Strangely, there were no announcements that the program was made up of re-runs from previous broadcasts. It's quite possible that casual listeners would not even realize that the program was pre-recorded.
I've never heard of that kind of deception on other talk shows -- they usually announce that these programs are the "best of" or "pre-recorded" programming -- but perhaps it helped to keep those who pay Brinker for "Moneytalk on Demand," happy. I'm sure he didn't lower the cost of it by half now that Moneytalk is on only one day per week. (KGO810 radio offers Moneytalk on demand at no cost for seven days after broadcast. See link below.)
Bob Brinker's latest stock market views:
* Brinker is bullish on the stock market, his portfolios are fully invested and his S&P 500 Index target range for 2011 is: Marketimer, December 3, 2010, Bob Brinker said: "....we project a target range in the low-to-mid 1300's for the S&P 500 Index as we move forward in 2011."
Interesting to compare what Brinker was saying three years ago before the market dropped over 57%:
January 4, 2008 Marketimer, Page 3; Paragraph 1; (S&P 1468.36), Bob Brinker said: "In summary....conditions are favorable for the market as we enter 2008. We expect the S&P 500 Index to achieve new record highs this year and to reach the 1600's range in the process. We continue to rate the market attractive for purchase on any weakness into the S&P 500 index mid-1400's range. Above that range we prefer a dollar-cost- average approach for new purchases. All Marketimer Model Portfolios remain fully invested as we enter 2008......And I believe those new all-time-historic-record highs will develop as we move into 2009."Chart courtesy of Kirk Lindstrom. Click to enlarge:
Bob Brinker's latest bond market views:
* Brinker has made no changes in his bond asset allocations in Marketimer, but here is his advice for Moneytalk listeners who are concerned about fluctuations in bond fund net-asset-value (specifically VFIIX): "..... the way that I recommend you protect yourself is with what is called a mental stop. And a mental stop is very simple.....You come up with a price on each of your bond fund holdings below which you are not willing to maintain the position, and if that price is published on any given night..... If you see your price then at that point, the next day, you liquidate your position......"
Moneytalk is FREE and available on demand at KGO810 radio for seven days after broadcast. The now once-weekly Sunday program is archived in the 1-4pm time-slots. You can listen or download to your mp3 player, computer or flash drive, and listen at your leisure. KGO: Moneytalk Download
According to Paul from Sante Fe last week, this is the "national treasure" Maestro Brinker, :)
Bob Brinker May 29, 2009 Class of 1959
Old York Road Country Club, LaSalle High School, and the Sullivan Nursery
photos: 390 – 51 MB
Public on the web
61 comments:
It wasn't until after listening to the second segment, that I suspected that Sunday's Moneytalk was prerecorded. Bob had not mentioned the call in number. I continued to listen expecting to hear a call that I might have remembered from an earlier broadcast. A lady from Vancouver called and ask about using government bonds to pay for her daughters tuition in veterinary school. Bob told her that veterinarians don't make a lot of money. I remembered this call because we had a veterinarian friend who posted here and at other Brinker forums. He had a very successful practice in a rural area. Bob is probably right in saying that the average veterinarian who takes care of family pets doesn't make a lot of money but a practice geared to livestock or horses can be quite lucrative if one is willing to put in long hours.
I expected Brinker not to be on Sunday due to the holiday weekend. Every other radio talk show that I listen to has had a substitute host or a rebroadcast. They all announce this on their previous show and at the beginning of the current show. Bob should have noted this at the beginning of Sundays show. I wonder how many people might have been trying to call in with their questions?
Good morning Jeffchristie,
Thanks for reminding us about that "veterinarian" call. Yes, I think that several of us miss our old DVM friend. He obviously has done quite well financially. Didn't he own a piece of one of the Virgin Islands? :)
He was also involved in owning racing ponies, so perhaps used his profession to treat those animals -- just speculation.
All I know is that his understanding of Bob Brinker's shenanigans and his eloquence and precision when writing about Brinker has never been matched.
Heaven knows I've tried. LOL!
.
I know Brinker backed off his endorsement of GO muni bonds to something like no more than 4% in any bond... which is his way of saying it if goes bust you only lose 4% of your assets... but does anyone have any recent comments from Brinker on General Obligation bonds from US States?
I sold mine as soon as CA showed it could not balance its budget. The state is run just like GM was before it went under with high union salaries and old contracts similar to how politicians promised to workers what the tax payers don't want to pay for in exchange for votes.
Good article here:
The Looming Crisis in the States
As The Times reported, Illinois, California and several other states are at increasing risk of being the first states to default since the 1930s. The city of Prichard, Ala., has stopped sending out its pension checks, breaking state law and shocking its employees...
federal stimulus money — which has been keeping many states afloat — is largely scheduled to expire...
I saw on 60 minutes that Google and Facebook, companies with headquarters just miles from my house, are building new server farms with good paying jobs in states with low taxes.... so raising State taxes is not the solution unless your problem is too many jobs in your state...
Kirk said...
I know Brinker backed off his endorsement of GO muni bonds to something like no more than 4% in any bond... which is his way of saying it if goes bust you only lose 4% of your assets... but does anyone have any recent comments from Brinker on General Obligation bonds from US States?
Here is what Brinker said in September 2010 when a caller ask him about General Obligation bonds from US States:
Brinker reminded listeners that he has warned about municipal bond investing where the issuing entity has precarious financial footing. He said that he is comfortable investing his personal money in state general obligations. The only bond that is not a state general obligation that he personally owns are GOs issued by the City of New York --he only buys quality.
Another caller asked Brinker what he would consider a good quality GO Bond. Brinker said that in his view, anything with a AA or higher would be a high quality general obligation bond. Two examples of states with that rating are Georgia and Virginia..............
Forbes article speculating about other cities becoming "muni-bond deadbeats."
Brinker pointed out that this issue shows the critical difference between GOs and Treasuries. US Treasuries are backed by the power of the federal government printing press. Whereas, State and local governments are not. Some states, despite claiming a balanced budget are simply blowing smoke. For instance, Sacramento, California which plays budget-games almost every year.
.....................................
I believe the current rating on California GOs is single A.
I was talking to a friend about utility funds last night. For those interested, here is a good Seeking Alpha article that mentions three utility ETFs. Excerpts:
"There are many factors affecting the revenues and earnings of electric utilities. The sway of the Public Utilities Commissions, the source of fuel to run the generators along with the cost of the fuel, the efficiency of the organization, growth in the area served from both commercial and residential (don't see much of that lately), and many other factors. But if investors want a simple way of finding which electric utility stocks are successful with many of these issues, one way is to check and see if the companies have increased their dividend."
Three high-yielding electric utilities
.
I do believe the easiest way to tell old bob is lying is to watch when his mouth moves.
Hi Steve! It's good to hear from you. (Steve is one of the original alumni of Kirk's Suite 101 discussion boards.)
What is that old saying about brevity? Well, I think you hit it square on the head. LOL!
Best of the season to you and yours....
.
Well Steve, does that explain why Brinker has not been on TV since Paul Kangas asked your question about his undisclosed relationship with UTEK?
chuckle....
It would be great if the year would end today as my explore portfolio is up 20.7% YTD after doing 33.5% last year. It is far, far above its March 2000 peak and well above its December 31, 2007 level also! Not many can say that honestly.
Make sure everyone reads my article Best Investment & Retirement Portfolios for the Long-term
It is sad there is so much nonsense including how most investors have made nothing the past decade. I've been writing about how to do well since 1997 starting on Suite101 and the simple methods using asset allocation and rebalancing work without smoke and mirrors.
From last week's show, it is apparent that Mr B has adopted the former military policy of DADT.
Unless you are a sucker..er..subscriber to his rag, "don't ask" the host for specifics, as he "don't tell" freeloaders any meaningful info.
Also, "don't call". Nobody home yesterday.
Regardless of anecdotal comments, the overall market did indeed LOSE money over the past decade.
