Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Bob Brinker: Market Savant & Radio Host -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Honey_Bee who wrote (41751)	12/29/2008 10:39:24 AM
From: EQ	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42834

Seasoned Greetings Honey said: He (Bob) unequivocally stated what he owned when he said this: "The bonds that I own have Treasuries behind them. EQ requests a transcription read back: Honey, would you mind checking the tape and advising us? Did Bob say: "The bonds that I own have Treasuries behind them. Or, did Bob say something like: EVERY CA bond that I own have Treasuries behind them. Cheers, Elan

To: Honey_Bee who wrote (41751)	12/29/2008 10:42:52 AM
From: gronieel	4 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 42834

No hon, you still don't get it...but I'm not surprised. Brinker told Pamela that his bonds "might be different" than hers which is completely different than telling her she had "NO HOPE" as you erroneously shouted before. And of course Brinker hasn't mentioned CA pre-refunded bonds before because they haven't been around that long. If you would spend a little more time doing some research instead of listening to the ramblings of some self-proclaimed PH.D. "Equivalent" armchair economist you might be able to understand all this "stuff". You and your quacky friend still don't even understand what a pre-refunded bond is or how it came to be pre-refunded or how it's traded do you?

To: Honey_Bee who wrote (41751)	12/29/2008 11:07:56 AM
From: Kirk ©	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42834

The basket-turd defending the evasive non-answer given by "Brinker the Terrified of Truth" is taking advantage or a technicality that CA GO bonds (and many others) are callable but only on certain dates. So... when the state wants to call these bonds, it borrows money at much lower interest rates and funds the P&I for the GO Bonds to the call date in an account backed by Treasuries so the State has no risk of defaulting. They do this because it saves the borrower, the State of CA, a lot of money... thus it means the lender makes less money than planned... and has to reinvest the funds at much lower interest rates... all bad news for the lender but good for us tax payers in CA. Again, Brinker didn't say ALL of his GO bonds were prerefunded ($ to call them on the allowed call date in Treasuries) so it sounds like he still owns some of the bonds that have not yet been called. But, the coward should have answered the question regardless and perhaps said US Treasuries or CDs were better investments compared to his advice to buy CA GO bonds. BTW, all this borrowing by States to pre-refund GO bonds they will call, could be a big reason ST US Treasuries are paying near zero interest. It probably also explains why some of these bond mutual funds did not do as well as Treasury funds or even Vanguard's Total Bond Fund (up 5% YTD) ... since savvy investors know much of what they hold is going to be called by States refinancing their debt.... so rates will drop in the future hence the NAV of the funds reflects this. If "America's Most Trusted Financial Advisor" was deserving of trust rather than scorn, then he would have explained that to her.