Has CNBC Lost its Mojo?

Has CNBC lost its mojo?

I really hope not.

No one has watched more hours of CNBC over the last twenty years than I have.  I am a big fan.  Since I also represent an important part of the investment community, my viewpoint might even count for a little more.

If you and I were socializing over coffee or a drink, I could tell you some great CNBC stories, including correspondence with many of the anchors, past and present, from many years ago.

So I write this as a friend of CNBC and with the best intentions.

But I am concerned.

What Went Wrong - - the Facts

CNBC is getting killed on the ratings.  There is a death spiral as their appeal shrinks and they respond in a way that makes it worse.

CNBC Ratings Fall to 7 Year Lows

• Squawk Box (6-9 a.m.) is supposed to prime traders before the bell. The show posted its lowest rated its time block since Q4 2006.
• The Closing Bell (3-5 p.m.) is supposed to wrap up the day’s action. The slot posted its fifth-lowest rating in total viewers and second-lowest ratings in the key 25-54 demographic since 1997.
• Fast Money (5-6 p.m.) is focused almost specifically on swing trading stocks. That time slot showed the lowest rating for the 25-54 demo since 1997 — and lowest in total viewers since Fast Money launched in 2006.

This is merely a summary.  It is actually even worse.  Kudlow is losing to Lou Dobbs, etc.  It is across the board.  And this is before the boxing replacement for the Olympics.

Now we learn that they are laying off employees to institute reality programming.

What is Wrong -- the Analysis

Simply put, CNBC has little to offer to the average investor.  There is too much emphasis on day trading (in content and commercials), and far too many stories about fear.

As someone who watches the news, the blogs, and the major communication channels, I can see the pattern.  It creates a climate that actually will kill their audience.

1. There is news.
2. A widespread network of observers creates negative talking points.  The motivations may include selling gold, selling bonds, selling a political viewpoint, but none of it has much to do with investment returns for the average person.
3. These points are published on a website that embraces conspiracy and anonymity.  Somehow, many people (including those who should know better) think this adds credibility.
4. Traders avidly consume these viewpoints and send emails and tweets to the CNBC team.
5. Those reporting from the floors in NY and Chicago repeat these ideas, sometimes almost word-for-word.

The reports constitute valid information but misleading information.  They show what short-term traders are thinking, but that may not be very helpful.  The problem for investors with a longer time frame is that there is not enough context and perspective.  It scares the daylights out of people who depend upon professional journalism to provide balance.

The content of these stories has little to do with long-term investment prospects, but plenty to do with selling page views and ratings!

Examples

CNBC offers some face time to analysts with various opinions.  The skepticism is apparent for anyone who even thinks about the bright side.  A guest who forecasts a rally of 15-20% is making a "bold call" or suggesting something crazy.

Try this recent appearance of Tony Dwyer, who sees the S&P at 1575 by the end of the year.  (CNBC is having trouble with the embedded links again, so you will have to click through to watch). 

"In fact Dwyer believes his target is conservative. “15 is the lowest non-recession multiple in a sub-3% core inflation environment. The average multiple is roughly 20 times so I believe we are being overly conservative – even with our new target of 1575,” he says.Looking at the fundamentals, Dwyer sees good things for the US economy.

“We’ve had an historic drop in interest rates as well as a huge drop in energy prices.” That’s good for consumers. And he adds we also have a slow recovery in housing – again bullish."

A guest who merely poses the possibility that earnings meet current expectations and the PE multiple gets to a conservative long-term average of 15, is viewed as crazy.  This in spite of the low inflation and interest rates.

While you may not agree with the bullish analysis, it is mainstream thought for many of us, including big-time pension-fund managers.  It is not the object of scorn.  If  the S&P reached 1500 to 1575, as the analysts suggest, could we really be surprised?  After all, earnings are much higher now than when this level was reached in 2008.

Today's "Maria hour" included a story asking whether we are currently in a recession.  Hardly anyone believes this, but those who trumpet the recession story get on TV.  Those refuting this do not get the TV gigs.  I am talking about the people that I feature each week:  Doug Short, The RecessionAlert team, Bob Dieli, and The Bonddad Blog.  How about equal time for them?

Shortly thereafter we had (yet another) interview with Harry Dent about Dow 3000.  He was just on a couple of weeks ago!  Why couldn't Maria use the time to interview someone with some solid stock ideas for the average investor?  She challenged in her questions, but that is not the point.  Don't the CNBC producers understand the effect of the repetitive Dow 3000 and "End of Stocks" headlines?

Conclusion

 CNBC faced a tipping point several years ago.  They lost sight of the fact that most people are investors.  They are long the market.  That is their natural audience.  CNBC hosts do not need to be cheerleaders, but they do need to inform this audience.

Most of the active emails and tweets they get come from traders, many of whom see this as a game between bulls and bears.  The coverage reflects this.  The CNBC team started saying things like "It is a bad day for those long the market."

