Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Meh. It is what it is: I think there's a lot of media outlets these days (Marketwatch comes to mind) where it often feels like they're straining to fill pages day in-day out.
Marketwatch recycles the same articles over time. They change the headline to try and fool some but not everyone falls for the filler. For example, how many articles have we all seen touting low cost index funds over active management?
Marketwatch recycles the same articles over time. They change the headline to try and fool some but not everyone falls for the filler. For example, how many articles have we all seen touting low cost index funds over active management?
Filler. That's the word I was looking for. It's the same articles about housing, passive/active, etc.
One of the financial writers I interviewed last month for the "what should you read" piece suggested that he liked the Observer in part because we publish only once a month. His argument was that no normal person benefited from reading financial porn more often than that.
That guy was very correct. With the proviso that reading to learn, starting from "Square One" and trying to improve one's savvy is not the same thing as indulging in financial porn. In fact, one of the lessons to be learned is to be able to identify the difference: what is content worth reading, and what is financial porn? (I know it when I see it, giggle giggle.)
Comments
For what it's worth,
David