NEW YORK — A key selling point for investing in the stock market is that over the long term, the risk of owning stocks diminishes and the odds of making money jumps.
But cracks in that Wall Street marketing message became painfully visible in the just-ended 2000s — dubbed the "Lost Decade." For the first time, the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index finished a calendar decade with a negative total return, S&P says. And that was even after the S&P rose 23.5% in 2009, its best gain since 2003.
"I've lost a bet. I've lost my keys. But I've never lost a decade — until now," Sam Stovall, S&P's chief strategist, quipped in his "Lost Decades" report.
Indeed, a $1 investment in the S&P 500 on Dec. 31, 1999, was worth roughly 90 cents at the end of 2009 — and that negative return includes dividend income...
http://www.usatoday.com/money/markets/2010-01-03-2010-outlook-stocks_N.htm
Ready to have a good cry?
If you had invested $10,000 in the S&P 500, as many people did, you would have been left with just $9,090.52 after 10 years.
A $10,000 investment in T. Rowe Price Emerging Markets would have grown to $31,225.27.
And a $10,000 investment in Matthews China would have grown to $53,097.29.
And you know what's even worse? Ten years ago, the conventional wisdom preached diversifying a stock portfolio by putting a hunk of money into overseas markets and a piece of that into emerging markets.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/JubaksJournal/another-lost-decade-for-investors.aspx
have a prosperous new year to everyone!!
pete
On 12/27/2010 jeffchristie wrote:
Here is what Brinker said in September 2010 when a caller ask him about General Obligation bonds from US States:
"Brinker reminded listeners that he has warned about municipal bond investing where the issuing entity has precarious financial footing. He said that he is comfortable investing his personal money in state general obligations. The only bond that is not a state general obligation that he personally owns are GOs issued by the City of New York --he only buys quality...
Another caller asked Brinker what he would consider a good quality GO Bond. Brinker said that in his view, anything with a AA or higher would be a high quality general obligation bond....
I believe the current rating on California GOs is single A.
Thanks for the information Jeff.
I checked what Vanguard's California Intermediate-Term Tax-Exempt Fund Investor Shares (VCAIX) (click for a cool graph on StockCharts) holds:
AAA 9.0%
AA 48.2%
A 37.6%
BBB 4.2%
BB 0.1%
B or Lower 0.0%
NR 0.9%
Total 100.0%
Yield is 3.38% as of 12/27/10
About 57% is AA or higher so assume Brinker would not like that fund. I wonder if there are any large funds that only have AA or higher rated bonds in their portfolios...
It sounds like Brinker would only recommend buying new muni bonds directly and limiting exposure to 4% per bond.
I can't make a case of taking all that interest rate risk for about 2.1% extra yield until the Fed normalizes rates and states get their budgets under control. I'm doing just fine making over 25% from the equity side of my portfolio, taking some profits and using some of that cash to replace the yield from something guaranteed to not drop in value that pays 1.3% from list of savings accounts paying 1% or more
It would be interesting to hear a caller ask Brinker point blank if he would sell VCAIX given its large holdings of A rated or lower bonds. Then if yes, what would he replace it with.
Birdbrain,
Perfect! Brinker's rule for any callers who might be under the mistaken impression that he will actually answer questions about his stock or bond market views on a show called "Moneytalk" -- "Don't ask me, I won't tell until you pay up." LOL!
He makes it obvious that he is only there to sell newsletters.
.
Hi Pete!
Thank you.... Happy New Year to you and yours!
.
I can't make a case of taking all that interest rate risk for about 2.1% extra yield until the Fed normalizes rates and states get their budgets under control.
Actually, the return is almost THREE times what you are getting on your low rate deposits.
And it's TAX FREE. Quite a difference.
george wrote:
> Ready to have a good cry?
>
> If you had invested $10,000 in the S&P 500, as many people did, you would have been left with just $9,090.52 after 10 years.
>
> A $10,000 investment in T. Rowe Price Emerging Markets would have grown to $31,225.27.
