Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
a comically pitiful argument for diversification and not panicking
So much wrong here in this loser story, one does not know where to begin. But part of the deep pickle we are in is score-settling on behalf of some loser father? Seriously? Talk about not having faith!
It is as rich and pitiful as W's personal saga, or as Grover's sadist father and the icecream:
@davidrmoran - Thank you very much for posting this. Not because I'm overjoyed to read it. I am really quite pissed.
This is a classic op-ed at self-promotion. I've seen it many times. Recently a CEO said "When we were kids, I and my sister would be asked at the dinner table to say a speech every day". Really?
Now here we have a person who could give great speeches as a kid as well. His railing about taxes in adulthood was because his tyrant of a father took away chunks of his ice-cream? Or is it because he has developed the same narcissistic tendencies? And of course the courage of his convictions doesn't make him leave his "president" when they are clearly acting against his advice. Such an esteemed gentleman, no?
But forget that. You see how such articles subtly establish "qualities" in the individual. Automatically we now think the person is an "expert" or a "leader" and we accept him/her in that role. It is psychological brainwashing.
I propose an "Utter Crap" category be created on MFO and all us when they find such articles should post them there. OT just doesn't cut it. OT can be overlooked. We need to draw attention to such nonsense and help each other not get hoodwinked.
Once again @davidrmoran. Thank you for calling bullshit when it was needed. It actually goes beyond the specifics of the article. I call it "Leadershit".
I read that article over in the WSJ and was equally appalled. So now we have Bannon & Breitbart "leading" us who knows where because AT&T went down in 2008?
This reminds me of those invested with Enron. Classic mistake by putting all eggs in one basket and selling at the bottom. He should have learned from his depression experience.
What is especially rich in all of this, plus you can throw in W, is the father-son pathology, neediness, dependency, cruelty, imaginary payback, blah blah. Quite apart from the investment misjudgment.
@davidrmoran. Once again, don't forget the psychobabble and "marketing" behind these "geniuses". The first things such articles do is establish high level of competency and intelligence in their subjects and also their superiority over others. I may be a COB, but I'm telling you most of these articles are sanctioned. Anyone reading them might react to how we are reacting, but underneath it all, many of them believe these guys are "leaders" in their fields through the subtle attack on the reader's psyche, which makes them accept these people to be fit for the office/position they hold.
Tell me the difference...
He has long admired nationalist movements around the globe and has expressed antipathy toward the European Union.
vs
He has long lamented his xenophobia has not translated to mostly white european nations\
Huh. Must think about this re Bannon. Grover was highly displeased with Swidey's excellent profile, and the conveyed theme of violent cruelty that he himself regularly employs ('going to take government and drown it like a puppy in the bathtub' make you wonder if the guy did such things as a child), and W never did like the gloss that he was overcompensating for his father in more than one respect (revenge plus proof of rehab blah blah). You may be onto something re Bannon, but this article should help change that, showing such wonderfully admitted momentum behind the pathology ('it all started then'), not to mention dad's being such a hapless dope.
@Flack No one is forcing you to read this thread on the discussion board. There are plenty of other threads on filthy lucre. If you don't like what's on TV, change the channel. Just saying.
@Flack FWIW, this is hardly political banter. This thread is calling out narcissists. The only people upset should be those of the same ilk. I have expressed an opinion on how to see through such people.
The topic is OT. If you don't like, forget changing channel (post), change your cable provider (category).
Not trying to give you any flack. For once, pun not intended.
@Flack: If you had read the article under discussion you would be aware that it describes how the perspective of a very influential White House adviser was formed by his father's financial losses in the 2008 recession.
Those losses were incurred because of actions which have been the subject of financial discussions for years, and which will undoubtedly continue to be discussed until the end of time. Those actions had absolutely no direct political aspect, but were the cautionary result of pathetic investor ignorance.
The future of the United States with respect to trade and finance is now directly impacted by the logically unhinged and perverted frame of reference of this powerful presidential adviser. Your complaint that this subject isn't pertinent and important to investing is without merit.
@Flack Actually, the article is illustrative of the dangers of owning company stock in one's employer, a common problem for 401k investors who are given stock as an option along with an assortment of funds. It is relevant. By the way, how does knowing the market does well on St. Patrick's day or better yet an article about time lapse photography of animals--both of which are posted today on the board--help you adjust your investment plan? But no complaints on those threads!
"Tell us how exactly your investment plans will be adjusted/altered based upon what you gleaned from this article."
@Flack- I've significantly increased our cash position because of concerns over the increasing instability and unpredictability of our government with respect to international trade, international relations, healthcare issues, and budgetary proposals. This article certainly does nothing to ease my apprehension.
