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.
It's good to be aware of your sources. FWIW, I do find a handful or two of their contributors to be quite knowledgeable and worthy of perusal but always verify, verify, verify.
I frequently read SA and occasionally get a tidbit or two out of articles. I've pondered sitting down and writing a couple of SA pieces just to say I have. There are some articles that I just skip - "Such and such is set to double!" Some terrific writers though and I think the good at least moderately outweighs the bad and average.
This seems to be a growing concern at many sites. I used to spend time at Marketwatch but they were also adding in new writers who were promoting their newsletters. Worst part was some of these writers were able to delete unfavorable comments on their articles. Many subscribers left in droves, myself being one of them.
None of that free content you read on commercial websites is free. Every tap on every keyboard has to be paid for by somebody. The fact that you don't pay for it up front in a subscription fee doesn't change that fact. Traditionally publishers hired editors who hired professional journalists; readers and advertisers more or less evenly bore the cost of producing and distributing that journalism.
Readers are, increasingly, disinclined to pay for what they read which has wrought havoc with the business model. Publishers have responded by ordering editors to fire professional journalists and to fill the resulting news hole with "free" content.
While the numbers are a bit tricky, it looks like about 40% of newspaper employees have been fired in the past decade, more or less evenly split between the editorial and production staffs. Most consumer finance publications went bankrupt or are limping along online. It's bad enough that a 2013 CareerCast survey ranked "journalist" 200th in desirability on a list of 200 possible careers. Journalism tends to receive about the same ranking as a college major.
So how does content get paid for?
Some is purchased, at auction, by the word. Websites go to brokers and say "I need 500 words comparing an iPad to a generic tablet." The broker tend puts the article out to bid. Junior, who wrote the "Best of the Web" series for us, reports that writers receive something like $0.02 to 0.06 per word.
Some is paid for by the click. That's the Seeking Alpha model, but also the CNBC model. You try to get folks who are nominally qualified but who are also entertaining: super confident, apocalyptic, ranting, spittle flying.
And some is paid for indirectly, by drawing readers from the original article to the writer's hedge fund, newsletter or get-rich-quick seminars.
Look around. The Amazon Money and Markets blog pays contributors nothing. Indeed, the guy whose article appears on top pays Amazon for that prominence. Why does that make sense? Because the writers expect to recoup the money by drawing investors. The "Trading Deck" feature on Marketwatch is populated almost entirely by outsiders with the occasional "name" journalist thrown in to make it feel legit. BusinessInsider is a melange of recent j-school graduates (their Finance Editor got her B.A. just two years ago - making her sort of young to occupy the top spot), hedge fund guys, newsletter hacks and the occasional exceedingly sensible person (The Reformed Broker). InvestingNerd seems to be a handful of freelance writers who don't have any particular depth in finance plus one or two staff people.
While not faultless, Reuters, Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal continue to uphold pretty high standards in their work.
Sorry for the extended grumble, but my day job involves teaching about this stuff. There are a limited number of times that you can come across instances of publications substituting "cheap and unreliable" for "paid and accountable" before you get all cranky.
Speaking of WSJ, online at WSJ.com at Investing/Business section, they continue to have "Common Sense" section which was written by James Steward who also wrote Common Sense column. Steward left Smart Money some time before the magazine was shut fiwn. Last article there is from 2010 title "Buffett knows derivatives but does he know the law". The content is obsolete and does not need to show up prominently there. It could be archived and made available via search.
I read WSJ.com free through Starbucks free access. I took my time to indicate the obsolete content and they ask me subscriber info. I said I do not have one and they reply back that they could not locate my subscriber by name or email address. They are idiots... They should thank me for that and I could be a paid subscriber some day but with this sort of attitude and customer service, it is very unlike I will.
On the other hand, I asked M* to activate ARTWX in their database so in its recognized in portfolio manager as a fund and we can get and they said Artisan needs to register the fund with them. I also wrote to Artisan and they started to show the daily pricing of holding in portfolio manager a couple days later. I am not sure if Artisan communicated with them but it lead to successful resolution for everyone including the paid subscribers.
In following David's advice to "look around", take a peek at your local newspaper after reading this article about Journatic, a company that describes itself as a "leading provider of content production services to media companies and marketers" -- it's not writing and editing any more, it is "content production services":
Reply to @GregFromBoston: Thanks for this insight. I was not aware of this kind of reporting. Over the years I have noticed that the stories are the same form newspaper to newspaper and across the internet spectrum whether one visits Google, Yahoo or even CNN or Fox. It is canned news. As for newspapers, the journalism has disappeared totally. Misspelled words and poor grammar permeate today's journalism. It is pretty sad to see a profession head down this path. As a result, people are getting rid of their subscriptions. Even the new media via the internet is not immune. As they start their switch from free access to paid access, subscribers are cautious and will cancel their paid subscription if they feel it is not worth it. This is where Twitter and similar venues are growing. The news is instant. The user must always verify the facts though as anything on the internet can be way off base.
