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.
Far worse now. I mean, look at the Tesla April Fool's joke that was picked up as a news story, despite the fact that it was obviously a joke. You have computers looking for a story and are desperate to have that millisecond advantage over other news outlets or fund managers.
The funny thing is that he mentions "calling up Pisani" to effectively put a story of his creation out there on CNBC. This clip above was also seen on "Daily Show" when he went after Cramer.
Afterward, no one has gone, "Gee Bob, which hedge fund managers are giving you information today in order to talk their book?"
I have always considered Cramer to be on the same page as those infomercial actors, who hawk useless stuff on the television. Buy now and we will double your order.
Some people like his high blood pressure yelling and spittle flying but it is all an act to attract sheep and to sell books.
First off, I'm shocked (to hear there's gambling going on in this establishment).
Agree with JohnC that Cramer's clown act is over-the-top and only clowns would blindly follow his on-air advice. The race for ratings, I'm afraid, does strange things to commentators and producers.
Unlike most perhaps ... I do see a "redeeming" quality to Cramer. As the video displays, he has an insider's view of how things really work in the financial markets based on loads of experience. If there's a critical flaw ... it's that he's too honest and candid. Can you see him ever running for office? They'd hang him out to dry in no time.
Jon Stewart thoroughly annihilated him in one of the most classic adversarial interviews you'll ever see - easily of "60-Minutes" caliber. I'll submit however, that the impression created had more to do with Stewart's sharp mind, experience, training and preparation for the interview (along with great research teams & writers) than with any "idiot factor" on Cramer's part. Few in or out of the media would want to be grilled live on camera by either Stewart or 60-Minutes in full-attack mode. And, whatever else is to be said of Cramer good or bad, he is not a dumb man.
I can vividly remember a co-worker of mine who followed Jimmy and bought SBUX after he hawked it on his show. Problem was, this was 2003 and after a year or so of gains, the stock took a big dip. It took a few years for that downtrend to reverse but she had already yanked her money out. It's a story that has repeated many times.
I wonder if she bought back in or is kicking herself for selling? I know that before I retired, she bought Krispy Kreme. I don't even want to know what happened there.
Have so far avoided the temptation to own individual stocks, so can't relate fully to your friend's experience.
But I do think "show" is the correct word here. And "ratings" is what follows. As far as investment advice, I think you'd do better using tarot cards or something. That's a problem with TV financial journalism in general - that it tries to give the appearance of providing financial advice while actually espousing entertainment values and ratings above all else. And, that's why Stewart came down so hard on Cramer.
I've heard Rick Santelli and others on CNBC were first invited to appear on Stewart's program ahead of Cramer but refused the bait. Wonder why? In a way, Cramer became the sacrificial lamb for all of TV financial journalism. -
Added: There were studies done back in Rukeyser's day that confirmed that stocks mentioned favorably by his on-air guests experienced a short term bump in value, followed by a drop later on. So the phenomon is nothing new.
Any multi-million Dollar(share) buyer/seller can manipulate the price on a Stock..not only Hedge Fund managers,all of them do it......Ask Buffett, Soros, hedge fund, mutual fund managers if they do it.....you won't get an answer..
I can vividly remember a co-worker of mine who followed Jimmy and bought SBUX after he hawked it on his show. Problem was, this was 2003 and after a year or so of gains, the stock took a big dip. It took a few years for that downtrend to reverse but she had already yanked her money out. It's a story that has repeated many times.
I wonder if she bought back in or is kicking herself for selling? I know that before I retired, she bought Krispy Kreme. I don't even want to know what happened there.
I think the problem is that people realize real quick their tolerance for losses and it's less than they often believe. Two, people have no long-term view anymore and often don't have a connection to what they have an investment in. I'd guess if you interviewed a fair amount of average people on the street about their investments, I'd guess more than a few would have some degree of difficulty explaining what it is the company does (bought it because a friend told them, whatever). If that is the case, then they're going to sell whenever things get difficult.
@scott, Exactly. I remember asking her if she had any funds and she said something along the lines that funds were boring and the big money was in stocks. Sounded like more tv speak to me. She was looking for the home runs. I hope she eventually hit one.
