Here is my response to Newslettercheat. As all can see, Brinker indicated that the ONLY CALIFORNIA BONDS HE OWNED were "different" in that they were guaranteed by the Treasury.
Honeybee said...
Hi Newslettercheat,
Yes, Brinker did indeed do a "flip-flop" on California General Obligation Bonds.
There have been several callers who were concerned about California bonds. Brinker has always maintained that the State of California was "too big to fail" and that the State bonds were totally safe. Several times, he reassured callers by telling them simply that he "owned them." Nary a word about his being "different" or Treasury guaranteed.
Just two weeks ago, he not only sung a new tune about California's "safety," he took a dive on its bonds! This from the December 20th Moneytalk Summary:
Caller Pamela asked about California State Muni Bonds (General Obligations):
Bob Brinker said: "Well, I think the State of California is going to have to get its act together and until then, they are going to continue to do what they are doing right now, which is, they are threatening their bond holders with fiscal irresponsibility......Just look at the numbers, the State of California is facing a possible deficit in excess of $40billion in the next fiscal year.....They have to cut their spending.....dramatically."
Pamela asked: "So would you sell your bonds if you were me?"
Bob Brinker said: "That's a personal decision, Pamela. I really can't tell you what to do with your bonds. I have some California bonds, but in almost all cases my bonds might be different than your bonds and I'll tell you why. The bonds that I own have Treasuries behind them. In other words, they've been prerefunded by earlier transactions by the state and backed by Treasuries. So in almost all cases, the California bonds that I own are actually backed by Treasuries and are not backed by the State of California....."
On the November 1st program, Brinker told a caller to ONLY buy State General Obligation Munis -- not a word about any guarantees other than the state.
As for naming this kind of deceptiveness, I would think that "scoundrel" is an understatement. And "charlatan," which I have been accused of "continuously" calling him for years (I have seldom used that word), does not apply IN THIS INSTANCE -- he KNOWS what he is doing -- and it ain't purty.
. |
