Funny, Sexy, Money

December 5, 2008

Funny, Sexy, Money

So which is better, sex or money? Maybe it depends on which one you’re lacking….

If it’s money you’re a little low on right now, may I suggest “The Missing Rule Contest.”

Add a rule to my 15 rules for “How to Trade Like a Wall Street Insider” and you could win $1,200.

You couldn’t ask for a better return on investment.

Bronoff’s Rules, a comic novel about my adventures in playing the market, is only $7.95 at www.bronoff.com or Amazon. Read and laugh your way through it. Then submit a rule of your own to win $1,200. You can enter as many times as you wish. Reading groups and investment clubs may want to bring their collective sense of humor to creating entries…and maybe sharing the winnings in pizza and wine. See details at www.bronoff.com.

You can read a sample chapter that contains my first six rules at www.bronoff.com. You’ll get the satirical gist right away, since I launch my wisdom with Rule #1: Expect to Lose Money.

If it’s sex you’re missing you’re on your own…. But you’ll find plenty to laugh at in my hot pursuits. And the thing about laughter is, it makes the sex hotter—and the money sexier.

Read Bronoff’s Rules. Laugh and be savvy. Win $1,200.

Yours in tape-watching,

Sam Bronoff

Why Is She Smiling?

November 19, 2008

Why Is She Smiling?

CNBC’s Hollerin’ Yearbook format on “Power Lunch” (Jon Stewart called it “The Octobox” for its octet of framed faces) raises questions about why financial news is presenting intelligent journalists as vying for “Most Clever Gotcha” and “Most Likely to Shriek.”

But the question posed most consistently is this: Why is Michelle Caruso-Cabrera smiling? She is like the Mona Lisa of the markets, patiently awaiting her say in her yearbook frame with a half-smile on her lips.

I’ve considered plenty of answers, but maybe it’s just this: since the journalists and producers steer clear of investing in ways that could be perceived as creating a conflict of interest (though it seems to give them a conflict of disinterest—they don’t find market data interesting in its details because they don’t play the market), Ms. Caruso-Cabrera has reason to smile, and is candid enough to do so. She hasn’t been playing the market!

Yours in tape-watching,

Sam Bronoff

p.s. The Independent newspaper in The Hamptons just wrote of my adventure, Bronoff’s Rules, “It can’t get any more timely—and sardonic—than BRONOFF’S RULES…a(n) insider look at the by-the-minute, hour or day mania called trading.” Read the whole review, laugh, win $1,200 at Bronoff.com.

Politicians Rise to Higher Platitudes

October 16, 2008

Politicians Rise to Higher Platitudes

Viral fulmination has taken hold in the media as it does every time Wall Street stumbles. But this time the stumble looks unprecedented in its global magnitude, at least according to Morgan Stanley CEO John Mack in today’s fine interview with David Faber on CNBC. And this is the first time in my recollection that the timing has coincided with the final laps of a presidential race.

So not only are the reporters, who always have their eyes on other people’s paychecks, fulminating, but the pols have split themselves into two new political parties—Sanctimony and Indignation. It’s hard to say who belongs to which—they cut across both sides of the aisle.

This was clear in the best financial news-watching of the last couple of weeks, which was C-Span’s broadcast of Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld’s testimony before Congress on the fall of his firm, the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history.

Fuld defended as best he could, which came down to this: “We certainly did not say ‘Risk be damned.’” He confessed that “We behaved too much like investors, not traders.” (By which he meant, they should have sold—see Bronoff’s Rules, page 31, Rule #3: But That Day Won’t Last.) He pointed out that the board of directors was independent, experienced, and free to give advice. And he allowed, after much hectoring from a California Congresswoman, that the regulatory framework could have contributed to what she called the “meltdown on Wall Street.”

Fuld did fine and will likely do fine, walking away from the ashes with a few bucks in his pocket. But the pols were troubling, as their quest seemed not for facts but for contrition.

They played Grand Inquisitor for the TV camera. Thus we heard from Rep. McCollum of Minnesota: “My constituents believe there is a difference between illegal and wrong.” And from the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Henry Waxman of California, alluding to the hundreds of millions Fuld had been paid: “Most Americans don’t understand—350 million dollars seems like an incredible amount of money. Something is just not right, to say the system worked as it should.” Waxman’s final words: “You don’t seem to acknowledge you did anything wrong, and that is troubling to me.”

It would have been nice if instead of looking for graves to monkey-dance on, the pols would keep a closer eye on the public pension funds they are supposed to be investing and monitoring. It’s a sea of money, and every state elects pols to manage it. Where were they when Fuld’s and other Wall Street and corporate payouts were determined? No doubt boasting about the return they were getting.

As old Mayor Daley (father of the current one) said, in a malapropism that cannot be bested, “Politicians have to rise to higher platitudes.”

That’s the only cover they have.

Yours in tape-watching,

Sam Bronoff

p.s. Thank you Dagen McDowell of Fox Business News for summing up, in your apt country drawl, the case for the government bailout: “The horse is out of the barn!” And thank you Charlie Gasparino for gently mocking the yakfest on CNBC with “I am not paid to be succinct!”

p.p.s. Enter The Missing Rule Contest at Bronoff.com. Winning twelve hundred bucks couldn’t hurt!

On 9/11: The Sound (Effects) and the Fury

September 11, 2008

On 9/11: The Sound (Effects) and the Fury

The sorrow of this day—and the glimpses of Ground Zero allowed to peek through the programming on CNBC and Fox Business News—raises all the more urgently this question for me: Why are the producers working so hard to create artificial combat zones?

Why are they giving us sound effects on CNBC that make it seem like there are five-year-olds playing with action figures in the background? Why the menacing whiplash swoosh every time a chart is shown? Why the creeping mimicry of these noises on FBN?

And why all the adversarial posing? The hard-driving sneer of belligerence from Brian Sullivan and the mocking tone of Stuart Varney—both on FBN. The smackdown clang of the ring on CNBC when two reporters talk economics. The angrier-than-thou stance of Larry Kudlow. The shaking finger of outrage pointed by Bill Griffith. The rising pitch of indignation in Dennis Kneale’s laments.

By contrast, the peacefulness of American markets, the orderly flow of invisible money—this is our paradise. This is what the Islamists tried to destroy.

We can only be thankful they failed. The tape is still running, and we’re still watching. And the quality of that entertainment puts all the mock war games to shame.

Yours in tape-watching,

Sam Bronoff

p.s. Thanks to Brian Sullivan and FBN for bringing us today and yesterday’s two-part interview with Larry Silverstein, who had owned the Twin Towers only a few months when they were destroyed. Silverstein’s hard-headed wisdom about the cheerleaders and doomsayers in every market (“If I listened to pundits I never would have accomplished anything in my life.”) was nourishment in the current swoon, and his patience with the politicians was an inspiration. On the future of Ground Zero, even Sullivan’s harrumphs were hushed as Silverstein expressed his unwavering faith that what can seem like the nonsense of democracy—still more studies, more money, more time—would somehow get it right.

The Long (Legs) and the Short (Skirts) of Playing the Market

September 9, 2008

The Long (Legs) and the Short (Skirts) of Playing the Market

Since the financial news channels face the challenge day in and day out of creating imagery and sounds to convey the excitement of what is essentially invisible and silent—the movement of money—I have to congratulate Fox Business News on a new (camera) angle they have come up with.

Tune in at lunchtime to catch FBN’s seated chorus line: women reporters positioned to show their very good legs in sheer stockings and high heels. Very creative, very nice. The better the legs, the better it works. Tracy Byrnes can voice any indignant opinion on any subject she wants as far as I’m concerned…. Now if only they had a tape running beneath those legs!

Your fellow viewer,

Sam Bronoff

p.s. If you want to know where all this financial news-watching landed me–and need a good laugh!–go to Bronoff.com.

