully invested in fact suggested loading up on stocks each time we made new benchmark lows.
In October 1987 right up to the crash he was fully invested and was telling anyone who would listen to buy – buy – buy.
Bob will never admit to or speak about his mistakes. Has anyone heard anything lately on his radio program about messing up? Has he sent out a bulletin to his subscribers since the recent meltdown? Of course not.
I would like to describe an experience that I had in late 1987 after the market crashed. I called into his radio program and let him have it about his miserable stock market performance concerning the crash of 1987. My call was never put on the air. I believe that is what is happening now and why we never hear any questions about missing this latest collapse in the market. No excuse!!!"
.
I really enjoy Louis Navelier's daily email comments about the market. Anyone can sign up for them and they are free.
Thanks to Jeffchristie for turning me on to Navelier.
Here are the comments Navelier sent out tonight:
Another Big Bounce--Dow Jumps 413 Points
LEI, LIBOR, Comments from Paulson, Bernanke, and S&P Trigger Rally
Reno, NV (Marketmail) - October 20, 2008
An unexpected rise in the Leading Economic Indicators Index (LEI), lower LIBOR and commercial paper rates, and comments from Treasury Secretary Paulson, Fed Chairman Bernanke, and Standard & Poor's helped spark strong buying programs in the stock market today.
LEI report
LIBOR 3-month dollar rate dropped a third of a percent today, its biggest drop in nine months. Read More.
Treasury Secretary Paulson said the government may make money on the bank bailouts.
"This is an investment, not an expenditure, and there is no reason to expect this program will cost taxpayers anything," Paulson said at a Treasury briefing." Read More.
Investors also appeared inspired by remarks from Ben Bernanke when the Fed chairman suggested that another stimulus package was needed.
Congress "should consider including measures to help improve access to credit by consumers, homebuyers, businesses and other borrowers," said Bernanke. Read More.
Keep in mind that Wall Street is also expecting the Fed to cut interest rates again on October 29.
Separately, there was an S&P report today that also helped stocks rebound higher. S&P believes that government actions around the world should help banks and thaw credit markets. Read more.
Conclusion
Today's rebound added some badly needed confidence to the market, but we've seen this before. The Dow could have resistance problems around 9,310 to 9,387, and the S&P 500 might hit a wall around 1,000. If we can punch through these levels with solid volume, we would feel much more confident that the market successfully retested its lows last week. We should be able to challenge the aforementioned levels tomorrow.
...
Navellier & Associates
.
(Copied over from prior comments section):
October 21, 2008 6:43 AM
Blogger jeffchristie said...
Brinker was extremely arrogant at the start of Sunday's show with his view that his idea to solve he mortgage crisis is better than Paulson's. This got me to thinking about it. Here is my analysis:
Person A sells his house to person B for $100,000. Person B goes to Bank A and gets a 30 year loan. Bank A gives person A $100,000 and now owns the title to the home. Bank A sells the mortgage to bank B for ($100,000 + X). Bank B now has title to the home. Bank B bundles this loan with other loans into a toxic financial instrument. Person B defaults on the loan and the house goes into foreclosure. Paulson comes in and buys the toxic instrument for some %age on the dollar. The government now holds title on the house. The question then becomes what is the governments cost in this house verses its market value. If the cost is less the government could make a profit. Remember the government now owns title to the property and could sell, rent it or even renegotiate with person B if he can make a monthly payment that would cover the cost over time. I don't think we have heard much about what the government will be doing after they buy the paper and take over ownership of the property. The house originally sold for $100,000 maybe today it is only worth $80,000. The big question is what is the government's cost on the property.
October 21, 2008 7:38 AM
Post a Comment