I'm surprised and disappointed by your harsh assessment of Marty Bannon. Yes, he was not a wise investor by his failure to diversify. Yes, he panicked. But that doesn't make him a loser. We all make poor investment decisions. I have made plenty of them. If a poor investment decision is the qualifier for the loser label, we are all losers.
A faulty investment decision doesn't make anyone a life long loser. Like many of us, Marty basically worked one job, owned one house, and managed to save a modest nest egg for both retirement and emergency purposes. That's not a Loser's profile.
I doubt very much that his Dad's unfortunate investment experience changed much of Steve Bannon's world philosophy.
At the age when that sad loss occurred (like 54), Bannon the younger had been exposed to a wide variety of experiences that each partially modified his world views. His brain's wiring was likely greatly influenced by his advanced age, by his college level education at 3 institutions, by his 7 year Navy experience as an officer, by his employment at Goldman Sachs, and by his own business failures and successes.
I sure don't know how narcissistic Steve Bannon is. I would guesstimate it is higher than his Dad's. We all are narcissistic to some degree. Certainly both Presidents Obama and Trump display major narcissistic characteristics. Perhaps that's a requisite necessary for that high office.
I have no idea if the Trump presidency will be successful or not. It is far to early to make a judgement. I am sure that President Trump and Steve Bannon see the world in much the same way. I am even more sure that Bannon's world perspective was not strongly influenced by his Dad's singular bad selling decision.
And Marty Bannon deserves some respect for living a full life that included sending his kids to college. It's a story that is similar to what many of us can tell.
We shouldn't judge folks because of their political preferences. Those preferences, like the marketplace, are subject to change. My political support has changed several times and is likely to change again in the future. Being flexible contributes to success.
From the article under discussion: "No White House official has more influence on a wider portfolio of issues than Steve Bannon."
"There were many factors that turned Steve Bannon into a divisive political firebrand. But his decision to embrace “economic nationalism” and vehemently oppose the forces and institutions of globalization, he says, stems from his upbringing, his relationship with his father and the meaning those AT&T shares held for the family."
@MJG: Most likely you are going to be amazed by this, but I quite agree with your comments, above. I selected those two quotes to illustrate two different points:
1) Mr. Bannon does in fact have a substantial influence in the determination of the economic and political policy of the United States.
2) To buttress your observations, there were certainly far more inputs to his present belief system than just the simplistic incident regarding the AT&T stock.
Given his education and exposure to the sophistication of the financial arena, it is difficult to understand how he was not able to better advise his father with respect to financial matters. Not even a phone call: "Dad, no matter what, DO NOT SELL until we agree about that".
Fine. Tell us how exactly your investment plans will be adjusted/altered based upon what you gleaned from this article.
Again, this is OT post. So it does not matter whether any investing advice can be gleamed from this thread. I would rather only discuss whiskey here, but come on now!
Perhaps you didn't read this comment from Old Joe -
"If you had read the article under discussion you would be aware that it describes how the perspective of a very influential White House adviser was formed by his father's financial losses in the 2008 recession.
Those losses were incurred because of actions which have been the subject of financial discussions for years, and which will undoubtedly continue to be discussed until the end of time. Those actions had absolutely no direct political aspect, but were the cautionary result of pathetic investor ignorance.
The future of the United States with respect to trade and finance is now directly impacted by the logically unhinged and perverted frame of reference of this powerful presidential adviser. Your complaint that this subject isn't pertinent and important to investing is without merit."
Sounds like Old Joe was talking about INVESTING. (Gee, I guess that's shame on him) That's why I asked my question. Maybe you should tell him to cut it out. After all, as you said, this is OT. And you can again have the last word.
@Flack, I read it, but that's irrelevant. I'm saying, in OT discussion I don't expect to get investment advice or learn anything.
So our complaints are different. My complaint remains the fact that people cannot smell horse manure. I don't know why and I just don't get it. We keep on looking for meaning or some enlightenment and not recognize the stench under our very noses.
IMO, the only thing to understand from the articles linked is we have narcissists in society masquerading as experts in the fields they have chosen to the detriment of society. That's it.
Given his education and exposure to the sophistication of the financial arena, it is difficult to understand how he was not able to better advise his father with respect to financial matters. Not even a phone call: "Dad, no matter what, DO NOT SELL until we agree about that".
Maybe because he is not really qualified to do that? Just because he worked at Goldman Sachs and may/may not have made money does not prove his competence. All he is doing is complaining and making his father's situation someone else's fault. Surely, that's plain to see. Those events "shaped" his thinking? No, they are now "excusing" his thinking.
I'm sure people think I'm starting some conspiracy theory. Whatever...I've long believed media has been completely captured by special interests. Journalism teaches people how to make news, not research and report it. The low percentage of Journalists who are true to their profession will all die poor. My complaint is more about the folks who sanctioned that article and those who wrote it, and less about the subjects of those articles.
