The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Investing/Strategies / Bonds & Fixed Income Investments
|Subject: Re: Charlie post on bond analysis||Date: 11/25/2006 2:53 PM|
|Author: WendyBG||Number: 18903 of 35930|
While I did appreciate Charlie's efforts, in writing the post you link to, I don't think that it is appropriate for linkage to a FAQ.
The essence of FAQs is to introduce newbies to a subject. Like the FAQs that Lokicious and 2old4bs have written, they should be general and concise. They should explain all new terms. Above all, they should instruct, specifically, how the new information can be used, in a practical sense.
I applaud Loki and 2old, for their excellence, in achieving these goals, with the bond FAQ.
By contrast, Charlie's post is full of undefined terms and unexplained, intuitive judgments. For example, he talks about puts, without defining what a put is. He talks about how buying a bond as if it was a put, without explaining why that works. He talks about looking at a list of bonds, where one jumps out, without explaining how to find the list, how to put it in order, how to judge which jumps out, how to decide how much risk is involved.
I was unable to use Charlie's advice, in any practical sense. Charlie appears to treat bond investing as an art form. He denigrates the FAQs, which are of real, practical use, while his own contributions are not usable.
It might be OK to link to Charlie's post, under the rubric of "bonds as an art form," but, as a FAQ, it doesn't meet the objectives.
|Copyright 1996-2016 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|