As I was working and listening to CNBC just before the 4PM close, I heard Maria Bartiromo making a hash out of an interview with some trader or fund manager.
The guy was talking about volatility, and how he was hoping to make money selling volatility as it fell.
Bartiromo, grasping at straws and, as usual, having no sensible follow-up question prepared blurted out a question paraphrased as,
'So can viewers use that declining volatility to bet on market direction?'
Just read that line again.
With all the smart hedge fund quants beavering away around the US, do you- does anyone....even Maria Bartiromo- really think that such a simple relationship could actually work?
How dense can someone be to ask such a pointless and obviously silly question?
Dense enough to be featured on CNBC commercials claiming that the network's being 'first to report from the floor of the NYSE' had anything to do with reporting from 'where decisions are made?'
Last I looked, the trading floor is empty now, because trading is electronic. Decisions were always made in trading rooms of investment banks and fund management firms.
But, then, someone who thinks volatility alone predicts market direction might also think that traders make decisions for their clients from the floor of the NYSE.
Showing posts with label Bartiromo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bartiromo. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Friday, December 10, 2010
More Idiocy On CNBC
I try to refrain from commenting on some of the lunacy I see on CNBC, but every so often, the level and frequency of the idiocy simply demands it.
A few days ago, Maria Bartiromo was interviewing Byron Wien. Wien was advocating that people buy equity in Indian companies and some other developing/developed country. Bartiromo confirmed that he did not mean mutual funds, and Wien confirmed this.
Then Bartiromo responded, with a clear tone of confusion,
'So you mean investing directly in the companies?'
Wien replied, with a sort of air of slight impatience, that, yes, that is what he had meant.
'So viewers should buy these firms on the local Indian and (other country) exchange?'
Wien, by now getting a little exasperated, confirmed this, and added that some were listed on the NYSE, so people could buy them there, too.
Then Bartiromo moved to Wien's apparently well-known annual list of his unexpected developments for the next year. She noted how three of last year's had widely missed the mark, and Wien tried to cover his errors by saying something like,
'Yes, I was early on those calls.'
Bartiromo then earnestly intoned,
'So do you think they'll come true in 2011?'
Now, at this point, you have to be brain dead not to realize that Wien devises a new list every year, right? So what do you think he would say about last year's predictions, relative to the coming year? Of course he told the hapless CNBC anchor that he makes up a new list, so those old predictions weren't relevant now.
Ever unflappable by her obvious misunderstanding of Wien's annual list, she babbled something inane, then finished by saying, to closely paraphrase,
'Thanks Byron. We'll be waiting for your 2011 list, as you're always so often on the mark with those predictions.'
You can't make that sort of remark up, can you? The combination of qualifiers is, on their face, ludicrous. Further, Bartiromo began the topic by pointing up three of Wien's recent big misses, giving a viewer the sense that Wien's hunches are typically way off the mark.
She can't get basic interview questions and replies straight. She manages to give viewers opposite senses of what she then tries to assert about a topic or guest. Then Bartiromo can't manage to use the English language properly on air.
Why the hell is she still on CNBC? Sadly, the fact that she is marks the network as having low standards for most of its reporting and on-air staff.
Then, this morning, I watched Mark Haines beat up a very sensible conservative guest, who commented on the current tax rate debate in Washington, using completely nonsensical logic.
Anyone with a brain knows that tax rate changes provoke behavioral changes in businesses, consumers and savers. It's known as dynamic scoring, and the CBO still doesn't use it. That's why you can read so many articles in the Wall Street Journal by eminent economists such as Alan Reynolds, Robert Barro, Brian Westbury, et.al., cataloging the CBO's large predictive errors when forecasting revenues to be raised by tax rate hikes, or lost by rate cuts.
But Mark Haines will have none of it. Instead, he pilloried the guest, saying that if he decried Congressional spending, then he had no right to argue for a tax cut, because 'that's just like spending.'
Haines is evidently too dense to understand that Congress really spends what it says it will, whereas forecasts of government revenue gains from personal rate hikes on the wealthy never meet expectations. It's simply not a zero sum game, as explained by economists who calculate the total income of some top percentile, such as 5%, and compare it to annual federal spending. It's never enough. It never comes even close to making a difference.
What government forecasters continue to ignore is the change in the amount of economic activity due to tax rate changes, on which incomes are earned and taxes paid. When rates are cut, economic activity surges, incomes rise, and taxes do, as well.
It's not about higher rates, but lower rates which bring forth more economic activity.
You'd think that after, what, two decades on air at CNBC, listening to this debate, Haines would have learned the facts?
But you'd be wrong to think that. Instead, like Bartiromo, CNBC leaves in place an also-ran on-air personality.
Which is why I neglect what most of the CNBC staff say, excepting Rick Santelli, Trish Regan, Joe Kernen, and Michelle Caruso Cabrera. I just listen and watch mostly for the news.
A few days ago, Maria Bartiromo was interviewing Byron Wien. Wien was advocating that people buy equity in Indian companies and some other developing/developed country. Bartiromo confirmed that he did not mean mutual funds, and Wien confirmed this.
Then Bartiromo responded, with a clear tone of confusion,
'So you mean investing directly in the companies?'
Wien replied, with a sort of air of slight impatience, that, yes, that is what he had meant.
'So viewers should buy these firms on the local Indian and (other country) exchange?'
Wien, by now getting a little exasperated, confirmed this, and added that some were listed on the NYSE, so people could buy them there, too.
Then Bartiromo moved to Wien's apparently well-known annual list of his unexpected developments for the next year. She noted how three of last year's had widely missed the mark, and Wien tried to cover his errors by saying something like,
'Yes, I was early on those calls.'
Bartiromo then earnestly intoned,
'So do you think they'll come true in 2011?'
Now, at this point, you have to be brain dead not to realize that Wien devises a new list every year, right? So what do you think he would say about last year's predictions, relative to the coming year? Of course he told the hapless CNBC anchor that he makes up a new list, so those old predictions weren't relevant now.
Ever unflappable by her obvious misunderstanding of Wien's annual list, she babbled something inane, then finished by saying, to closely paraphrase,
'Thanks Byron. We'll be waiting for your 2011 list, as you're always so often on the mark with those predictions.'
You can't make that sort of remark up, can you? The combination of qualifiers is, on their face, ludicrous. Further, Bartiromo began the topic by pointing up three of Wien's recent big misses, giving a viewer the sense that Wien's hunches are typically way off the mark.
She can't get basic interview questions and replies straight. She manages to give viewers opposite senses of what she then tries to assert about a topic or guest. Then Bartiromo can't manage to use the English language properly on air.
Why the hell is she still on CNBC? Sadly, the fact that she is marks the network as having low standards for most of its reporting and on-air staff.
Then, this morning, I watched Mark Haines beat up a very sensible conservative guest, who commented on the current tax rate debate in Washington, using completely nonsensical logic.
Anyone with a brain knows that tax rate changes provoke behavioral changes in businesses, consumers and savers. It's known as dynamic scoring, and the CBO still doesn't use it. That's why you can read so many articles in the Wall Street Journal by eminent economists such as Alan Reynolds, Robert Barro, Brian Westbury, et.al., cataloging the CBO's large predictive errors when forecasting revenues to be raised by tax rate hikes, or lost by rate cuts.
But Mark Haines will have none of it. Instead, he pilloried the guest, saying that if he decried Congressional spending, then he had no right to argue for a tax cut, because 'that's just like spending.'
Haines is evidently too dense to understand that Congress really spends what it says it will, whereas forecasts of government revenue gains from personal rate hikes on the wealthy never meet expectations. It's simply not a zero sum game, as explained by economists who calculate the total income of some top percentile, such as 5%, and compare it to annual federal spending. It's never enough. It never comes even close to making a difference.
What government forecasters continue to ignore is the change in the amount of economic activity due to tax rate changes, on which incomes are earned and taxes paid. When rates are cut, economic activity surges, incomes rise, and taxes do, as well.
It's not about higher rates, but lower rates which bring forth more economic activity.
You'd think that after, what, two decades on air at CNBC, listening to this debate, Haines would have learned the facts?
But you'd be wrong to think that. Instead, like Bartiromo, CNBC leaves in place an also-ran on-air personality.
Which is why I neglect what most of the CNBC staff say, excepting Rick Santelli, Trish Regan, Joe Kernen, and Michelle Caruso Cabrera. I just listen and watch mostly for the news.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Starbucks' Howard Schultz On CNBC Today
By chance, I happened to catch Maria Bartiromo's softball interview with Starbucks' recycled CEO, Howard Schultz. Schultz was all a twitter about today's introduction of the firm's latest beverage- a specially-designed, basic brewed cup of coffee.
As the nearby, Yahoo-sourced five-year price chart for Starbucks, McDonald's and the S&P500 Index illustrates, Schultz had better hope it delivers something big for his shareholders.
I've written at least six labeled posts about the company, and probably a few more prior to those. My most significant recent piece was this one, in January, regarding the marketing battle heating up between Starbucks and McDonalds, with Dunkin Donuts also in the mix.
Perhaps the most amazing comment Schultz uttered in the rather surreal interview this morning on CNBC was, in response to Bartiromo's question about McDonald's,
'Competition- they're just noise,'
or words very close to those.
Well, as I noted in this post, regarding Schultz's recent, hand-picked strategist, Michelle Gass, contended,
"She says she hasn't been focused on competitors in developing the new plans. "I think we'd all readily admit that a lot of the situation we're in is self-induced."
Sounds familiar, right? At least Gass and Schultz are reading from the same page in the same playbook.
But in that prior post, I went on to note,
"Thus, I find Ms. Gass' comment to be dangerously short-sighted and internally-focused.
Instead, she might wake up to the reality of Schumpeterian dynamics. Between Starbucks' own prior expansion into lower-income segments, and McDonalds' search for growth in kindred products, the former's market dominance was almost certainly going to come to an end, one way or another.
As it is, Starbucks is being bracketed by another coffee retailer on one side, and a fast-food giant on the other. This has less to do with Starbucks' 'self-induced' troubles than it does with recent targeting of the coffee giant's business by two very large, savvy food retailers.
I hope, for Howard Schultz' and Starbucks' sake, that Ms. Gass begins to become aware of this reality."
While McDonalds has not, historically, been a competitor of Starbucks, it is now. Looking at the three Yahoo-sourced charts in this post- the five-year, two-year and one-year timeframes of Starbucks', McDonalds', and the S&P's price performances- it's clear that the fast food giant has been resurgent for the entire five year period just past.
Starbucks peaked two years ago, and is now struggling to find a way to rekindle its total return performance. Viewing the two firms' looming battle, and now learning that Schultz' latest weapon is a simple, brewed cup of coffee, I really wonder if Starbucks 'gets it.'
They are in the fight of their lives. They no longer own the premium coffee product/market. At least with espresso-based coffees, they had a lot of room to innovate and maneuver.
But brewed coffee? Lower priced, I would guess. And how long will it take Dunkin Donuts or McDonald's to emulate the new flavor, if it's warranted? Dunkin already wins taste tests with its signature coffee.
The shorter time period charts show Starbucks losing 50% of its price over two years, and 40% in just the past twelve months.
In contrast, McDonalds has racked up more than 20% in price appreciation, while the S&P was slightly negative.
My point is not that Schultz and Starbucks have to perform exactly like McDonald's, but that the latter is newly-focused and on a roll, with upscale coffee targeted as one of several important new product/markets.
The end of Bartiromo's interview with Schultz saw him fumbling to handle her question about how investors should view his new brewed coffee initiative. He spat out some tired lines about returning to the firm's roots and values while pursuing international growth, all calculated to
'Return Starbucks to its traditional place in this segment,'
or something close to that statement, which is not an exact quote.
It seems, per my prior posts, that Schultz and his chief strategy lieutenant, Gass, think that all of their company's troubles have been simply a matter of self-inflicted loss of focus and failure to refresh their brand.
In fact, again, per my prior pieces on Starbucks, the truth is more complicated than that. McDonalds is certainly much more dangerous than 'just some noise.'
So is Dunkin Donuts. Starbucks' most recent target segment, lower socio-economic groups, are currently hurting economically. The firm's success has attracted two large, capable competitors.
Are we to believe that one brewed coffee blend is going to reverse a 40% slide in the firm's stock price? With two hungry competitors active in the same market?
I think it's fair to say that the bloom is long off Starbucks' rose.
As the nearby, Yahoo-sourced five-year price chart for Starbucks, McDonald's and the S&P500 Index illustrates, Schultz had better hope it delivers something big for his shareholders.I've written at least six labeled posts about the company, and probably a few more prior to those. My most significant recent piece was this one, in January, regarding the marketing battle heating up between Starbucks and McDonalds, with Dunkin Donuts also in the mix.
Perhaps the most amazing comment Schultz uttered in the rather surreal interview this morning on CNBC was, in response to Bartiromo's question about McDonald's,
'Competition- they're just noise,'
or words very close to those.
Well, as I noted in this post, regarding Schultz's recent, hand-picked strategist, Michelle Gass, contended,"She says she hasn't been focused on competitors in developing the new plans. "I think we'd all readily admit that a lot of the situation we're in is self-induced."
Sounds familiar, right? At least Gass and Schultz are reading from the same page in the same playbook.
But in that prior post, I went on to note,
"Thus, I find Ms. Gass' comment to be dangerously short-sighted and internally-focused.
Instead, she might wake up to the reality of Schumpeterian dynamics. Between Starbucks' own prior expansion into lower-income segments, and McDonalds' search for growth in kindred products, the former's market dominance was almost certainly going to come to an end, one way or another.
As it is, Starbucks is being bracketed by another coffee retailer on one side, and a fast-food giant on the other. This has less to do with Starbucks' 'self-induced' troubles than it does with recent targeting of the coffee giant's business by two very large, savvy food retailers.
I hope, for Howard Schultz' and Starbucks' sake, that Ms. Gass begins to become aware of this reality."
While McDonalds has not, historically, been a competitor of Starbucks, it is now. Looking at the three Yahoo-sourced charts in this post- the five-year, two-year and one-year timeframes of Starbucks', McDonalds', and the S&P's price performances- it's clear that the fast food giant has been resurgent for the entire five year period just past.
Starbucks peaked two years ago, and is now struggling to find a way to rekindle its total return performance. Viewing the two firms' looming battle, and now learning that Schultz' latest weapon is a simple, brewed cup of coffee, I really wonder if Starbucks 'gets it.'
They are in the fight of their lives. They no longer own the premium coffee product/market. At least with espresso-based coffees, they had a lot of room to innovate and maneuver.
But brewed coffee? Lower priced, I would guess. And how long will it take Dunkin Donuts or McDonald's to emulate the new flavor, if it's warranted? Dunkin already wins taste tests with its signature coffee.
The shorter time period charts show Starbucks losing 50% of its price over two years, and 40% in just the past twelve months.In contrast, McDonalds has racked up more than 20% in price appreciation, while the S&P was slightly negative.
My point is not that Schultz and Starbucks have to perform exactly like McDonald's, but that the latter is newly-focused and on a roll, with upscale coffee targeted as one of several important new product/markets.
The end of Bartiromo's interview with Schultz saw him fumbling to handle her question about how investors should view his new brewed coffee initiative. He spat out some tired lines about returning to the firm's roots and values while pursuing international growth, all calculated to
'Return Starbucks to its traditional place in this segment,'
or something close to that statement, which is not an exact quote.
It seems, per my prior posts, that Schultz and his chief strategy lieutenant, Gass, think that all of their company's troubles have been simply a matter of self-inflicted loss of focus and failure to refresh their brand.
In fact, again, per my prior pieces on Starbucks, the truth is more complicated than that. McDonalds is certainly much more dangerous than 'just some noise.'
So is Dunkin Donuts. Starbucks' most recent target segment, lower socio-economic groups, are currently hurting economically. The firm's success has attracted two large, capable competitors.
Are we to believe that one brewed coffee blend is going to reverse a 40% slide in the firm's stock price? With two hungry competitors active in the same market?
I think it's fair to say that the bloom is long off Starbucks' rose.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Fox To Start Business Channel in Late 2007
Finally, it looks like there will be some competitive pressure for CNBC. Fox has announced that it will commence operating a business news channel in late 2007.
As I wrote recently, expect to see Fox poach some of CNBC's better, more attractive female anchor personnel. My prediction is that Rebecca Jarvis and Erin Burnett will be lured to the new network. They are the brightest, most articulate, attractive female anchors who also have limited exposure.
While Becky Quick and Michelle Cabruso-Cabrera are probably better, more knowledgeable and skilled anchors than Burnett and Jarvis, they enjoy maximal exposure already.
Then again, who knows how many women, and men, may wish to bolt to Fox just to get away from "money honey" (is that trademarked yet?) Maria Bartiromo.
Additionally, I understand that, perhaps because of the 'glamor' of network exposure, compensation for anchors at CNBC is not all that lavish.
Should be interesting to see who jumps, and what the eventual anchor lineups are come fourth quarter of this year.