MDowd NYT has a nice summary of the perils of decisionmaking based on too much TV, and the wrong channels:
... Marty Bannon, who started at AT&T as a lineman, got spooked by Jim Cramer’s advice on the “Today” show to take “whatever money you may need for the next five years” out of the market. Even though one son, Steve, was a banker at Goldman Sachs and another son had an investment background, Marty Bannon did not consult them or a financial adviser until the sale was completed. He preferred, like Trump, to get crucial information from TV pundits and eschew the experts in his own circle who might have told him that selling during panics is not wise and that having one stock in an undiversified portfolio is not smart. “Everything since then has come from there, all of it,” Steve Bannon, the multimillionaire architect of Trumpworld, said of the stock sale. So, essentially, because Bannon’s father made a bad, hurried financial decision based on watching TV, we now have to slash Meals on Wheels, Big Bird, the arts, after-school programs, health insurance, immigration from Muslim countries, climate-change research, diplomats and taxes for the rich.
"So, essentially, because Bannon’s father made a bad, hurried financial decision based on watching TV, we now have to slash Meals on Wheels, Big Bird, the arts, after-school programs, health insurance, immigration from Muslim countries, climate-change research, diplomats and taxes for the rich."
Comments
This is a classic op-ed at self-promotion. I've seen it many times. Recently a CEO said "When we were kids, I and my sister would be asked at the dinner table to say a speech every day". Really?
Now here we have a person who could give great speeches as a kid as well. His railing about taxes in adulthood was because his tyrant of a father took away chunks of his ice-cream? Or is it because he has developed the same narcissistic tendencies? And of course the courage of his convictions doesn't make him leave his "president" when they are clearly acting against his advice. Such an esteemed gentleman, no?
But forget that. You see how such articles subtly establish "qualities" in the individual. Automatically we now think the person is an "expert" or a "leader" and we accept him/her in that role. It is psychological brainwashing.
I propose an "Utter Crap" category be created on MFO and all us when they find such articles should post them there. OT just doesn't cut it. OT can be overlooked. We need to draw attention to such nonsense and help each other not get hoodwinked.
Once again @davidrmoran. Thank you for calling bullshit when it was needed. It actually goes beyond the specifics of the article. I call it "Leadershit".
Pitiful, yes. Comical, no. Insanity!!
http://conservativeread.com/steve-bannon-and-the-making-of-an-economic-nationalist/
If it took 2008 for the senior Bannon to notice that T wasn't doing well, he just wasn't paying attention. The Ma Bell he'd worked for died 1/1/84.
Economist: The Fall of A Corporate Queen (Feb 3, 2005)
http://www.economist.com/node/3632638
Tell me the difference...
He has long admired nationalist movements around the globe and has expressed antipathy toward the European Union.
vs
He has long lamented his xenophobia has not translated to mostly white european nations\
I couldn't be more displeased with all your political blather.
Just saying.
The topic is OT. If you don't like, forget changing channel (post), change your cable provider (category).
Not trying to give you any flack. For once, pun not intended.
Those losses were incurred because of actions which have been the subject of financial discussions for years, and which will undoubtedly continue to be discussed until the end of time. Those actions had absolutely no direct political aspect, but were the cautionary result of pathetic investor ignorance.
The future of the United States with respect to trade and finance is now directly impacted by the logically unhinged and perverted frame of reference of this powerful presidential adviser. Your complaint that this subject isn't pertinent and important to investing is without merit.
By the way, how does knowing the market does well on St. Patrick's day or better yet an article about time lapse photography of animals--both of which are posted today on the board--help you adjust your investment plan? But no complaints on those threads!
@Flack- I've significantly increased our cash position because of concerns over the increasing instability and unpredictability of our government with respect to international trade, international relations, healthcare issues, and budgetary proposals. This article certainly does nothing to ease my apprehension.
I'm surprised and disappointed by your harsh assessment of Marty Bannon. Yes, he was not a wise investor by his failure to diversify. Yes, he panicked. But that doesn't make him a loser. We all make poor investment decisions. I have made plenty of them. If a poor investment decision is the qualifier for the loser label, we are all losers.
A faulty investment decision doesn't make anyone a life long loser. Like many of us, Marty basically worked one job, owned one house, and managed to save a modest nest egg for both retirement and emergency purposes. That's not a Loser's profile.
I doubt very much that his Dad's unfortunate investment experience changed much of Steve Bannon's world philosophy.
At the age when that sad loss occurred (like 54), Bannon the younger had been exposed to a wide variety of experiences that each partially modified his world views. His brain's wiring was likely greatly influenced by his advanced age, by his college level education at 3 institutions, by his 7 year Navy experience as an officer, by his employment at Goldman Sachs, and by his own business failures and successes.
I sure don't know how narcissistic Steve Bannon is. I would guesstimate it is higher than his Dad's. We all are narcissistic to some degree. Certainly both Presidents Obama and Trump display major narcissistic characteristics. Perhaps that's a requisite necessary for that high office.
I have no idea if the Trump presidency will be successful or not. It is far to early to make a judgement. I am sure that President Trump and Steve Bannon see the world in much the same way. I am even more sure that Bannon's world perspective was not strongly influenced by his Dad's singular bad selling decision.
And Marty Bannon deserves some respect for living a full life that included sending his kids to college. It's a story that is similar to what many of us can tell.
We shouldn't judge folks because of their political preferences. Those preferences, like the marketplace, are subject to change. My political support has changed several times and is likely to change again in the future. Being flexible contributes to success.
Best Wishes
"There were many factors that turned Steve Bannon into a divisive political firebrand. But his decision to embrace “economic nationalism” and vehemently oppose the forces and institutions of globalization, he says, stems from his upbringing, his relationship with his father and the meaning those AT&T shares held for the family."
@MJG: Most likely you are going to be amazed by this, but I quite agree with your comments, above. I selected those two quotes to illustrate two different points:
1) Mr. Bannon does in fact have a substantial influence in the determination of the economic and political policy of the United States.
2) To buttress your observations, there were certainly far more inputs to his present belief system than just the simplistic incident regarding the AT&T stock.
Given his education and exposure to the sophistication of the financial arena, it is difficult to understand how he was not able to better advise his father with respect to financial matters. Not even a phone call: "Dad, no matter what, DO NOT SELL until we agree about that".
Perhaps you didn't read this comment from Old Joe -
"If you had read the article under discussion you would be aware that it describes how the perspective of a very influential White House adviser was formed by his father's financial losses in the 2008 recession.
Those losses were incurred because of actions which have been the subject of financial discussions for years, and which will undoubtedly continue to be discussed until the end of time. Those actions had absolutely no direct political aspect, but were the cautionary result of pathetic investor ignorance.
The future of the United States with respect to trade and finance is now directly impacted by the logically unhinged and perverted frame of reference of this powerful presidential adviser. Your complaint that this subject isn't pertinent and important to investing is without merit."
Sounds like Old Joe was talking about INVESTING. (Gee, I guess that's shame on him)
That's why I asked my question.
Maybe you should tell him to cut it out. After all, as you said, this is OT.
And you can again have the last word.
Flack
So our complaints are different. My complaint remains the fact that people cannot smell horse manure. I don't know why and I just don't get it. We keep on looking for meaning or some enlightenment and not recognize the stench under our very noses.
IMO, the only thing to understand from the articles linked is we have narcissists in society masquerading as experts in the fields they have chosen to the detriment of society. That's it.
Given his education and exposure to the sophistication of the financial arena, it is difficult to understand how he was not able to better advise his father with respect to financial matters. Not even a phone call: "Dad, no matter what, DO NOT SELL until we agree about that".
Maybe because he is not really qualified to do that? Just because he worked at Goldman Sachs and may/may not have made money does not prove his competence. All he is doing is complaining and making his father's situation someone else's fault. Surely, that's plain to see. Those events "shaped" his thinking? No, they are now "excusing" his thinking.
I'm sure people think I'm starting some conspiracy theory. Whatever...I've long believed media has been completely captured by special interests. Journalism teaches people how to make news, not research and report it. The low percentage of Journalists who are true to their profession will all die poor. My complaint is more about the folks who sanctioned that article and those who wrote it, and less about the subjects of those articles.
... Marty Bannon, who started at AT&T as a lineman, got spooked by Jim Cramer’s advice on the “Today” show to take “whatever money you may need for the next five years” out of the market.
Even though one son, Steve, was a banker at Goldman Sachs and another son had an investment background, Marty Bannon did not consult them or a financial adviser until the sale was completed.
He preferred, like Trump, to get crucial information from TV pundits and eschew the experts in his own circle who might have told him that selling during panics is not wise and that having one stock in an undiversified portfolio is not smart.
“Everything since then has come from there, all of it,” Steve Bannon, the multimillionaire architect of Trumpworld, said of the stock sale. So, essentially, because Bannon’s father made a bad, hurried financial decision based on watching TV, we now have to slash Meals on Wheels, Big Bird, the arts, after-school programs, health insurance, immigration from Muslim countries, climate-change research, diplomats and taxes for the rich.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bannons-origin-story-doesnt-add-up/2017/03/20/8f2ef9f8-0d90-11e7-9b0d-d27c98455440_story.html
@davidrmoran- so, yeah, what's your point?