Ouch. I stopped trying to pick stocks years ago, though I follow and spy on some names, day to day. I bought PG & E, biggest damn utility in the world. Or in the USA, at least. Soon after: BOOM. The whole Erin Brockovitch thing blew wide open. Then: Big explosions in San Bruno and elsewhere. The company was sued, profits fell. They probably deserved to be sued. But I got out with a small loss. I inherited PFIZER. Actually, it came to me still under the old Monsanto name, where auntie worked and worked and worked for 300 years. ..... There was a spin-off or two. Pharmacia. Finally, Pfizer. (But the Monsanto name still lives. Predator filth.) That Pfizer stock price fell from the 50s to the 30s, even with dividends. This was all pre-crisis, pre- 2009 Crash, by the way. That stock is a DAWG. I sold it all and reinvested in mutual funds. Wouldn't you know? That old Pfizer money is MAKING money for me, now.
@MFO Members: Have you noticed ABC and NBC Nightly News lead stories 9 out of 10 times are bad weather related. They love to air stories of weather tragedy. Regards, Ted
Have you seen the weather on TV lately? The geek with half inch thick glasses, who gave you a 5 minute spiel at a university level on why it is raining today, has been replaced by an under 30 babe with big boobs.
When I was growing up, movie stars were people like John Candy, Steve Martin and Dan Ackroyd. Now it's largely pretty people who have little talent and rarely are older people leads unless it's a movie geared towards an older crowd.
Welcome back AKAFlack, it’s been way too, too long. I have missed your moving average posts. Do you still teach that market entry/exit technique? I worry for your students. They may not have the discipline that you do. Please visit this site more frequently.
The Jim Cramer-Jon Stewart wrestling match happened a long time ago. I’m not sure why you post on it at this late time. Your post only presents one aspect of the debate. Perhaps our MFOers are not familiar with the full context of the interaction. Here is a Link that presents the confrontation in a 3 part series. After the quiet introductory Part 1, MFOers can readily access the more informative Parts 2 and 3.
I think of Cramer as an arrogant fool who falsely believes in his own special market prescience and acumen. His actual record does not support that high an esteemed valuation. The independent CXO Advisory Group scorecard on his forecasting record is merely a fair coin toss. He is definitely not a member of the pantheon of investing gurus; the assembled data speaks otherwise.
Consistency of opinion and accurate scorekeeping have never been strong Cramer attributes. That’s also the failed attributes of most market forecasters. Forecasters can’t reliably forecast. That’s the sad but actual fact. An examination of the experimental evidence can generate no other conclusion. Cramer’s self-claimed market forecasting capability is delusional. The records prove it does not exist except in his own distorted brain.
I do not watch Cramer. I do not watch CNBC or any other business news channel. They are a worthless waste of time that might just prompt a viewer to act impetuously and foolishly because of a false and transient urgency scenario. I’m sure experienced MFOers resist that defective signal; too bad, maybe not all of us do so. Cramer doesn’t help here with his clown-like, frantic antics. Entertainment is not a valid substitute for meaningful analyses.
MJG: I thought Flack's post raised some valid questions about market manipulation whether one agrees with the general thesis or not. As I saw it, Jim Cramer was incidental to that issue. The comments he made on the linked video speaking as a former hedge fund manager could have come from anyone in a similar position. I suspect Michael Lewis would agree with Cramer's all too honest portrayal of how big money influences short-term market movements,
It was I, as far as I know, who interjected the Stewart-Cramer spat - not Flack as you seem to allege. Take it for what it's worth. Apparently that episode is worth little to you. Let's move on.
I am watching ABC news right now and the customary weather news just finished. All the news is either breaking or developing and the host is talking so fast I can't imagine that many people understanding him. The guests including the nice looking weather lady are also speed talking.
You noted: " I do not watch CNBC or any other business news channel. They are a worthless waste of time that might just prompt a viewer to act impetuously and foolishly because of a false and transient urgency scenario. I’m sure experienced MFOers resist that defective signal; too bad, maybe not all of us do so. Cramer doesn’t help here with his clown-like, frantic antics. Entertainment is not a valid substitute for meaningful analyses."
Okay, let me think about this.......
You state: "I do not watch CNBC or any other business news channel. They are a worthless waste of time that might just prompt a viewer to act impetuously and foolishly because of a false and transient urgency scenario."
>>>It is, of course; fine for one to obtain their knowledge regarding investing from a preferred source(s). But, you state that any business news channel is worthless. There indeed are some talking heads one may choose to avoid; but not all and there are portions of some business programs that are worthy of attention and from which one may learn.
Also stated: "might just prompt a viewer to act impetuously and foolishly because of a false and transient urgency scenario."
>>>If this is a case for someone who thinks they are an investor; than that person needs a full personal review of self-awareness. They have not yet obtained investor status, but are in the gambling mode.
Cramer and some others are entertainment for the most part and ego driven in their blabberings about "investing".
You have issued many links, pieces of data and reference items over the years at FundAlarm and here. One must presume you feel these are of value to pass along for knowledge here.
And yet you are able to dismiss all business channels and/or portions of those shows or particular program hosts and their guests as worthless; at the same time, admitting that you don't watch these programs. How in the hell is a person able to make such a judgment with this circumstance?
I do watch Bloomberg business, and have learned from their hosts and guests. My expectation is that there will be a trinket here or there that will add to my investing knowledge.
The expectation is not unlike attempts for most of my adult life when having a verbal discussion about "topic x"; that I hope my information with either cause someone to think about a discussion topic from a different viewpoint or to think about a topic that is new to them. This, for me; is a begining success path to knowledge.
@Catch22- Yeah, that particular post of MJG's came across in the tb mode, although significantly longer than 40 words. Lets hope that influence isn't spreading.
I am somewhat surprised by how exercised you are about it. I thought it is a rather innocuous piece.
Perhaps I came across too strongly with my blanket censure of all business news programming. There is no way I could have seen all its various forms. But in the past I did expose myself to much of TV business programming, and I was singularly unimpressed with its quality and depth. So I drastically curtailed my active viewing time, and it now approaches zero with a few momentary exceptions on exceptional days. Never is too strong a word description of my TV financial viewing.
From my perspective, it can be reduced to a cost/benefit tradeoff. I am not prepared to invest considerable time screening for an occasional nugget of financial wisdom. Most of what is presented is false gold coupled to an unrealistic, illusionary time urgency.
The spoken words and pictures are ephemeral and often contradictory. They are delivered by Wall Street hucksters and sycophants. They all have vested interests. I trust them not.
I more often trust the written word, especially when it includes validated statistics and detailed references. The written word can be more completely checked. As President Reagan quoted from an old Russian proverb: “Trust but verify”. That’s an excellent rule to apply when making an investment decision. The written word makes that an easier task.
I assemble most of my investment advice from written articles, peer reviewed academic papers, and financial books. I read much more than I watch. Reading rules!
That’s my approach. I have never, and will never, ask MFOers to adopt my pathway. To each his own. And I really wish each and every MFO member success in whatever pathway he/she selects.
At this point in my lifetime I treasure time. Time is a costly item. Spending the day glued to a TV monitor is not my formula for an efficient cost/benefit outcome. That’s just my opinion; I respect all others.
Sorry that my post caused some upset. That was never my intent. I'm happy to go my way, and I wish you happiness on your way.
I am not upset by your statements. I hope every investor finds their best combined methods to increase their knowledge.
I suppose your time with books may consume an equal amount of time as I may use , viewing a business program. We may obtain the same trinkets of information of value to each; but from different formats.
Your current write takes the same path, as the first write, of worthless business news and yet you do not watch.
So, how in hell do you really know what is currently available regarding commentators, their guests or the quality of the reports and discussions? How are you, a person of pure data and statistics; able to make a qualified statement about business programing on television?
All of my business news comes from Internet sources. They don't yell and turn red. There is no cheerleading atmosphere. That does not mean that all the stuff on the Internet is good. I tend to stay away from Marketwatch for example.
Business television has degraded over time to what it is now, a bunch of silliness with an occasional tidbit of info. Bloomberg is not too bad but I am biased because my source of Bloomberg is from Hong Kong. The foreign desks generally are much better than the U.S. based news. CNBC is entertainment rather than informative. We all have heard the advice of turning on to CNBC but turn down the volume.
I didn't sense anything from MJG's comment that would put him in the tb category. In fact I will state that comparison is going a bit far. MJG is eloquent in his written commentary which is completely opposite of the other poster.
If someone writes something that one disagrees with, that shouldn't turn into a forum stoning. I didn't sense any insult on MJG's comments so I wonder why the backlash?
Well, my suggested comparison to tb may in fact have been a bit strong. What I found unusual in his approach was a blanket condemnation, without qualification, of ALL of a certain product, while simultaneously claiming not to monitor that product. That seems like a rather large logical discontinuity (Indeed, of the sort typical of Mr. tb), and is rather unlike MJG's typical relatively evenhanded opinions.
I purposely started my reply with the Ronald Reagan phrase from the 1980 presidential debates with Jimmy Carter to capture your attention. Knowing your political preferences, I’m confident that I succeeded.
I stopped reading Tampa Bay’s posts a while back. Although I agreed with some of his observations, I took great exception to some others. I took even greater exception to his assertion and personal attack style of writing. I prefer substance over assertion, and an impersonal writing style. Apparently, using your current submittal as experimental evidence, you do not.
I find nothing inconsistent with an exploratory product introductory period followed by a decision to continue the relationship or not. I patronized Starbucks for years before discovering Dunkin Donuts. I’m sure others make the opposite choice, but I’m simply expressing my coffee preference.
And I reserve the option to change in the future. I do sample Starbucks as the occasion dictates. Change happens, and I respond to it. In 1956 I voted for Dwight D. Eisenhower; in the 1960 election, I voted for John F. Kennedy.
I recall that a year or so ago, you advocated for a short word limit on MFO. I adamantly oppose such a tight restriction. If imposed, I would be ruled out of the ballgame. Such a limit would completely cutoff substantial discussion, supporting documentation, and references. I advocate for all these elements. Missing these elements, an investment decision would be a pure gamble since the marketplace is fueled by a boatload of statistics.
I consider myself open-minded to change, but I do prefer detailed discussions on most matters. I prefer 30 minute investigative TV segments over 2 minute self-promotional slices. If you sense a movement towards more in-depth market TV analyses, please “tell me if you can”. Please specifically identify the improvements and the sources. I will give it a look-see. I’m prepared to reassess if the reassessment is warranted.
All things are in constant motion. One reason for my abandonment of the market news scene is that I morphed from individual stock holdings to active mutual funds to more passive mutual funds. I also trade far less frequently than in the past. My needs have greatly changed. Hence my viewing habits have changed. Yesterday, I enjoyed a lunch and a day at the pier in Redondo Beach, CA. The sunshine easily betters the glare of a TV screen.
Regardless of any dislikes you harbor for my style (you have never challenged the substance of my writings), I do wish you health and a successful investing career. Amen.
"I recall that a year or so ago, you advocated for a short word limit on MFO."
You recall incorrectly. In the past I have, however, advocated that your personal writing style might be significantly improved by less pomposity and more brevity. "you have never challenged the substance of my writings"
Absurd. I have, on numerous occasions, the latest being this one. Apparently I'm not alone: Catch22 evidently feels similarly. Because you simply dismiss an opinion does not invalidate it, but it must be convenient to believe that no one challenges you because you don't recognize the validity of the challenge. I think that's called hubris. You're in plentiful if not good company there, as that seems to be the main attribute of today's political "leadership".
Old Joe, a self-anointed judge and jury, continues to heap targeted antagonism directed towards me since Fund Alarm days. His antagonism has a long and tortured history. That history is documented on both Fund Alarm and MFO by the plethora of his posts that gratuitously tie me to positions I do not hold and to unjustified, negative comparisons.
There is a story that explains this antagonism, but I choose not to tell it since it would only provoke denials and further his deeply rooted antagonism. At an early point in this sad tale, Old Joe even accused my opening salutary greeting of “Hi Guys” as being sexists. Some of this hostility has softened recently, but not by much.
The experimental evidence that supports my interpretation is registered in the historical MFO posting records. Just count the number of times I have challenged Old Joe’s submittal or sullied his character with erroneous and egregious linkages. I say it is near or at zero.
Now please count the number of times that Old Joe (OJ) has done me that disservice. Sorry, but that’s an arduous task. The number is large. The one-directionality of these comparisons is remarkable. It is a signal of who the agitator really is. He attacks, I defend.