>
> And a $10,000 investment in Matthews China would have grown to $53,097.29.
>
> And you know what's even worse? Ten years ago, the conventional wisdom preached diversifying a stock portfolio by putting a hunk of money into overseas markets and a piece of that into emerging markets.
George, why are you showing data that is OVER a year old? Do you have an agenda here to present false or misleading information?
As of now, the S&P500 is ahead of where it was a decade ago, if you bought VFINX and include dividends. I believe it is also ahead of the start of 2000, near when it peaked. I'll have to wait for the year to end to do my final tally.
It is sad "Wall Street" does such a poor job educating investors. Perhaps the pros on "Wall Street" hire people to post false information on quality message boards like this to mislead investors....
My core portfolios include emerging markets and REITs so they are making record all time highs. I rebalance them once a year in the newsletter so the two huge bear markets gave us great opportunities to move from fixed income to equities (including emerging markets) and REITS twice then taking profits again after we recover from the bear markets.
80% in my "Aggressive Core Portfolio" and 20% in my "Explore portfolio," which has been my advice for the last 12 years in my newsletter, is making record highs today and it has doubled since 1/1/1999 vs the S&P500 up about 25%.
I'll have a good time next year writing articles about how well my diversified portfolios of index funds has crushed the averages and made anyone following them very happy despite one of the most difficult decades ever with two bear markets. Add in a very successful explore portfolio and I'm wearing a very big smile with my own investment portfolio at RECORD HIGHS despite pulling money out to live off for many of those years while I was getting my writing business (subscriber and advertiser supported FREE online) up and running.
Sad, truly sad, that most people did not benefit from the two great bear markets the past 11 years despite the excellent opportunity.
Thanks for the great, weekly summaries Honeybee. Also thanks for the link to KGO to listen for free.
About the picture you posted. It looks like Brinker spent too much time at the beach. You would think he'd avoid the sun given it sounds like he lost his parents to the big C.
Is he wearing a beret? I prefer a pork pie hat but what do I know....
George,
In spite of the fact that some of your information is outdated, as Kirk has pointed out (thank you, Kirk), I think that you have made some good points that may not be obvious, so I will point them out.
You said: "A $10,000 investment in T. Rowe Price Emerging Markets would have grown to $31,225.27.
And a $10,000 investment in Matthews China would have grown to $53,097.29."
Since this blog is basically about Bob Brinker, I did some investigating and found that Brinker has neither of those funds in any of his model portfolios.
And neither of those funds are on his "off-the-books" mutual fund recommended list. The three-page long list that he repeats in every issue of Marketimer.
.
Besides BB's bullish call, there are a bunch more:
David Kostin, Goldman Sachs, target is 1450.
Barry Knapp, Barclay’s (BCS) has a 1420 year end target.
Dan Chung, Alger Funds, hit 1500-plus at some point in the S&P 500 next year.
Richard Bernstein expects about a 15% rise on the S&P 500 in the next 12 months.
David Bianco, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, has about 15% in total returns.
Abby Joseph Cohen, Goldman Sachs,12-month market forecast for the S&P is 1450.
Bob Doll, Black Rock, double digit returns, including dividends.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/243725-a-bullish-consensus-for-2011?source=email_partial_daily_dispatch
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/stocks/2010-12-16-usa-today-investment-roundtable_N.htm
George wrote:
"Ready to have a good cry?
If you had invested $10,000 in the S&P 500, as many people did, you would have been left with just $9,090.52 after 10 years."
Well George it could be worse. If you invested $10,000 back at the latter part of 2000 in the QQQ at $83 as Brinker recommended It would only be worth around $6,666 today with the QQQQ at $55.
Red lobster,
We know that he is an avid golfer, so he likely spends a great deal of time in the sun in Henderson, Nevada -- one of the hottest places in the US to live.
I was surprised that Brinker was so casually dressed at a 50-year high school reunion.
If you go to the link I provided, you can scroll down and see how he looked in 1959.
He is also in the 1999 group picture, in the bottom row. Notice that he is also dressed casually with no tie, like most of the other men.
