Is it only me that wonders why 20-something dudes are either being pulled in to write about stuff they have zero knowledge about or choosing to do so hoping for some reward- or maybe getting one I'm unaware of.Seems to me this stuff is nothing but another page view- another advertiser number. This particular guy will write anything and often his stuff is beyond pathetic.These guys make as many "research" opinions as Jim Cramer does with even less knowledge.
Is it only me NO! Not only you.It was The Buffalo Evening News and the Courier-Express, for example. I used to live there.In cases like this, I like to remember the words of Peter Henry Emerson, B.A, M.B (Cantab.), an American living in England, a doctor. who was mainly a photographer who wrote a book* that survived three editions. In the third edition, published in 1899 he said, among other things, "It has been well said that the chief use of the multiplication of cheap journals and the increased facilities given to everyone to 'have his say,' has been the increased facility they offer for the discovery of fools -- since in their columns alone fools are allowed to 'have their say."_____* Naturalistic Photography for Students of the Art
Is it only me that wonders why 20-something dudes are either being pulled in to write about stuff they have zero knowledge about or choosing to do so hoping for some reward- or maybe getting one I'm unaware of.Seems to me this stuff is nothing but another page view- another advertiser number. This particular guy will write anything and often his stuff is beyond pathetic.So we have a 20-something kid out of college who seems to be going down a path many of us traveled and he seems to be latching onto Buffett and Munger's teachings on investments and life. And, maybe, he is trying to get some exposure for himself on Seeking Alpha for professional reasons. And for that, he is called pathetic?I only follow 20 authors on Seeking Alpha and this guy happens to be one of them. I am not a fan of Seeking Alpha's way of doing business but I'm not going to fault some kid who uses that platform to write about Buffett and Munger.It's revealing that so many people here recommend a mean spirited nasty post like that. Oh, and I remember the old dealraker from many years ago and he was a cranky and wisecracking guy but not a mean spirited issuer of one liners. In short, I believe "Charliedealraker" is an imposter.
RW, I agree with you. I found it a little starting that a poster on the board would pick out a guy who is 22-23 years old and who can't even defend himself against a baseless attack. I give him credit for actually reading the book and taking an interest in Buffett & Munger earlier in his life than later. I actually found his article interesting and appreciated it. Let's stick with the Munger theme: Envy is the worst sin because you can't have any fun doing it.
Bull crap, bull crap, and more bull crap. The writer suggests things like that investors should have an exit plan and that Munger drew a line in the sand and more.The problem is that rational you do write with responsibility, maturity, and forethought and especially you should recommend reality to this young man. But somehow this financial tabloid journalism thing has just gotten completely out of hand- and we copy and past most anything to one another no matter how far fetched it obviously is or how bad the writer has used one thing to crate a catchy headline to make an inference that is off the charts out of bounds as related to the man he's follwoing.I was a research analyst at this guys age and thank goodness I has some sort of belief that I should hold off making suggestions about things that I had absolutely no idea about.Every article this man writes is his personal bias and immature silliness.
... no matter how far fetched it obviously is or how bad the writer has used one thing to crate a catchy headline...FWIW, I know from experience that the authors submitting work to Seeking Alpha have no control regarding the headline used by the editors. On more than one occasion, I had to write to the editors to immediately pull an offensive headline they selected which, of course, was too late for the headline to be syndicated all of the internet with my name attached to it forever after. Eventually I stopped submitting work to them since there was absolutely no reason to feed their network.
I remember all so well back in 2001 I think having this discussion about the valuation of Cisco with a very popular poster on the old yahoo board. It was my view that it was plum dang crazy, and that this one decision to "hold" Cisco would out-importance all the other portfolio decisions this poster would make for the next 10 years. The poster had sold a little Cisco but kept the rest and the justification was that John Chambers was THE smartest guy in the entire world.Well that poster still holds the Cisco that wasn't sold in 2001 just after (memory may be challenged here) the world's greatest CEO's company earned 50 cents and the stock was selling for $80. Of course it was only a few months later that the CEO bailed on $150 million of stock and a few months later the company had what was then the largest invenstory write-off in US history. I called it silliness to hold that stock and the poster's rescuers came flogging me to oblivion. Of course it was an older more experienced man seeing what was perfectly obvious- yes yet another man held on a pedestal created by the times and all the value investing rules were being slaughtered to death propping him up.Now the page view tabloid journalism model is flourishing and gotcha headlines real in the same so-called value investors that the Internet charmed 10-15 years ago.We can defend the young writers not practicing sound financial journalism or usher them in to the real world. Back in the 1990's early 2000's it was the different story with the same characteristics- people caught up in the moment looking for something to have it all make sense. Reeling them in was impossible.The product being sold on seekingalpha is you when you click on the catchy headline. That's why you get it free.
