Only a month after I wrote this post, Ole' Ty, a/k/a Tyler Mathisen of CNBC, has provided still more evidence that somebody at CNBC needs to give the old campaigner the hook.
This afternoon, while discussing Aetna's decision to change its planned communications with investors, in light of the attacks from Washington Democrats, Ty managed to totally misunderstand the nature of the evolving risks in the health insurance sector.
While Michelle Caruso-Cabrera sensibly noted the assault on all health insurers, and their reasonable profits, by Congress and the administration, Ole' Ty weighed in with the hopeful thought that Aetna and its ilk will receive many more customers from ObamaCare.
Ty rambled on about how, whether those customers are subsidized, or not, they still represent new revenues.
If only Ty had a full brain, he'd remember that profits are revenues MINUS costs! And that the longer term aim of Washington's bureaucrats is to, first, direct subsidized new customers to insurers like Aetna. Then they will observe how much federal money Aetna receives, and squelch premium increases, while expanding mandated coverage.
It won't take very long for insurers like Aetna to begin losing money, as their premiums are capped and their payouts are increased.
Ole' Ty doesn't get this. So, in addition to being irascible, churlish, curmudgeonly and cranky, you may now add....stupid.
It's clear that CNBC's on-air cupboard has become barren, what with the loss over the past year of Bill Griffeth, Charlie Gasparino, Becky Jarvis, Dylan Ratigan (no great loss), and another female anchor whose name escapes me who left to join the Fox Business News startup at its inception.
But, surely, CNBC's management can do better than dragging Ole' Ty out of his dotage and propping him up in front of a camera each afternoon?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Very good points regarding Tyler Mathisen. He sounded like the stereotypical sales guy who says it doesn't matter if they lose money on sales, they make it up in volume.
I thought more, and agree with your points about sovereign CDS. My only concern is that as long as people like Geithner and Bernanke are regulators / central bankers, the public will be forced to bail out brokers/banks that lose money on these bets, either through taxes or inflation. And that makes my blood boil. I don't want to bail out people making these bets, and if the only way to do that is to ban them, then I find that an acceptable trade off. Even though it would be preferable to have someone like you running the Fed or Treasury, who isn't afraid to refuse to bail out banks that go bust.
Thanks for your comment and compliment.
-CN
Post a Comment