Saturday was an interesting day in Moneytalk history. I hope our beloved Starship Commander will forgive my frank assessment. My intention is NOT to belittle the "Brinker Boys" as a caller stated but to provide a summary of the program on Saturday that I thought interesting.
I would be remiss if I didn't say I miss Bob terribly!
At least the goddess is gone for now. I actually would rate the program today as barely average as it was mired in the mediocrity of "..you can visit our website at www.fool.com and our book...". I admit Bob is not perfect but never in the last decade have I heard Bob plug his Marketimer as I witnessed the Fools plug their endeavors. I have heard Bob cut people off time and again that start to mention the newsletter. Why don't the Fools buy some airtime like Bob does for Marketimer?
As for rankings they are second, please hear my opinion out, to Bill Flanigan of Forbes fame for one reason; that being, Bill addresses the caller's needs and specific questions. When he doesn't know an answer he usually recommends they talk to a professional (Attorney, CPA, CFP). And yes, he is not the liveliest of characters and he is far from perfect. As for the "goddess" she doesn't rank in my book although by default we must give her third place.
Although if one were to rank for "plugging", I think the Fools and the "goddess" are too close to call a winner. Ahh, let's give it to the fools for they only purport to pledge to tell the truth to royalty whereas the other one believes herself to be a deity. Perhaps someone could take the average book copies sold per week by the Fools and subtract it from the possible increase in sales this week as a result of being on MoneyTalk. Then they can compensate Bob for their free advertising on hundreds of radio stations across the US. I must give the Fools credit for I find them interesting and intellectually above average so I am compelled to think they will sell some extra books. I say this because the "goddess" imho sounds so intellectually and personally vacant that I fear Bob need not run the numbers for there would be no increase in sales of her book.
Let's take a look at what we heard Saturday. Remember the Fools had some major shoes to fill in the absence of our Starship Commander. Suffice it to say I am not too enamored of them. This is in no way saying that I don't believe them to be extremely intelligent and honest people with some great ideas (e.g. the Foolish Four variation on the Dow Dogs strategy). I just guess I am used to Bob, as are others seeing that his show is so popular and he has such a following.
As for the first hour or so they appeared to interrupt and talk over each other constantly. I found their discussion of KO interesting compared to Bob's perspective. They differ from Bob dramatically in that they ignore KO's recent high p/e and every other variable. I am sorry but buy and hold KO for twenty years doesn't cut it. At what point should one take into account the variables that occur in life? Twenty years to the day? Most people have unique needs so this usually won't work. If only my financial life could be so simple. The Fools stated that one couldn't possibly be an expert in all areas of financial planning yet they continually bashed "brokers, advisors and money managers". So where do you go? Not that I don't believe brokers and wirehouses are shark infested waters but by not dealing with them you eliminate a huge conflict of interest. You could always work with advisors and money managers who are fee-based. This tends to mitigate conflicts of interest.
The first caller referred to them as the "Brinker Boys". Perhaps we could invite the "goddess" and have a new movie called "The Fabulous Brinker Boys". Humor aside, I don't think they are in the same category as Bob. Bob was around in 73-74. The last bear market. Bob also knows people don't have "40 to 50 year" time frames in most cases. One of the Fools commented that "20 years ago 1000 points would have probably doubled the index but is not a big deal today". This is a mind-boggling statement for two reasons. First, anyone who follows the market usually knows over time where the Dow average was in a given year. Secondly, if you listen to Bob at all you are educated incessantly about 1982 Dow 777 and no looking back (15 years +). So, 1000 points 20 years ago would have obviously more than doubled the index. I find it interesting that if you don't know basic information about 15 years ago how can you discuss ad infinitum this "40 to 50 year time horizon"? One caller asked the Fools if they listen to MoneyTalk. The Fools responded "We listen to Bob sometimes". Maybe they should listen more because people don't have "40 year time frames". Also, Bob answers people's questions directly regardless of whether they like the answer. Most people can't buy stock via "the Hershey DRIP program" and sail on autopilot for "40 years". Anyone who works with people knows that each person has individual needs. This is in no way to diminish the point of investing for the long term but I think ten years or so is a more viable long-term time frame. Even within this period financial issues can change drastically. From my experience, people with an especially large sum of money wouldn't like to be told to check a web site or buy Hershey through a DRIP and/or sail for 40 years regardless of bear markets, etc. They prefer an extremely defensive approach after working hard to accumulate wealth. In fact, some have commented to me that they would prefer not to live through another 73-74 bear market regardless of the tax consequences. Their perspective no matter what age is that they don't want to wait years to recoup paper losses. This is a consistent theme whether they are in their 40s or 70s. I guess I advocate Bob's position of having a heightened awareness and trying not to sit through a bear market if at all possible. Also, I agree with Bob on tending to avoid DRIPs in general because of paperwork etc.
