Skip to main content

Investing by Television


In retirement, I watch a lot of business shows.  Here the news is mostly factual, not given to political rhetoric - thankfully.  Most of the shows’ hosts bring in financial leaders to forecast, to project, to explain investment strategies, and otherwise discuss Wall Street comings and goings.  The comments vary, from bull to bear, and from optimistic to pessimistic, from data to anecdote

Almost without variation most financial strategists follow first order cause-effect policies.  The market does this, we do that.  Seldom do you see a strategist with an overall command of fiscal conditions.  Their methods are simple and ad hoc. Sometimes, it seems like there is a predictions club where all read what the others write.  This could be a CYA symptom, as they have high paying jobs and must at all times justify their salaries are well deserved.   Some filter their comments through their politics, but either way, it’s useless.

From time to time, they offer stock picks.  Listening and acting upon their advice is risky.  For example, Halliburton was recommended.  Sources indicated it to be a “buy.” I bought.  Down it has come.  In another, the stock Rewalk Robotics was recommended.  It was cheap.  I bought.  Down it went, but just lately it went to the sky, making me some money. 

Some know their stuff and just how complicated the investment business is.  You can just tell.  Often, because of this complexity, their remarks are difficult to follow.  Blackstone CEO Stephen A. Schwarzman is typical.  His message is complex and encompassing, but well worth distillation efforts. Fox host Charles Payne is another.  He grasps the difficulty and complexity of analysis. One can learn from these guys,  JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon is another but he tends to speak in unhelpful (for me) generality. 

When you combine the crystal ball with data analysis, with gut feelings, you typify business shows, and you accrue the results you might expect.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Please Comment.

Popular posts from this blog

Behavioral Science and Problem-Solving

I.                                       I.                 Introduction.                Concerning our general behavior, it’s high about time we all had some understanding of how we operate on ourselves, and it is just as important how we are operated on by others. This is the wheelhouse of behavioral sciences. It is a vast subject. It touches our lives constantly. It’s influence is pervasive and can be so subtle we never notice it. Behavioral sciences profoundly affect our ability and success at problem-solving, from the elementary level to highly complex wicked problems. This is discussed in Section IV. We begin with the basics of behavioral sciences, Section II, and then through the lens of multiple categories and examples, Section III. II.     ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Principles of Insufficiency and Sufficiency

   The principles we use but don't know it.  1.      Introduction . Every field, scientific or otherwise, rests on foundational principles—think buoyancy, behavior, or democracy. Here, we explore a unique subset: principles modified by "insufficiency" and "sufficiency." While you may never have heard of them, you use them often. These terms frame principles that blend theory, practicality, and aspiration, by offering distinct perspectives. Insufficiency often implies inaction unless justified, while sufficiency suggests something exists or must be done. We’ll examine key examples and introduce a new principle with potential significance. As a principle of principles of these is that something or some action is not done enough while others may be done too much. The first six (§2-6) of our principles are in the literature, and you can easily search them online. The others are relatively new, but fit the concepts in the real world. At times, these pri...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Lemming Instinct

  In certain vital domains, a pervasive mediocrity among practitioners can stifle genuine advancement. When the intellectual output of a field is predominantly average, it inevitably produces research of corresponding quality. Nevertheless, some of these ideas, by sheer chance or perhaps through effective dissemination, will inevitably gain traction. A significant number of scholars and researchers will gravitate towards these trends, contributing to and propagating further work along these established lines. Such a trajectory allows an initially flawed concept to ascend to the status of mainstream orthodoxy. However, over an extended period, these prevailing ideas invariably fail to withstand rigorous scrutiny; they are ultimately and conclusively disproven. The disheartening pattern then reveals itself: rather than genuine progress, an equally unvalidated or incorrect idea often supplants the discredited one, swiftly establishing its own dominance. This cycle perpetuates, ensurin...
Post a Comment
Read more