"In spite of the fact that some of your information is outdated, as Kirk has pointed out..."
Not really outdated. The decade ended 12/31/2009 resulted in a loss for the overall market no matter how you parse it.
The decade ended 12/31/2010 isn't even here yet.
If you bought one SPY on 12/31/99 and held it for a DECADE you LOST money even after reinvesting all dividends.
Indeed, a $1 investment in the S&P 500 on Dec. 31, 1999, was worth roughly 90 cents at the end of 2009 — and that negative return includes dividend income...
The overall broad market lost money for the decade.
You know, George. You do a better job of showing how utterly USELESS Bob Brinker's market-timing carnie-act is than I could ever do.
I'm sure everyone, especially the two Brinker's (take your pick - they're cut out of the same soured cloth), thanks you.
Subscribing to ten years of "market-timing" advice and ending up in the red, is pathetic.
$185 X 10 = $1,850.00 Wasted!
Subscribing to ten years of "market-timing" advice and ending up in the red, is pathetic.
Absolutely correct HB. Ten years and nothing to show.
It also shows how wrong the buy-and-holders can be too when they say just buy the broad market index and hold on.
They also have ten years and nothing to show for it.
Don't think it can't happen again.
Jeffchristie said: "Well George it could be worse. If you invested $10,000 back at the latter part of 2000 in the QQQ at $83 as Brinker recommended It would only be worth around $6,666 today with the QQQQ at $55.
That is very true, Jeff. If one trusted and acted on Bob Brinker's "Act Immediately" Bulletin, sent in October, 2000, one would have invested up to 50% of the 65% of cash reserves raised earlier in the year on Brinker's advice.
That would mean that about 33% one's stock market allocations would have been sunk into QQQ at about $83 and dropped over over 2/3rds in one year.
All that on one trade that Brinker NEVER closed and never accounted for, which means ALL of his "official performance records" are based on incorrect information.
.
George said: "They also have ten years and nothing to show for it.
Don't think it can't happen again."
I would never say it can't happen again. If something can happen once, it can certainly happen again.
It hasn't been very long since we discussed the "theory" of buy and hold on this blog.
Speaking just for myself, I stated that I used to be a firm believer in it, but have changed my mind.
For me, the facts speak for themselves. I had some good mutual funds that I considered my long-term hold funds (one was Vanguard Windsor II) which basically gave everything back at least two times over the last decade.
I'm not a believer anymore, and I find Brinker's buy and hold stance incredibly silly in light of the fact that he "sells" Marketimer and "market-timing."
It's a JOKE! But people are still suckered when he snatches some "buy signal" out of thin air and claims to have nailed it.
Did I say, it's a JOKE?
.
"For me, the facts speak for themselves. I had some good mutual funds that I considered my long-term hold funds (one was Vanguard Windsor II) which basically gave everything back at least two times over the last decade.
I'm not a believer anymore, and I find Brinker's buy and hold stance incredibly silly in light of the fact that he "sells" Marketimer and "market-timing." ....
I agree HB, but if all respectable experts agree that market timing is impossible and buy and hold doesn't work either, what are we to do?
You can see from Hulbert's service that virtually NONE of the newsletters consistently beat the market either. Not a single one.
Managed accounts fare no better either and you pay a hefty annual fee for mediocre results at best.
What do we do?
"What do we do"?
Yikes! That's the million-dollar question, isn't it? :)
Those who still believe in buy and hold, say to diversify. And as Brinker says, don't be trading "in and out" of the market.
But it seems to me that if you are going to trade in and out of the market, you only need to be right 51% of the time to be ahead of buy and hold.
Do you agree with that theory?
.
I was surprised that Brinker was so casually dressed at a 50-year high school reunion...
He is also in the 1999 group picture, in the bottom row. Notice that he is also dressed casually with no tie, like most of the other men.
I noticed the same thing. Maybe he is cultivating his "bad boy" image to help with the chicks.
I can just see him tooling around in a convertible with Born to Wild blaring from the speakers.
Bobby (bad boy) Brinker
LOL!!!!
tfb
It also shows how wrong the buy-and-holders can be too when they say just buy the broad market index and hold on.
???? Who says this. I thought the idea of buy and hold was that you cannot beat the market so you need to prepare yourself to accept the market. As a logical extension of that, since you have to accept the market for what it is, you want to minimize your expenses in participation in it.
From there several camps of buy and hold emerged.
1) The strict buy and hold constructionists
2) Asset allocators
3) Asset allocators with re balancing
The later two, methods of market timing that seems to allow you to potentially outperform the base market.
Do I have this wrong somewhere?
tfb
Rebalancing by definition means you are selling the winners and buying more of the losers. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.
As for rebalancing, a number of studies over the years show that preventing asset allocation target weights from moving too far afield can modestly enhance return, reduce risk, or both.
For example, a recent edition of Burton Malkiel's best seller A Random Walk Down Wall Street shows that annually rebalancing a 60/40 stock/bond mix boosts return by around 40 basis points while reducing volatility.
http://www.capitalspectator.com/archives/2010/09/buy_hold_asset.html
TFB said: "I can just see him tooling around in a convertible with Born to Wild blaring from the speakers. Bobby (bad boy) Brinker"
LOL! Yep, I bet he broke a few hearts in his day.
I can just imagine him sweet-talking the girls using his sincere, smooth voice to persuade: "Come on, Baby. You can trust me to protect you. I have you covered. Just do as I say and there will be no bears getting near you."
Of course, he doesn't mention anything about shark-bait. :)
.
TFB said: "From there several camps of buy and hold emerged.
1) The strict buy and hold constructionists
2) Asset allocators
3) Asset allocators with re balancing
The later two, methods of market timing that seems to allow you to potentially outperform the base market.
Do I have this wrong somewhere?"
If you do have it wrong somewhere, I sure don't see it. Look like you covered the definitions of buy-and-hold very well.
All I would add is that Bob Brinker has been talking one game (market-timing) and playing another one (buy-and-hold).
.
George,
I have found much of your discussion about buy-and-hold and re-balancing quite interesting.
Here is a link to the article you posted:
Buy and Hold, Asset Allocation and Rebalancing
.
Anyone who owns JNK needs to know that the huge drop in NAV this morning is due to large capital gain distributions.
I'm sure glad that I hold this in a tax-sheltered account.
.29221 income
.398207 ST cap gain
.215784 LT cap gain
.9062 which explains the .91 "drop" from yesterday's close.
.
Jim Rogers predicts gold will go to $2,000 and silver will go to $50 per ounce.
"LONDON Global commodities guru Jim Rogers, who has predicted that gold price will eventually shoot up to surpass the $2,000 per ton mark, says silver price is also set to go to a record of $50 or higher.
In an interview to Alex Steel of TheStreet.com, Rogers, who is an authority on investment in global commodities market, said that silver prices, like gold, are certainly going up, driven by the boom in almost all commodities across the world.
Rogers, who is a well known commodities bull, and who wrote the famous books like Hot Commodities and A Bull in China, said that “gold will be $2,000 certainly in the decade, it'll probably be much higher than $2,000 in the decade but maybe even sooner I don't know.”
“But to me it seems pretty clear that it'll go to at least $2,000. If you adjust the old high back in 1980 for inflation, gold should be over $2,000 now,” he said in the interview.
But on silver price prediction, not many agree with Rogers. In its latest metals report, the global consultancy VM Metals and ABN AMRO, a Netherlands-based bank, raised its average 2011 silver price forecast by nearly $2 to $29.63, up from $27.66 in November. The 2010 average was listed at $20.13.
“In the month of November, 4.2 (million) silver eagles were purchased by U.S. Mint dealers, topping the previous record of 3.69 (million) set in December 1986,” the report said. “ETF inflows have also risen sharply in November, with global holdings growing by 5% to a record high of 477 Moz.”