The next caller asked about 3COM. The one Fool responded "if you were to hold for a couple years because of volatility I may buy 3COM and Cisco". What about the "40 year" time horizon. And yes, I realize these are tech stocks but the Fools youthful energy produces ill thought out and flippant responses without regard to asset allocation, % of total portfolio, etc. The basic questions not rocket science. I can't count how many times I have met someone who buys a "3COM" and ties up 50%+ of their portfolio only to panic when it goes from $80 to $30. Bob's professional response is usually something like "I don't follow XYZ" or "I have no comment" and either way he states ad infinitum ".MoneyTalk trekkies are encouraged not to have any holding that makes up more than 2 to 4% of their total portfolio on a cost basis". I think it is important to note that everyone's needs are unique and there is not one time frame nor asset class that is correct for everyone. I have never heard Bob talk of time frames usually more than 5 to 10 years out. He is a professional who knows the variables of life and he understands unique needs.
Later one Fool commented that Warren Buffett "has made more money in the last five years than in the last thirty years". This deserves some attention. It would be better to specify an important fact. I have minimal knowledge of Buffett but it is important to note that in percentage terms I believe he has averaged 29% compounded annually for over thirty years now as a value investor. So, it is obvious that after a point the dollar value would grow at an accelerated rate if one were earning 29% per year. 29% on $1 billion is less than 29% on $20 billion. Interestingly enough, I don't believe he advocates any of the Fools approaches either.
The height of absurdity occurred at 5:25pm CST. The phone call about investment opportunities for the adult entertainment industry on the Web. I am speechless! It went past the screener and that the Fools didn't hang up. Come on!!! Bob doesn't take this type of junk. Some people don't like it but he has hung up on people for much less than this episode. Bob has an energetic, buoyant and sensitive personality that doesn't tolerate this type of talk radio nonsense. Earlier in the program one Fool jokingly referred to listenership versus Howard Stern. Perhaps they could guest host for Stern next time. Or, perhaps the Fools can take their analysis back to their web site and discuss the "only play in this area is Playboy". This was the most absurd call I have ever heard on the program in over a decade. This is worse than the guy insulting Bob a few weeks ago about the T. Rowe Price Science and Technology Fund not owning science companies and arguing with Bob about the absolutely phenomenal return not being better. I can see why Bob may retire. How does he tolerate these callers? A person needs more than 18 holes to calm down after this nonsense.
Finally, as for the call that started to ask about protection of assets via an umbrella policy. The question went unanswered. Perhaps he didn't pass the 40-year test. In actuality I don't think the Fools understood the question. Or, perhaps they just chose to ignore it and talk about the polar opposite of the caller. Wealth accumulation vs. wealth protection. To put it bluntly everyone needs this type of policy imho. Do the Fools realize how important this type of policy can be? Maybe they could ask my friend whose neighbor had a child venture onto their property when no one was around to use their parked vehicle to jump up and dunk a basketball. The family was sued for multiple 6 figures and ended up paying out over $100,000 for the kid's broken arm and back injuries. If they wouldn't have had umbrella insurance their financial assets would have been seriously exposed except for 401k money etc. Not all claims utilize the umbrella but it sure as hell helped this family.
Please note these are only opinions. I think the Fools are likable chaps. They are perhaps better suited at this point of their careers as cyber-personalities versus talk radio personalities. Again, they did have a tough job taking over for the Starship Commander. To be quite honest no one can replace Bob. But as for a host during his well-deserved vacations, give me a "non-egotistical, matter of fact, talk about the caller's needs and not plugging myself or Forbes magazine" Bill Flanigan anytime.
FWIW,
Katie |