As I am currently in the Philippines, I am a witness to the explosion of the BPO business here. The BPO is basically the outsourcing of business's back room operations. Anything that can be done online is being outsourced and the Philippines is in the drivers seat with a population that is educated in English. Your linked story points this out clearly. All industry sectors are involved. Even health care. A doctor can dictate a medical record over the phone to a person in the Philippines who does the transcription and electronically sends the data back. India used to do this a lot but the infrastructure here is better. Customer Service call centers are another typical BPO business. Typically a Filipino can make good money here relative to the local economy which I believe works out to 5-7 dollars a day. The downside is that most of these jobs are night shift work due to the time difference.
Trying to find out a little about bull market. com. At this time I would not put much faith in their editorials either - I find no one willing to put their name on them as the author. Looks like they are also engaged in shoveling crap out the door also !!
Sounds like the real question is if we are to invest in mutual funds which mutual fund companies are the best positioned to do their own research? It's obvious that what is out on the internet for the masses is not reliable.
Thank you for your informative Link that discusses the Journatic business model.
I’m not in anyway surprised by the media’s default option of securing “outsourcing” help. Costs always matter
It is yet another illustration of the flattening of the world trends. It’s part of the business community’s proclivities that have been in process for over two decades. The easy and universal access that the Internet provides is a powerful and necessary tool that unquestionably promotes business sub-tasking expansion to every corner of the globe.
Thomas Friedman’s 2005 book “The World is Flat” explores many issues caused by this technology explosion. He has sections dedicated to examining the impacts of work force software, open-sourcing, outsourcing, offshoring, supply chaining, insourcing, and informing. Friedman loves to invent words.
He makes the case that this wave is irresistible and will benefit mankind. He acknowledges that this wave will displace lower value work output providers, and is a challenge for these displaced souls to retool to find a higher value contributor role.
Technology transitions are never easy, but we have been exposed to these disruptions every generation or so. Education, flexibility, and positive imagination are key elements to the individual and societal recovery dynamic. Americans have historically responded well to the challenge.
So I suppose that the Journatic enterprise is simply doing what others have and are doing. I certainly wish that those media writers and reporters who have been disgorged from their comfort zone find alternate or superior employment opportunities.
Stories of this nature represent both the best and the worst of our capitalistic system; no pain, no gain. Over the long haul, the positives swamp the negatives.
Reply to @Gary: Correct that one should always do, and be responsible for, their own DD. FWIW, there is an 'about us' link on the Bull Market Research home page describing their history and naming the current editor. It's a team research effort so you will not see individual author names. Their email newsletter is free and they've always been quite patient and thorough in answering questions. Much like the off button on your tv remote you can always hit the delete key.
Reply to @Shostakovich: That is exactly why I show every fund in my Google and M* portfolios as having only one (1) share. I paste and copy the column info from Google and M* into my spreadsheet, and let it do the actual figuring. Google and M* may have an idea of which funds I'm interested in, but not a clue as to the value.
The info that I use from Google or M* is nearly identical in format. I don't really use any of the various "tools" available, but simply maintain a list of all of the funds that I'm tracking, with a quantity of one share listed for each fund. Those lists show the current price and the daily change in both amount and percent. Additionally, M* also shows the ytd change, which I do use. I simply copy and paste all of the Google or M* columnar data into the spreadsheet, and it then uses predefined macros to sort out the data and make all of the actual portfolio computations.
I wouldn't be too concerned about TRP having the actual data with respect to my holdings, but I absolutely don't trust either Google or M*. They'd sell out their mothers for an extra nickel, Google especially. Talk about irony: Google of all entities protesting the NSA accumulating data. At least the NSA is looking for terrorists- Google is just looking for an extra buck or two.
Reply to @GregFromBoston: I knew my partial career as a writer was headed down the tubes the first time a guy called and asked me to be a "content provider" for his tourist-oriented web site, and offered "exposure" rather than actual, you know, pay.
I have Bespoke Investment Grp's page on SA bookmarked, and check it fairly frequently; otherwise, I don't spend any time there for the reasons cited. (There are other actual pros who post decent analysis there too, probably as part of the free content/marketing side of things.)
Comments
None of that free content you read on commercial websites is free. Every tap on every keyboard has to be paid for by somebody. The fact that you don't pay for it up front in a subscription fee doesn't change that fact. Traditionally publishers hired editors who hired professional journalists; readers and advertisers more or less evenly bore the cost of producing and distributing that journalism.
Readers are, increasingly, disinclined to pay for what they read which has wrought havoc with the business model. Publishers have responded by ordering editors to fire professional journalists and to fill the resulting news hole with "free" content.
While the numbers are a bit tricky, it looks like about 40% of newspaper employees have been fired in the past decade, more or less evenly split between the editorial and production staffs. Most consumer finance publications went bankrupt or are limping along online. It's bad enough that a 2013 CareerCast survey ranked "journalist" 200th in desirability on a list of 200 possible careers. Journalism tends to receive about the same ranking as a college major.