Recently, given Tampa Bay’s unpopularity among MFO members, Old Joe has been asserting that both Tampa Bay (TB) and I would likely disagree with positions that Old Joe takes. Although I have not commented on some subjects, he falsely and purposely postulates my likely position on it.
That’s disgraceful and dishonest. I often disagree with TB’s pronouncements and almost always dislike the undocumented manner in which he presents them. That’s surely not my style. But that doesn’t dissuade OJ from making his clumsy assertions.
Old Joe plays a flim-flam game with his contradictory commentary even within one exchange. This current exchange serves as an excellent example.
When responding to a challenge from John Chisum, in a lukewarm sort of apology, OJ said: “Well, my suggested comparison to tb may in fact have been a bit strong.” He concluded the paragraph with: “That seems like a rather large logical discontinuity and is rather unlike MJG's typical relatively evenhanded opinions.” Wow, an unexpected endorsement! But, but, but ,,,,,,,
In his last post, OJ opined: “….it must be convenient to believe that no one challenges you because you don't recognize the validity of the challenge. I think that's called hubris.”
This is more like the real OJ, both the judge and the jury. It is consistent with his past acrimonious attacks. As he admits in his opening statement: “In the past I have, however, advocated that your personal writing style might be significantly improved by less pomposity and more brevity.”
So he arrogantly is going to teach me to communicate better. I do write with purpose. I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. During my working career, the success of my many competitive contract proposals depended on being positive. If that is a definition of hubris, I am guilty. From my perspective, I believe that clear writing and firmly defined positions generate trust.
Why this continuing harangue is beyond my understanding and comprehension. It should have been put in the rearview mirror a long time ago.
@MJG- If you consider it "targeted antagonism" to simply disagree with a position that you hold, so be it. Note that in all of the above verbiage you did not actually address the substance of my observations:
MJG: "I recall that a year or so ago, you advocated for a short word limit on MFO."
You recall incorrectly. In the past I have, however, advocated that your personal writing style might be significantly improved by less pomposity and more brevity.
MJG: "you have never challenged the substance of my writings"
Absurd. I have, on numerous occasions, the latest being this one. Apparently I'm not alone: Catch22 evidently feels similarly regarding your current post. On other occasions, other posters have also indicated substantial disagreement with your opinions.
Comments
The funny thing is that he mentions "calling up Pisani" to effectively put a story of his creation out there on CNBC. This clip above was also seen on "Daily Show" when he went after Cramer.
Afterward, no one has gone, "Gee Bob, which hedge fund managers are giving you information today in order to talk their book?"
Some people like his high blood pressure yelling and spittle flying but it is all an act to attract sheep and to sell books.
Agree with JohnC that Cramer's clown act is over-the-top and only clowns would blindly follow his on-air advice. The race for ratings, I'm afraid, does strange things to commentators and producers.
Unlike most perhaps ... I do see a "redeeming" quality to Cramer. As the video displays, he has an insider's view of how things really work in the financial markets based on loads of experience. If there's a critical flaw ... it's that he's too honest and candid. Can you see him ever running for office? They'd hang him out to dry in no time.
Jon Stewart thoroughly annihilated him in one of the most classic adversarial interviews you'll ever see - easily of "60-Minutes" caliber. I'll submit however, that the impression created had more to do with Stewart's sharp mind, experience, training and preparation for the interview (along with great research teams & writers) than with any "idiot factor" on Cramer's part. Few in or out of the media would want to be grilled live on camera by either Stewart or 60-Minutes in full-attack mode. And, whatever else is to be said of Cramer good or bad, he is not a dumb man.
Great video and topic in general. Thanks Flack.
I wonder if she bought back in or is kicking herself for selling? I know that before I retired, she bought Krispy Kreme. I don't even want to know what happened there.
Have so far avoided the temptation to own individual stocks, so can't relate fully to your friend's experience.
But I do think "show" is the correct word here. And "ratings" is what follows. As far as investment advice, I think you'd do better using tarot cards or something. That's a problem with TV financial journalism in general - that it tries to give the appearance of providing financial advice while actually espousing entertainment values and ratings above all else. And, that's why Stewart came down so hard on Cramer.
I've heard Rick Santelli and others on CNBC were first invited to appear on Stewart's program ahead of Cramer but refused the bait. Wonder why?