Industrial activity in China has also helped drive the price of silver, with an increase of silver imports into China, the report said."
(Commodity Online)
This morning:
* Gold price - $1,406.30
* Silver price - $30.47
* Platinum price - $1,749.50
* Palladium price - $789.30
.
Follow up to my previous post:
An infinitesimal portion of those 4.2 million Silver Eagle dollars the US Mint sold in November were purchased by me.
They made great Christmas gifts. Not as wonderful as "gold, frankincense and myrrh," but nothing is. :)
.
They made great Christmas gifts.
I did NOT get mine yet...............
I bought and continue to own qqq's on Bob's advice. I also sold them on Bob's advice, at below 20 and re-bought a month later at a lower price to claim a tax loss that I have carried over ($3,000 a year) since. So while I have not recouped my net investment yet, I have managed to salvage profit here and there.
I also transferred qqq shares to my church as a donation to avoid paying the long-term profit taxes as Bob suggested. Rick
"I also transferred qqq shares to my church as a donation to avoid paying the long-term profit taxes as Bob suggested." Rick
I don't understand. If you had a loss carry forward and were deducting the max of $3,000 per year why couldn't you have used that loss carry forward to offset any long term profit you had in the QQQQs?
Hi Carolyn (Rick?),
Like George, I'm also confused.
Would you mind telling us when you made your initial QQQ purchase on Brinker's advice and what price did you pay at that time?
.
I bought and continue to own qqq's on Bob's advice.
Please accept my deepest sympathies.
Didja know that NOONE (or very few) think that Brinker still owns the Q's.
He ain't stupid...................
Mr. Pig said: "I did NOT get mine yet..............."
Did you look in the coal bin?
:)
.
I bought qqq's around $79 and continued buying, with last purchase at $55. My tax situation is such that the $3,000 carry over loss deduction each year is worth more than off-setting any long term gain which would save only 15%.
It's interesting that you mention Jim Rogers. I thought about Rogers while reading the comments about Brinker not wearing a tie. I remembered all the times years ago that Brinker made fun of Rogers by calling him " Mr. Bow tie". For a while I wondered if it was just because Brinker didn't care for Jim Rogers or if he didn't care for bow ties either. After seeing the photo maybe he just doesn't like ties in general.
It's been quite a while since I heard Brinker mention Jim Rogers.I can't help but think it's because in recent years "Mr.Bow tie" has been more right about investments than Bob Brinker.
After seeing the photo maybe he just doesn't like ties in general.
I don't know, in looking at the photo I would say he does care about being sober...
Then again if I preyed on the financially ignorant I might be prone to drink myself.
tfb
"My tax situation is such that the $3,000 carry over loss deduction each year is worth more than off-setting any long term gain which would save only 15%."
Oh, that makes sense. And your church got a nice donation and you got a contribution. Good for you!
Now you just have to hope you don't get any profits that will force you to use up that loss carry-forward....just kidding :)
Is everyone aware of and prepared for this government atrocity?
OBAMA CARE: Hidden Tax On Gold
Section 9006 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, OBAMA CARE will amend the Internal Revenue Code to expand the scope of Form 1099
. Currently, 1099 forms are used to track and report the miscellaneous income associated with services rendered by independent contractors or self-employed individuals.
Starting Jan. 1, 2012, Form 1099s will become a means of reporting to the I.R.S the purchases of all goods and services by small businesses and self-employed people that exceed $600 during a calendar year. Purchase and sales of coins,bullion, and precious metals will fall into this category.
Coin dealers and Liberty Loving Americans will be the ones most affected by this proposed change. I guess this is another attack on freedom and sound money policy by the current administration and the overlords at the Federal Reserve pulling the strings. I guess they find individuals pursuing sound money policy as a threat to their fiat currency scheme.
The tax code will also be a way for the government to register gold and silver buyers so if they decide they can steal it later. Would we be surprised if history repeated itself?
FDR passed The Gold Confiscation Executive Order on April 5, 1933....a sad day indeed...