Wall Street’s Nudist Beach

August 24, 2008

Wall Street’s Nudist Beach

 

Glad I turned up the sound Friday for Warren Buffett on CNBC, as the teasingly brief clip from the interview he granted Becky Quick yielded a gem. Buffett prefaced it by repeating one of his great aphorisms about the truth of companies’ financial conditions: “You don’t know who’s swimming naked till the tide goes out.”

 

Then he added, referring to the current huge write-downs: “We found out Wall Street is kind of a nudist beach.”

 

Bravo Buffett!

 

I put if slightly differently: “The emperor is ALWAYS wearing new clothes.” This wardrobe is Wall Street’s renewable resource. It is the “tailoring” of promises of better returns—the constant allure that keeps money moving. And the movement of money is how the banks and brokerages keep themselves so well dressed.

 

The current melt-down of mortgage-backed assets is only another reminder of what I wrote in my book:

 

RULE #13: There Is No Ump On the Field. Remember that before you place a bet. On Wall Street the plays aren’t called until the game is over. Long over, and by then there’s never much, if anything left to collect.

—–Bronoff’s Rules, page 196

Read all of my rules and my own comic adventure in Bronoff’s Rules.

 

Add a rule of your own to win $1,200 in “The Missing Rule Contest.”

 

Read, laugh, be savvy at Bronoff.com.

To Mute or Not to Mute…the Big Question on Financial News

August 18, 2008

To Mute or Not to Mute…the Big Question on Financial News.

Since I got out of prison in 1993, after serving five years for insider trading, much has changed in the world, but not so much in the financial news. Turning on the tape in the morning still affords me that great free-market rush of watching the trading day leap to life. Nobody can diminish that—not the politicians eager to point fingers of blame at others on Wall Street as they did at me, not the pundits just as eager to promote their own fortunes, and not the TV producers who have gone beyond eagerness in their desperation to spin trading in a way that makes it more telegenic.

Whatever voices are vying to be heard, the flow of numbers is silent and tells its own truth. It is by nature mute, the record of invisible money moving between mostly anonymous buyers and sellers. That’s the beauty of it, to those like myself who love to watch. And that’s why so many TV viewers leave it mute—not bothering to turn on the sound on CNBC or Fox Business News (which does not display an actual tape, only fragments, thus depriving viewers of the intrinsic randomness though supplying some information).

Yet the mind wants some bit of news to pounce on, some way to explain the flow of numbers. Why is this trading one way and that another? Why is this group rising and that one falling? It is human to seek reasons—and that’s why even the most dedicated tape-watcher now and then, or more often, turns up the sound.

So who is worth listening to? What can you glean? I un-mute for these:

  1. Rick Santelli on CNBC. Reporting from the bond pits in Chicago, Santelli lets the trades tell the story.
  2. Sue Herrera on CNBC when she is probing the financial landscape with a single interviewee or in dialogue with a solid reporter. She is knowledgeable enough to know what to ask.
  3. Diana Olick on CNBC. She reports on real estate and gives the numbers straight up.
  4. Often, though not always, for Nicole Petallides and other market reporters on Fox Biz. A lot of data delivered.

What I leave the mute on for:

1. Santelli when he is being cut off and cut into by someone else, such as another reporter. I do not think financial news reporting is improved by loud combat.

2. Herrera when she is joined in conversation by more than one other person. More voices at the party only dilute her contribution.

3. Anyone who tries to insinuate ideology, partisan politics, and stabbing hand gestures into the discourse. Free markets are blissfully free of personal squabbles—the numbers call all the shots.

Please let me know who you un-mute for and why. I think it’s time for viewers of financial news to weigh in on what financial news really is.

Your fellow viewer,

Sam Bronoff

p.s. Next week I’ll address the question of Copy Cat-ch-up posed by the competition between CNBC and Fox Business News. I’m sure other men have noticed…there’s a new leggy look.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.