As I wrote recently, expect to see Fox poach some of CNBC's better, more attractive female anchor personnel. My prediction is that Rebecca Jarvis and Erin Burnett will be lured to the new network. They are the brightest, most articulate, attractive female anchors who also have limited exposure.
While Becky Quick and Michelle Cabruso-Cabrera are probably better, more knowledgeable and skilled anchors than Burnett and Jarvis, they enjoy maximal exposure already.
Then again, who knows how many women, and men, may wish to bolt to Fox just to get away from "money honey" (is that trademarked yet?) Maria Bartiromo.
Additionally, I understand that, perhaps because of the 'glamor' of network exposure, compensation for anchors at CNBC is not all that lavish.
Should be interesting to see who jumps, and what the eventual anchor lineups are come fourth quarter of this year.
Monday, February 05, 2007
Business Media Developments
Last week, I was poking around on blogs which discuss business media and various on-air personalities, such as Erin Burnett, Becky Quick, Maria Bartiromo, as the Citigroup-Maria Bartiromo-Todd Thomson-CNBC situation seemed to play out.
I guess I'm the last person on the planet to learn that Fox is reputed to be planning the launch of a business-only channel to compete with CNBC. Even my partner responded to my remark about this as 'old news.'
Several blogs discussed how Maria Bartiromo has besmirched the reputations of on-air female reporters and anchors with her activities, including her alleged, very public dating of the married former Citigroup exec, Todd Thomson. Additionally, one blog alleged Bartiromo is attempting, or did attempt, to trademark the phrase "money honey." Again, my partner confirmed this, saying he remembered reading some reference to it in the New York Times last month. So it's a very recent development, set in the current context, not some story from several years back, when Bartiromo was referred to via that phrase more commonly. That this trademark story is true makes you wonder what sort of undercurrents must be swirling among the on-air staff over at CNBC, with such a prima donna in their midst.
In any event, widely-held expectations appear to be that, should Fox be planning a new, competing business network, they would be obviously targeting any disgruntled, underrepresented CNBC anchors, such as Erin Burnett. This could become an interesting development in many ways.
If Fox takes its usual hard, analytic look at business, in contrast to CNBC's increasing focus on business and investing as entertainment, they could very well dent the current market leader's share. Not to mention give business leaders and pundits an alternative perch from which to speak, perhaps relaxing the choke-hold that CNBC currently seems to have on business interviews. Maybe Fox would even consider eschewing CNBC's format of digging up and presenting ever-more unknown "analysts" and "experts," and, instead, retain fewer, first-rate consultants to opine on important business news stories and developments.
It is, however, sad that so many observers feel that Fox needs to recruit its own attractive female on-air anchors to realistically compete with CNBC.
I guess I'm the last person on the planet to learn that Fox is reputed to be planning the launch of a business-only channel to compete with CNBC. Even my partner responded to my remark about this as 'old news.'
Several blogs discussed how Maria Bartiromo has besmirched the reputations of on-air female reporters and anchors with her activities, including her alleged, very public dating of the married former Citigroup exec, Todd Thomson. Additionally, one blog alleged Bartiromo is attempting, or did attempt, to trademark the phrase "money honey." Again, my partner confirmed this, saying he remembered reading some reference to it in the New York Times last month. So it's a very recent development, set in the current context, not some story from several years back, when Bartiromo was referred to via that phrase more commonly. That this trademark story is true makes you wonder what sort of undercurrents must be swirling among the on-air staff over at CNBC, with such a prima donna in their midst.
In any event, widely-held expectations appear to be that, should Fox be planning a new, competing business network, they would be obviously targeting any disgruntled, underrepresented CNBC anchors, such as Erin Burnett. This could become an interesting development in many ways.
If Fox takes its usual hard, analytic look at business, in contrast to CNBC's increasing focus on business and investing as entertainment, they could very well dent the current market leader's share. Not to mention give business leaders and pundits an alternative perch from which to speak, perhaps relaxing the choke-hold that CNBC currently seems to have on business interviews. Maybe Fox would even consider eschewing CNBC's format of digging up and presenting ever-more unknown "analysts" and "experts," and, instead, retain fewer, first-rate consultants to opine on important business news stories and developments.
It is, however, sad that so many observers feel that Fox needs to recruit its own attractive female on-air anchors to realistically compete with CNBC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