-
Added: There were studies done back in Rukeyser's day that confirmed that stocks mentioned favorably by his on-air guests experienced a short term bump in value, followed by a drop later on. So the phenomon is nothing new.
Regards,
Ted
Welcome back AKAFlack, it’s been way too, too long. I have missed your moving average posts. Do you still teach that market entry/exit technique? I worry for your students. They may not have the discipline that you do. Please visit this site more frequently.
The Jim Cramer-Jon Stewart wrestling match happened a long time ago. I’m not sure why you post on it at this late time. Your post only presents one aspect of the debate. Perhaps our MFOers are not familiar with the full context of the interaction. Here is a Link that presents the confrontation in a 3 part series. After the quiet introductory Part 1, MFOers can readily access the more informative Parts 2 and 3.
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/0vqrim/jim-cramer-pt--1
I think of Cramer as an arrogant fool who falsely believes in his own special market prescience and acumen. His actual record does not support that high an esteemed valuation. The independent CXO Advisory Group scorecard on his forecasting record is merely a fair coin toss. He is definitely not a member of the pantheon of investing gurus; the assembled data speaks otherwise.
Consistency of opinion and accurate scorekeeping have never been strong Cramer attributes. That’s also the failed attributes of most market forecasters. Forecasters can’t reliably forecast. That’s the sad but actual fact. An examination of the experimental evidence can generate no other conclusion. Cramer’s self-claimed market forecasting capability is delusional. The records prove it does not exist except in his own distorted brain.
I do not watch Cramer. I do not watch CNBC or any other business news channel. They are a worthless waste of time that might just prompt a viewer to act impetuously and foolishly because of a false and transient urgency scenario. I’m sure experienced MFOers resist that defective signal; too bad, maybe not all of us do so. Cramer doesn’t help here with his clown-like, frantic antics. Entertainment is not a valid substitute for meaningful analyses.
Best Wishes.
It was I, as far as I know, who interjected the Stewart-Cramer spat - not Flack as you seem to allege. Take it for what it's worth. Apparently that episode is worth little to you. Let's move on.
Time to eat supper.
You noted: " I do not watch CNBC or any other business news channel. They are a worthless waste of time that might just prompt a viewer to act impetuously and foolishly because of a false and transient urgency scenario. I’m sure experienced MFOers resist that defective signal; too bad, maybe not all of us do so. Cramer doesn’t help here with his clown-like, frantic antics. Entertainment is not a valid substitute for meaningful analyses."
Okay, let me think about this.......
You state: "I do not watch CNBC or any other business news channel. They are a worthless waste of time that might just prompt a viewer to act impetuously and foolishly because of a false and transient urgency scenario."
>>>It is, of course; fine for one to obtain their knowledge regarding investing from a preferred source(s). But, you state that any business news channel is worthless. There indeed are some talking heads one may choose to avoid; but not all and there are portions of some business programs that are worthy of attention and from which one may learn.
Also stated: "might just prompt a viewer to act impetuously and foolishly because of a false and transient urgency scenario."
>>>If this is a case for someone who thinks they are an investor; than that person needs a full personal review of self-awareness. They have not yet obtained investor status, but are in the gambling mode.
Cramer and some others are entertainment for the most part and ego driven in their blabberings about "investing".
You have issued many links, pieces of data and reference items over the years at FundAlarm and here. One must presume you feel these are of value to pass along for knowledge here.
And yet you are able to dismiss all business channels and/or portions of those shows or particular program hosts and their guests as worthless; at the same time, admitting that you don't watch these programs. How in the hell is a person able to make such a judgment with this circumstance?
I do watch Bloomberg business, and have learned from their hosts and guests. My expectation is that there will be a trinket here or there that will add to my investing knowledge.
The expectation is not unlike attempts for most of my adult life when having a verbal discussion about "topic x"; that I hope my information with either cause someone to think about a discussion topic from a different viewpoint or to think about a topic that is new to them. This, for me; is a begining success path to knowledge.
Signing off, and Disappointed.
Catch
Thank you for reading my post.
I am somewhat surprised by how exercised you are about it. I thought it is a rather innocuous piece.