Obamacare Hidden Tax on Gold
.
golawson said: "I bought qqq's around $79 and continued buying, with last purchase at $55."
Let me guess: You acted on all THREE of Bob Brinker's counter-trend rally predictions and QQQQ-buys, each one lower than the last.
That's right! He actually REPEATED the QQQ buy advice THREE times in Marketimer: October, 2000, January, 2001 and March, 2001.
Very similarly to all the new (ever lower) buy levels he announced in 2008 while the market dropped.
.
George said to golawson: "Oh, that makes sense. And your church got a nice donation and you got a contribution. Good for you!"
George,
golawson never mentioned a church. Are you assuming that he/she is Carolyn/Rick?
Understandable if you did since Carolyn has not yet answered any of the questions that were asked of her/him.
.
Ms Honey noticed: golawson never mentioned a church. Are you assuming that he/she is Carolyn/Rick?
Please don't add any facts into this equation...it can be confusing.
Ms Honey continued with: Understandable if you did since Carolyn has not yet answered any of the questions that were asked of her/him.
I'm SHOCKED I tell you.........just SHOCKED.
BTW, if any of the above QQQQ wizards still have a profit, I suggest puttin that in junior's bond funds, where they can be lost with dignity. Has the guy ever shown a profit yet with NO-Brainer bond funds?
Anyone have a favorite REIT? And why? It seems to me this might be an area where active mgmt with reasonable fees might do well, but I am trying to expedite my research. Currently I have TIAA Cref.
tfb
TFB,
I have settled on one REIT, the single ones make me nervous and so do the Cohen and Steers closed end ETFs.
The one I own is VNQ...It's done real well for me. I wish I'd bought more.
.
Frankj:
Jim -- thanks for the comment on "Mr. Bow Tie." BB mentioned him in the past and I always wondered who he was talking about.
I have settled on one REIT, the single ones make me nervous and so do the Cohen and Steers closed end ETFs.
I am so lost.
the single one
Meaning...I thought most REITs came diversified, just not necessarily across the vertical the invest in, i.e. health care. Is that what you mean?
What in the closed end type bothers you?
Curious...
tfb
Frankj:
There are REITs like Plum Creek Timber that you can invest in that are publicly traded. Maybe that is what was meant by a single REIT.
TFB asked: "Meaning...I thought most REITs came diversified, just not necessarily across the vertical the invest in, i.e. health care. Is that what you mean?
What in the closed end type bothers you?"
TFB and all,
Sorry, I guess I forgot you can't read my mind. LOL!
Yes, you are correct. What I meant by "single" is the individual REIT companies as opposed to mutual funds or ETF of REITS.
For example, here is the list of holdings in RQI closed end ETF. (Of course, most of them hold a portfolio of properties.)
Simon Property Group Regional Mall 8.6
Boston Properties Offfice 3.6
Vornado Realty Trust Diversified 3.3
Equity Residential Apartment 3.1
Health Care REIT Inc. Health Care 3.0
Public Storage Inc. Self Storage 2.9
Kimco Realty Corp. Shopping Center 2.4
HCP Health Care 2.2
Developers Diversified Realty Shopping Center 2.0
Nationwide Health Properties Inc. Health Care 2.0
List of Cohen and Steers Eight Closed-End Funds here
.
FrankJ,
Well that's a new one on me. :)
I never heard of Plum Creek Timber. Looks interesting and seems to be doing fairly well. It pays a dividend of about 4.5%
Yahoo: Plum Creek
For me, as I said before -- or meant to say -- it lacks the greater diversity that makes me more comfortable with REITS like VNQ.
.
Frankj:
The REIT structure is a good one for timber companies who earn revenue from the sale of standing timber or logs. The revenue is treated as capital gains for tax purposes. Rayonier has been a REIT for years, and Weyerhaeuser converted to one recently.
All three of these companies have geographic diversity across the US, but I would say Plum Creek is the most diverse.
Well, that is one of the wonderful things I enjoy about this blog. I learn new things all the time.
Thanks FrankJ, and Happy New Year!
.
Post a Comment