So how does content get paid for? Look around. The Amazon Money and Markets blog pays contributors nothing. Indeed, the guy whose article appears on top pays Amazon for that prominence. Why does that make sense? Because the writers expect to recoup the money by drawing investors. The "Trading Deck" feature on Marketwatch is populated almost entirely by outsiders with the occasional "name" journalist thrown in to make it feel legit. BusinessInsider is a melange of recent j-school graduates (their Finance Editor got her B.A. just two years ago - making her sort of young to occupy the top spot), hedge fund guys, newsletter hacks and the occasional exceedingly sensible person (The Reformed Broker). InvestingNerd seems to be a handful of freelance writers who don't have any particular depth in finance plus one or two staff people.
While not faultless, Reuters, Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal continue to uphold pretty high standards in their work.
Sorry for the extended grumble, but my day job involves teaching about this stuff. There are a limited number of times that you can come across instances of publications substituting "cheap and unreliable" for "paid and accountable" before you get all cranky.
As ever,
David
Speaking of WSJ, online at WSJ.com at Investing/Business section, they continue to have "Common Sense" section which was written by James Steward who also wrote Common Sense column. Steward left Smart Money some time before the magazine was shut fiwn. Last article there is from 2010 title "Buffett knows derivatives but does he know the law". The content is obsolete and does not need to show up prominently there. It could be archived and made available via search.
I read WSJ.com free through Starbucks free access. I took my time to indicate the obsolete content and they ask me subscriber info. I said I do not have one and they reply back that they could not locate my subscriber by name or email address. They are idiots... They should thank me for that and I could be a paid subscriber some day but with this sort of attitude and customer service, it is very unlike I will.
On the other hand, I asked M* to activate ARTWX in their database so in its recognized in portfolio manager as a fund and we can get and they said Artisan needs to register the fund with them. I also wrote to Artisan and they started to show the daily pricing of holding in portfolio manager a couple days later. I am not sure if Artisan communicated with them but it lead to successful resolution for everyone including the paid subscribers.
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top-stories/179555/journatic-staffer-takes-this-american-life-inside-outsourced-journalism/
If audio is your medium, you can try the This American Life story on journatic:
http://thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/468/switcheroo?act=2#play
As I am currently in the Philippines, I am a witness to the explosion of the BPO business here. The BPO is basically the outsourcing of business's back room operations. Anything that can be done online is being outsourced and the Philippines is in the drivers seat with a population that is educated in English. Your linked story points this out clearly. All industry sectors are involved. Even health care. A doctor can dictate a medical record over the phone to a person in the Philippines who does the transcription and electronically sends the data back. India used to do this a lot but the infrastructure here is better. Customer Service call centers are another typical BPO business. Typically a Filipino can make good money here relative to the local economy which I believe works out to 5-7 dollars a day. The downside is that most of these jobs are night shift work due to the time difference.
This is a great subject and discussion.
Can you tell me how Google Finance is using my "portfolio" information? I've always wondered about that as well.
NEED TO DO YOUR OWN DD
JMHO
Gary
Art
Hi Greg,
Thank you for your informative Link that discusses the Journatic business model.
I’m not in anyway surprised by the media’s default option of securing “outsourcing” help. Costs always matter
It is yet another illustration of the flattening of the world trends. It’s part of the business community’s proclivities that have been in process for over two decades. The easy and universal access that the Internet provides is a powerful and necessary tool that unquestionably promotes business sub-tasking expansion to every corner of the globe.
Thomas Friedman’s 2005 book “The World is Flat” explores many issues caused by this technology explosion. He has sections dedicated to examining the impacts of work force software, open-sourcing, outsourcing, offshoring, supply chaining, insourcing, and informing. Friedman loves to invent words.
He makes the case that this wave is irresistible and will benefit mankind. He acknowledges that this wave will displace lower value work output providers, and is a challenge for these displaced souls to retool to find a higher value contributor role.
Technology transitions are never easy, but we have been exposed to these disruptions every generation or so. Education, flexibility, and positive imagination are key elements to the individual and societal recovery dynamic. Americans have historically responded well to the challenge.
So I suppose that the Journatic enterprise is simply doing what others have and are doing. I certainly wish that those media writers and reporters who have been disgorged from their comfort zone find alternate or superior employment opportunities.
Stories of this nature represent both the best and the worst of our capitalistic system; no pain, no gain. Over the long haul, the positives swamp the negatives.
Best Wishes.
I use the M* tools that they license to T. Rowe Price. What are the differences between the M* tools and portfolio tools in Google Finance?
Mona
The info that I use from Google or M* is nearly identical in format. I don't really use any of the various "tools" available, but simply maintain a list of all of the funds that I'm tracking, with a quantity of one share listed for each fund. Those lists show the current price and the daily change in both amount and percent. Additionally, M* also shows the ytd change, which I do use. I simply copy and paste all of the Google or M* columnar data into the spreadsheet, and it then uses predefined macros to sort out the data and make all of the actual portfolio computations.
I wouldn't be too concerned about TRP having the actual data with respect to my holdings, but I absolutely don't trust either Google or M*. They'd sell out their mothers for an extra nickel, Google especially. Talk about irony: Google of all entities protesting the NSA accumulating data. At least the NSA is looking for terrorists- Google is just looking for an extra buck or two.
OJ