Perhaps I came across too strongly with my blanket censure of all business news programming. There is no way I could have seen all its various forms. But in the past I did expose myself to much of TV business programming, and I was singularly unimpressed with its quality and depth. So I drastically curtailed my active viewing time, and it now approaches zero with a few momentary exceptions on exceptional days. Never is too strong a word description of my TV financial viewing.
From my perspective, it can be reduced to a cost/benefit tradeoff. I am not prepared to invest considerable time screening for an occasional nugget of financial wisdom. Most of what is presented is false gold coupled to an unrealistic, illusionary time urgency.
The spoken words and pictures are ephemeral and often contradictory. They are delivered by Wall Street hucksters and sycophants. They all have vested interests. I trust them not.
I more often trust the written word, especially when it includes validated statistics and detailed references. The written word can be more completely checked. As President Reagan quoted from an old Russian proverb: “Trust but verify”. That’s an excellent rule to apply when making an investment decision. The written word makes that an easier task.
I assemble most of my investment advice from written articles, peer reviewed academic papers, and financial books. I read much more than I watch. Reading rules!
That’s my approach. I have never, and will never, ask MFOers to adopt my pathway. To each his own. And I really wish each and every MFO member success in whatever pathway he/she selects.
At this point in my lifetime I treasure time. Time is a costly item. Spending the day glued to a TV monitor is not my formula for an efficient cost/benefit outcome. That’s just my opinion; I respect all others.
Sorry that my post caused some upset. That was never my intent. I'm happy to go my way, and I wish you happiness on your way.
Best Regards.
I am not upset by your statements. I hope every investor finds their best combined methods to increase their knowledge.
I suppose your time with books may consume an equal amount of time as I may use , viewing a business program. We may obtain the same trinkets of information of value to each; but from different formats.
Your current write takes the same path, as the first write, of worthless business news and yet you do not watch.
So, how in hell do you really know what is currently available regarding commentators, their guests or the quality of the reports and discussions? How are you, a person of pure data and statistics; able to make a qualified statement about business programing on television?
I'm done with this path to nowhere.
Catch
Business television has degraded over time to what it is now, a bunch of silliness with an occasional tidbit of info. Bloomberg is not too bad but I am biased because my source of Bloomberg is from Hong Kong. The foreign desks generally are much better than the U.S. based news. CNBC is entertainment rather than informative. We all have heard the advice of turning on to CNBC but turn down the volume.
I didn't sense anything from MJG's comment that would put him in the tb category. In fact I will state that comparison is going a bit far. MJG is eloquent in his written commentary which is completely opposite of the other poster.
If someone writes something that one disagrees with, that shouldn't turn into a forum stoning. I didn't sense any insult on MJG's comments so I wonder why the backlash?
“There you go again”.
I purposely started my reply with the Ronald Reagan phrase from the 1980 presidential debates with Jimmy Carter to capture your attention. Knowing your political preferences, I’m confident that I succeeded.
I stopped reading Tampa Bay’s posts a while back. Although I agreed with some of his observations, I took great exception to some others. I took even greater exception to his assertion and personal attack style of writing. I prefer substance over assertion, and an impersonal writing style. Apparently, using your current submittal as experimental evidence, you do not.
I find nothing inconsistent with an exploratory product introductory period followed by a decision to continue the relationship or not. I patronized Starbucks for years before discovering Dunkin Donuts. I’m sure others make the opposite choice, but I’m simply expressing my coffee preference.
And I reserve the option to change in the future. I do sample Starbucks as the occasion dictates. Change happens, and I respond to it. In 1956 I voted for Dwight D. Eisenhower; in the 1960 election, I voted for John F. Kennedy.
I recall that a year or so ago, you advocated for a short word limit on MFO. I adamantly oppose such a tight restriction. If imposed, I would be ruled out of the ballgame. Such a limit would completely cutoff substantial discussion, supporting documentation, and references. I advocate for all these elements. Missing these elements, an investment decision would be a pure gamble since the marketplace is fueled by a boatload of statistics.
I consider myself open-minded to change, but I do prefer detailed discussions on most matters. I prefer 30 minute investigative TV segments over 2 minute self-promotional slices. If you sense a movement towards more in-depth market TV analyses, please “tell me if you can”. Please specifically identify the improvements and the sources. I will give it a look-see. I’m prepared to reassess if the reassessment is warranted.
All things are in constant motion. One reason for my abandonment of the market news scene is that I morphed from individual stock holdings to active mutual funds to more passive mutual funds. I also trade far less frequently than in the past. My needs have greatly changed. Hence my viewing habits have changed. Yesterday, I enjoyed a lunch and a day at the pier in Redondo Beach, CA. The sunshine easily betters the glare of a TV screen.
Regardless of any dislikes you harbor for my style (you have never challenged the substance of my writings), I do wish you health and a successful investing career. Amen.
Best Wishes.
You recall incorrectly. In the past I have, however, advocated that your personal writing style might be significantly improved by less pomposity and more brevity.
"you have never challenged the substance of my writings"
Absurd. I have, on numerous occasions, the latest being this one. Apparently I'm not alone: Catch22 evidently feels similarly. Because you simply dismiss an opinion does not invalidate it, but it must be convenient to believe that no one challenges you because you don't recognize the validity of the challenge. I think that's called hubris. You're in plentiful if not good company there, as that seems to be the main attribute of today's political "leadership".
"The old crap that still goes on". Indeed.
Old Joe, a self-anointed judge and jury, continues to heap targeted antagonism directed towards me since Fund Alarm days. His antagonism has a long and tortured history. That history is documented on both Fund Alarm and MFO by the plethora of his posts that gratuitously tie me to positions I do not hold and to unjustified, negative comparisons.
There is a story that explains this antagonism, but I choose not to tell it since it would only provoke denials and further his deeply rooted antagonism. At an early point in this sad tale, Old Joe even accused my opening salutary greeting of “Hi Guys” as being sexists. Some of this hostility has softened recently, but not by much.
The experimental evidence that supports my interpretation is registered in the historical MFO posting records. Just count the number of times I have challenged Old Joe’s submittal or sullied his character with erroneous and egregious linkages. I say it is near or at zero.
Now please count the number of times that Old Joe (OJ) has done me that disservice. Sorry, but that’s an arduous task. The number is large. The one-directionality of these comparisons is remarkable. It is a signal of who the agitator really is. He attacks, I defend.
Recently, given Tampa Bay’s unpopularity among MFO members, Old Joe has been asserting that both Tampa Bay (TB) and I would likely disagree with positions that Old Joe takes. Although I have not commented on some subjects, he falsely and purposely postulates my likely position on it.
That’s disgraceful and dishonest. I often disagree with TB’s pronouncements and almost always dislike the undocumented manner in which he presents them. That’s surely not my style. But that doesn’t dissuade OJ from making his clumsy assertions.
Old Joe plays a flim-flam game with his contradictory commentary even within one exchange. This current exchange serves as an excellent example.
When responding to a challenge from John Chisum, in a lukewarm sort of apology, OJ said: “Well, my suggested comparison to tb may in fact have been a bit strong.” He concluded the paragraph with: “That seems like a rather large logical discontinuity and is rather unlike MJG's typical relatively evenhanded opinions.” Wow, an unexpected endorsement! But, but, but ,,,,,,,
In his last post, OJ opined: “….it must be convenient to believe that no one challenges you because you don't recognize the validity of the challenge. I think that's called hubris.”
This is more like the real OJ, both the judge and the jury. It is consistent with his past acrimonious attacks. As he admits in his opening statement: “In the past I have, however, advocated that your personal writing style might be significantly improved by less pomposity and more brevity.”
So he arrogantly is going to teach me to communicate better. I do write with purpose. I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. During my working career, the success of my many competitive contract proposals depended on being positive. If that is a definition of hubris, I am guilty. From my perspective, I believe that clear writing and firmly defined positions generate trust.
Why this continuing harangue is beyond my understanding and comprehension. It should have been put in the rearview mirror a long time ago.
Thank you all for your indulgence and patience.
Best Regards.
MJG: "I recall that a year or so ago, you advocated for a short word limit on MFO."
You recall incorrectly. In the past I have, however, advocated that your personal writing style might be significantly improved by less pomposity and more brevity.
MJG: "you have never challenged the substance of my writings"
Absurd. I have, on numerous occasions, the latest being this one. Apparently I'm not alone: Catch22 evidently feels similarly regarding your current post. On other occasions, other posters have also indicated substantial disagreement with your opinions.
Could you switch to decaf for a while?
Best,
Chip