CNBC needs to decide whether to compete for the active trader and fear market, getting ever more negative and political, or to get back to their foundation of helping regular investors.

They are not helped by images of a car going off a cliff, or stories about Congress going on vacation.  Their viewers need to know what segments of the market are cheap.   How to succeed in the face of these threats.  How to rebuild retirement.

I really hope that they get the message in time.

 

 

 

Comments

[Larry L]

Jeff: Thanks for bringing some fresh light to the issue of when business news strayed from news to entertainment/politics. I've been managing money for nearly forty years and I thought the advent of the internet and cable television would level the playing field. It hasn't: it has only provided a platform for those who can afford to make the most noise, create a new headline or find something wrong with everyone else!

[steveo]

CNBC is so far past it's Mojo stage, they are strictly a tool of HBB to get people to move the wrong direction on trades.

[Erik]

Great post! CNBC is now an infomercial for day trade brokers and gold bugs. They close one show on Friday saying, "your next chance to place a currency trade is Sunday!" Was this line written by the advertisers?

Actual journalists should not have a political agenda. CNBC is trying the Fox formula - personality talk shows that echo the viewer's ideas.
Bloomberg is much better for actual analysis.

[Rick Weeks]

This is old news finally showing up in ratings.
CNBC made a habit a long time a go of cutting off interviewees, interjecting with their own opinions and agendas. Mark Andrews, may he rest in peace, was no exception.
I switched to Bloomberg radio years ago. I say good riddance.
We need expert opinions on multiple subjects, not a media circus.

[Jack]

The only one sane at CNBC now is Steve Liesman who tries hard to speak about facts and ideas as oppose to spin. Perhaps Becky Quick and few others but these are not as loud as the ideological idiots that shout. Santelli anyone.

My money is not an ideology so idots like Kudlow or Michelle Caruso-Cabrera who, as a believer in merit-employment, should be the first one fired.

Along with Liesman they may wanna bring in the Chinese guy Bernie Lo who is on the international and attempts to be free of ideological spin that has taken over the network.

[Jack Reacher]

Yes Jeff. They have lost their mojo.

[Jack Reacher]

Aahhh....very funny. I have it on all day, also. However, I see such a left leaning political slant that I almost throw up. Maybe I remember that back in 2008, every forth word out of Mellissa Lee's mouth was Barack Obama.

You guys are kidding right?

Melissa Lee wnt to Harvard. Degree in Politics. When was she there? Check it out.

All they talked about this afternoon was how I need to pay more taxes. They didn't mention that we now have 100,000,000 people receiving welfare checks.

jr

[lou]

Jeff, you absolutely nailed it on this one!
I have nothing to add but do hope this lands on the proper desks at CNBC. I gave up long ago on this bunch. Keyword: Inferior Content.

[Paul]

With all the financial people in the NYC area, I'm astonished CNBC can't easily replace the unwatchable buffoons (Kernan, Maria, Brian whatever, Mandy whatever, Michelle C-C, etc.) and instruct its talking heads in basic courtesy: do NOT interrupt each other or their interviewees. Sheesh--it can't be simpler.

Kudos to the good ones: Becky Quick, David Faber, Melissa Lee.

[Peter Davies]

I'm an expat investor living in Thailand. In terms of both usefulness and interest, Squawkbox Asia is good, Squawkbox Europe is very good and Squawkbox USA is crap. I'm politically right of center and a strong believer in capitalism but the crude, mindless, right wing ranting of Kernen, Caruso Cabrera, Santelli and Kudlow sends me straight to the barf bucket. Bartiromo is well passed her "used by date" and should wash her hair more often. I rarely watch CNBC USA anymore except if I know of a good guest coming on and hoping he/she will not be constantly interrupted.

For North American programing stay with Bloomberg or go to BNN Toronto-if you can get it live. If not try the videos.

[oldprof]

Someone with a sense of humor sent my post to customer support at CNBC using my email address!

I got an automated reply saying that they cared about me and would get back to me within 24 hours (already overdue).

They also sent an automated reply with a list of topics that might be helpful -- things like the difference between the S&P cash and futures, pair trades, and the like. Perhaps not so relevant to what we are talking about.

How sad. More later, if/when they follow up.

Jeff (AKA - "Dude")

[Keith]

Amen to all -- and even if I agree with him, Larry Kudlow hasn't had a new thought in years - how many time do I need to hear it.

[paul@asiaxpat.com]

This is a TERRIBLE article!

CNBC has NEVER had any credibility - Larry Kudlow is a coke addict - Cramer is a fool who is always wrong.

It's pump and dump at its worst - infotainmentbusinessnews....

The reason ratings are down is because the masses have realized the game it rigged and CNBC is part of the machine sucking up to those who rig it.

And they are tuning out

[Wells Fargo Must Die]

I had to turn off CNBC because of Kernan and Santelli. I used to like both those guys before they became political hacks. I don't know how even a Republican zombie could watch that stuff.

[Joe S formerly of Brooklyn]

I apologize if this repeats some of what's above.

1. Contrast Joe Kernen with Bloomberg's Tom Keene. Forget everything else -- there really is no comparison. Joe still hasn't gotten over the fact that he's on Television -- where Tom has a face made for radio, and he seems to (still) know that.

2. Cramer might have a great history, but he is yesterday's news.

3. Speaking of Cramer: I've read that TheStreet.com is doing poorly. So is CNBC. Is there a relationship between those 2 developments . . . i.e., not the relationship between the 2 organizations, but some kind of change in -- the audience?

4. Speaking of the audience: I read a GMO piece recently that says the S&P 500 (in real terms) is down 15% since March 2000. Do you think THAT might have soured investors on watching CNBC and/or subscribing to TheStreet.com? The "promise" was 7% to 10% gains every year, forever and ever, amen!

5. I've spoken to other people who check in on the "mysterious" website referred in your item 3. You know, the one that starts with a Z. Judging by what I do, and what others say they do -- there's a lot of picking and choosing among the Chinese menu there, and NOT (as you seem to maintain) a lot of wholesale swallowing of every cotton-pickin word and idea promoted.

6. Finally, as to whether the Z website's "credibility" should be in question -- and of course IT SHOULD -- those of us who have tried to invest are down 15% over a 12-year period. The economy is as weak as a kitten despite heavy borrowing for the future (by the politicans) and significant money-printing (by the central bankers) -- not just here, but elsewhere.

With all of that as background, I intend to become relentlessly positive -- as soon as

(a) I take a drive and see no one driving a multi-ton vehicle @ 60MPH . . . while talking on a cell phone, swerving into my lane, and generally acting like a person who does not value life (not my life, not his/her life).

(b) US citizens push their savings rate to some high-single-digit number, like maybe 8% or 9%

(c) Our politicians tackle the current problems and come up with a WORKABLE compromise solution. Then they can go on to figure out how the country can cope with Medicare.

That's not a lot to ask. Really.

[oldprof]

BJ -- In 1995 the Dow was at 4000....

I like wide-ranging comments, but I urge you to be careful in what you say about the role of financial advisors. Ultimately we succeed only if our clients do. We do not depend on a rising stock market. Many of us have strategies for bonds, inverse ETFs, and sideways markets.

None of the things you mention is interfering with these strategies, suggesting that you might be an unwitting victim of some source of misinformation.

Meanwhile, feel free to join in --

(signed) Dude ... er ... Jeff

[Booty Juice]

CNBC is too negative? Please.

Look at the market from 1915 to 1995, 80 years of investing, buy and hold, fundamnentals, etc.

Now look at the last 17 years after the introduction of computers, the internet, HFT, algo mo quant bots, etc. etc. etc. and tell me the market has not changed profoundly and irreversably.

The market has returned ZERO to buy and hold retail investors (you know like mom and pop sucker patsy's who listen to their stock / fund salesmen "financial advisors") for almost an entire generation of investors.

You don't get it, dude.

[Wcvarones]

My thoughts on CNBC in 2009 here.

We had a good run, but it's over. I was one of the original Maria Bartiromo Fan Club. But CNBC has degraded to the point where it's unwatchable. This happened a long time ago, but I held on. I'm a romantic.

It started with that buffoon Jim Cramer getting his afternoon/evening show where his antics are designed to lure individual investors into hyperactive trading styles sure to blow up their accounts for the benefit of Wall Street. Bear Stearns is not in trouble! BUY BUY BUY!

And the 5pm Fast Money show was a roundtable of egos offering their opinions, but no information. So we watched during market hours, then turned it off. We didn't want to admit it, but the market hours coverage is now just as bad. It's wall-to-wall cheerleading bimbos. And I'm not just talking about the eye candy. Dennis Kneale is the biggest bimbo of all. What on his resume other than playing a bit part in Rent in his high school drama production qualifies him to be a business journalist?

So we're cutting over to Bloomberg TV. They have the eye candy there, too, but they take the news seriously. And they're much more even-handed and even-tempered than the Cheerleading Nitwits Bubble Channel.

I'll miss you, Rick Santelli, and even you, Charlie Gasparino, on your good days. Why don't you go work for a real business news channel?

[oldprof]

Thanks to everyone for a great discussion -- many useful ideas.

I mostly said my piece in the post, but I might emphasize one thing. I was not writing about personal taste. I can sort through bad arguments and turn on the mute button if it gets loud. I also watch Bloomberg, the Sunday morning shows, and the Newshour on PBS. Why these? I am trying to keep in touch with the perspective of the average investor.

My evaluation here is how this audience is being served. We know that many have been encouraged to be market timers and/or day traders. Or else they have been scared out.

Thanks again to all.

Jeff

[Wcvarones]

Who needs business news and commentary when the markets are driven entirely by central planners?

We haven't had capital markets or price discovery since at least 2008.