"Warren Buffett: How a rowboat beat an ocean liner""Paley’s strategy at CBS was consistent with the conventional wisdom of the conglomerate era, which espoused the elusive benefits of “diversification” and “synergy” to justify the acquisition of unrelated businesses that, once combined with the parent company, would magically become both more profitable and less susceptible to the economic cycle. At its core, Paley’s strategy focused on making CBS larger.""In contrast, Murphy’s goal was to make his company more valuable. As he said to me, “The goal is not to have the longest train, but to arrive at the station first using the least fuel.” Under Murphy and his lieutenant, Dan Burke, Capital Cities rejected diversification and instead created an unusually streamlined conglomerate that focused laserlike on the media businesses it knew well. Murphy acquired more radio and TV stations, operated them superbly well, regularly repurchased his shares and eventually acquired CBS’ rival broadcast network ABC. The relative results speak for themselves."http://www.smartcompany.com.au/leadership/054325-warren-buff...Tim
We can defend the young writers not practicing sound financial journalism or usher them in to the real world. You aren't going to usher anyone into the "real world" by calling people who are perhaps young and a bit naive that they are "pathetic" rather than being constructive. In my opinion, almost anyone under 30 is naive when it comes to investing because they haven't seen enough market cycles personally. It is one thing to read about markets and another to live through it. How does it feel to see your net worth drop by nearly 50% peak to trough? I know how that feels. I know how to react to it. I know I'll be able to handle it again because I've been there before. I doubt anyone under 30 had enough capital in the 2008-09 debacle to know how it really feels even if their small portfolio fell by half. Most can't handle it even if they talk the talk. Most people will give up and sell at the bottom.If it wasn't for Lowenstein's biography of Buffett, Buffett's annual letters, and Ben Graham's books, my net worth would have been destroyed in the early 2000s. I probably would have crawled into a defensive posture perhaps investing in real estate with the other hordes who decided that stocks were a losers game just in time to be killed in the real estate meltdown. It was basically luck that led me to value investing and I had to unlearn all the textbook efficient market dogma. My main investing upper division finance textbook, which I still have in my bookshelf, has one reference in the index to "Buffet, Warren" (yes, misspelled) leading to a dismissive paragraph about Buffett, Peter Lynch, Templeton, and Neff having superior performance records "hard to reconcile" with absolutely efficient markets. But fear not because "Nobel prize winner Paul Samuelson reviews this investment hall of fame but points out that the records of the vast majority of professional money managers offer convincing evidence that there are no easy strategies to guarantee success in the securities market."So my view is that any young person subjected to the efficient market dogma and trying to break free of it deserves encouragement even if the attempt isn't perfect, not scorn and sarcasm. But whatever floats your boat in terms of feeling superior, "dealraker", and whatever generates recs here seems to be what counts.
I remember all so well back in 2001 I think having this discussion about the valuation of Cisco with a very popular poster on the old yahoo board. It was my view that it was plum dang crazy, and that this one decision to "hold" Cisco would out-importance all the other portfolio decisions this poster would make for the next 10 years. The poster had sold a little Cisco but kept the rest and the justification was that John Chambers was THE smartest guy in the entire world.I believe that I remember that discussion back on the old yahoo board although I cannot remember who the bull on Cisco was. Dealraker and benkea in particular were anchors of wisdom in uncertain times. I don't recall either of them being dismissive of aspiring value investors, however, and while sarcastic at times neither of them were gratuitously rude and nasty either.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |