The Richebächer Society Action Plan
Posted: April 27th, 2010 | Author: admin |
Looking through our Survey results, it’s clear that Members appreciate Rob’s macro-analysis. So that part of the Letter won’t change much.
It’s equally clear that Members want specific recommendations to coincide with Rob’s insights. But they’re split on the type of recommendations that interest them.
So we’re restructuring the Richebächer Society to accommodate everyone’s needs — while still keeping our core values intact. Our plan is to create a “tiered” membership structure, letting you choose the kind of recommendations you want to see.
FREE Daily e-letter: The base of our plan is a brand-new, yet-to-be-named e-letter. Every business day, you can expect a complete rundown of the news and numbers that affect you most. Forget “headline” statistics — we’ll dig deep, finding connections other analysts never even look for. And we’ll make our research available to the public, proving that a proper grasp of macroeconomics can lead to better — and more profitable — investment decisions.
“Nobility” Level: As a Richebächer Society member, you’re already part of the “Nobility” level. You’ll continue to enjoy everything Rob and the Richebächer Society have to offer, with some significant upgrades. For one thing, expect a major Web site overhaul, with more ways to interact with Rob and your fellow members. Rob’s insights will also be more accessible than ever before, with a special focus on presenting important ideas as clearly and succinctly as possible.
Most importantly, Rob will regularly match his macro-analysis with specific recommendations for you — absolutely FREE as part of your membership. His low-risk, long-term plays will be your best chance to make big-picture economics pay off for you. And you’ll be able to track his picks straight from this Web site.
“Bourgeois” Level: This brand-new level of service will expand the benefits of a regular (“Nobility”) Society membership. It’s designed for readers who want a steady stream of recommendations based on Rob’s insights. A dedicated analyst will follow the macroeconomic threads Rob lays down, identifying the best stock, ETFs, commodities and precious metals plays for you. Expect regular issues, updates and alerts — and plenty of opportunities for bigger, safer profits.
“Aristocrat” Level: This will be the pinnacle of Richebächer Society Membership, offering elite trades based on Rob’s most lucrative ideas. Options… currencies… futures… interest rates… and much more — the kind of high-level trades that helped Dr. Kurt Richebächer afford a seaside condominium in Cannes, France. Of course, this level of trading isn’t for everyone, which is why this level of service will only be available to a small group of “Bourgeois” Members.
We expect to begin introducing these elements in the coming months. But it’s not too late to share your opinion of our plan. So, what do you think? Let us know in the space below!
Interesting choice of names (aristocrat, Bourgeois, nobility)
In Europe these carry a bitter side-taste, which may repel rather than attract people.
regards,
Gerolf
Very good point… the “titles” started out as off-the-cuff placeholders in our early discussions, but somehow got stuck in our heads. We may have to get them unstuck. — R.B.
Great! This is just what I am looking for. With your insights and the information I glean from other sources, I expect to be a much more intelligent and successful investor. No guarantees can be expected in the world of investing except that all things can change. I look forward to further information.
Thanks for the kind words! We’ll keep you posted. — R.B.
I might need to go check my class-system history, but should “bourgeois” be a higher tier than “nobility”? In any case on the changes, my view is that a daily e-letter is not a good idea. Rob’s emails distinguish themselves by the depth of insight and the broader nature of the themes they tackle. I see it as unlikely that there would be enough frequency of meaningful developments on a daily basis to require that frequency of e-letter, and there is a risk that a daily letter merges with much of the daily background noise in media and the markets. I’d prefer retain the frequency, and quality, of the current communications. Thanks to the Society team, though, for an excellent start over the past year.
Regards,
Richard
Thanks for the input! Yes, it seems our hierarchy is historically innacurate. Given the other comments, we might need to go back to the drawing board anyway. But please don’t worry about any changes to the Letter — it will be Rob’s only priority, no matter what other changes we make. Even if we go ahead with a free e-mail, it will be written by a brand-new editor. Obviously Rob may contribute from time to time, but only if it doesn’t interfere with his work on the Letter — R.B.
The tiered membership structure seems to relate with the type of investor the subscriber is: (1) an aggressive or day trader; (2) an active investor who trades during the week; and a (3) passive or retired investor who trades less infrequently who needs income.
I agree with the blogger,
Gerolf, that the names carry certain connotations that may displease some.
Platforms 1-3 make more sense to a numbers person like myself.
But please do not get too involved with investment decision making, I really want the independent, free thinking macro-analysis I have come to expect from the Society.
You hit the nail on the head — the tiered services are designed to appeal to the wide range of risk tolerances and interests we saw in the survey. The higher up you go, the riskier the trades become — because fewer people seemed interested in them. Our challenge was to offer the types of recommendations readers want without interfering with Rob’s independent, free-thinking macro analysis. With this plan, Rob will keep doing what he’s been doing. The analyst in charge of the other tiers will essentially be reacting to Rob’s research, allowing us to cater to everyone’s needs. — R.B.
Agree with Presley and Kottman-no daily email-already too many “dailies”-need more incisive and insightful analysis of mega-trends and macro-economic policies from around the world
We know free dailies are a crowded market, but we believe it’s the most effective way to introduce people to our idea unique ideas. And since we’re hiring a new analyst to run it, it won’t be a distraction. Rob’s Richebacher Letter will still provide the same level of analysis you’ve come to expect. — R.B.
I agree with several of the other bloggers to change the names of the levels .
I think most peole are attracted to the detailed macroeconomic principles without the hyperbole. I would continue with the monthly letter so as to integrate these principles in planning a global investment strategy. Weekly updates could focus on any Alerts or follow up of pertinant issues.
The monthly letter and weekly alerts won’t change much. Rob will occassionally offer specific recommendations alongside his analysis, which could form the basis of a global investment strategy. But our survey indicates some people want more than just that, so we’re creating the additional tiers for them. If you’re happy with the service as is, you won’t notice much of a difference. — R.B.
Aren’t “nobility” and “aristocrat” the same thing? And in what feudal society did “bourgeois” ever outrank “nobility” in social status? And to make the metaphor complete, shouldn’t “free e-letter” be “commoner”, “peasant,” or “serf”? Somewhere in economist heaven, I suspect that Dr. R., a cultured European if ever there was one, is displeased.
You could maybe solve all the problems by renaming the categories “knight,” “baron,” “earl” (or “count”) and “duke”. That way everyone gets to be an aristocrat. That’s the American way.
We’d obviously make Rob “king,” but there’s some question about my title. I’d like “prince” or at least “baron.” But the boss is thinking more “squire” or “page.” Just kidding — but it’s clear we’ll need to rethink the labels. — R.B.
I am concerned that the letter is moving into the realm of hyper sales pushes that try to entice the subscriber into spending more money to get more information.
If you do not spend the extra, you are a second or third class subscriber. Not privy to the really good stuff.
I love the current letter and wonder what , if anything, will be sacrificed to accommodate the additional material.
Nothing will be sacrificed — Rob, the Richebacher Letter and the alerts will remain the same. People who subscribe to the higher tiers won’t be getting the “good stuff.” They’ll get the exact kind of recommendations they’re interested in. We feel it’s a better alternative than trying to shoehorn information that most people don’t want into the main letter. Considering the types of trades we’re looking at, it would be irresponsible, too. Our tiered structure means we’ll only cater to people who understand and accept the risks of investing at their level. — R.B.
The names of the levels are rather ill chosen as some said, but that’s easily fixed. A daily e-letter sounds like just more stuff in my inbox. I think it’s most important to keep the monthly letter and the weekly update pretty much as is. They are full of very useful analysis that isn’t easily available anywhere else. I like the idea of some actionable ideas, but basically I look to the society to make macroeconomic sense out of what is happening in the world. So far Rob has been darned accurate.
It’s almost scary watching Europe’s debt debacle unfold like Rob said it would. In the meantime, you’ll have the opportunity to opt out of the daily e-mail. We picture it as a way to introduce our economic ideas and predictions to a wider audience. We’re keeping the monthly letter and weekly update pretty much as is. Even the specific recommendations Rob plans to make won’t be too different than ones Rob has already made in the Letter… they’ll just be more explicit. — R.B.
I think the daily e-mail is a bad idea, and I think the membership categories is a terrible idea. The letter is already overpriced for what is being offered, and yet you are proposing to charge more for a few investment recommendations.
We haven’t discussed pricing yet. But it’s important to understand we’re not proposing a “Richebacher Letter Plus.” Each tier will be treated like a separate service, providing dedicated analysis and recommendations. The common thread will be macroeconomics, but the investment paths may be different. Admittedly, each tier may be more expensive than the one below it — but that’s only to make sure the people who sign up understand and appreciate the risks. For instance, it would be irresponsible to recommend futures options to our entire readership, because they can be complicated and costly. But that information will be available to people who want it and are prepared to take the risks. — R.B.