Buy AutoTrafficRSS script now for $27 only!
We will send the script to your PayPal email within few hours,Please add FullContentRSS@gmail.com to your email contact.Source: #Microsoft tries social media again with #Skype sharing and Sway #Blogging #
Buy AutoTrafficRSS script now for $27 only!
We will send the script to your PayPal email within few hours,Please add FullContentRSS@gmail.com to your email contact.The Reformed Broker turns seven years old today.
In blog years, this site is now eating dinner at 4pm and voting down the school budget. In human years, however, both the blog and its chief blogger have a long ways to go. I've written over 10,200 posts here on this site (a few of them were pretty good) and probably two hundred posts and articles elsewhere since November 2008. That's a lot, but in my mind, I'm just getting warmed up.
Joshua BrownTools of the trade – this is what I've carried with me every single day, everywhere I've gone, over all these years.
On today's anniversary, I wanted to touch on the state of financial blogging in general, to give you some context about how I look at the success of TRB over the years.
This weekend I spent some time pruning my Feedly account. For the uninitiated, Feedly has replaced the now defunt Google Reader as the primary way in which bloggers can keep up with the RSS feeds of the sites they regularly check. Doing this sort of aggregation and curation by visiting home pages is too time consuming and using Twitter to keep track of content is like sipping from a firehose.
Anyway, I haven't cleaned things up in my RSS garden in at least four years. By the time I finished, it was a massacre, an absolute bloodbath of unsubscribed-to sites that I used to read every day. There were literally hundreds of blogs to unfollow.
A quick catalog of the now-unfollowed sites from my list:
For these reasons and others, I took an axe to the thicket of .blogspots and .wordpresses and .tumblrs and got my follow list down to a much more manageable and focused slate. It was long overdue.
But one question lingered on – why did so many interesting and promising financial blogs die?
There are many cases where, for personal or business reasons, the writer had to devote more of their time elsewhere because there just wasn't a lot of synergy between what they were saying and what they were doing in real life. This is especially the case among the subculture of anonymously penned blogs – we're talking about an asymmetric equation in which career risk is never quite balanced out by the accolades from strangers on the web.
Additionally, the ad model probably didn't work for a majority of DIY bloggers. Firms like Business Insider began producing so much content that CPM click rates dropped through the floor and then kept on dropping. I know the biggest and most widely-read bloggers in the industry – believe me when I tell you that none of them can earn a living from banner ads anymore.
But there are other reasons for the rapidly shrinking population of independent financial bloggers.
Here are a few:
*Mainstream media figured out how to get their journalists blogging and they're better at it (see the WSJ's MoneyBeat for the example par excellence). It's hard to compete with professional journalists and trained writers backed by superior resources.
*They ran out of stuff to say or lost their edge. One of the most common things I've seen is that a new blogger begins as though they were shot out of a cannon, with weeks worth of incredible material. And then, when they've written the 10 or 20 posts that had been bursting to come out for years, they're spent. Like a bumble bee that dies minutes after stinging something with all its might. These expended bloggers typically end up dispensing the rest of their wisdom on Twitter once they've run dry of original material.
*"Writing for exposure" used to be a thing people did, even when they couldn't put their finger on exactly what all that exposure would mean for them once they had it. Forbes turned their website into a platform based on the concept and the Huffington Post built a sell-able business model from it. But for most writers, the exposure never materialized or, if it did, it never amounted to much in the way of actual success.
Shutterstock
*A job change – especially within finance – almost always means a rethinking of one's public commentary. Especially if the writer goes from a small firm to a larger one. The large financial industry firms already have people doing PR, thought leadership or research for public consumption. The last thing they're interested in is a freelance opinion-haver from within the ranks proffering an "off-message" take on a given subject.
*Mainstream media writers stopped linking to outside blogs as much as they used to. Instead, they compose linkfests that are almost entirely self-referential and geared toward sending clicks to "house product" rather than to outside sites (see MarketWatch, Bloomberg, WSJ). Without this source of traffic, a lot of bloggers that used to enjoy visits from outbound links at big media sites found themselves shouting into an abyss with no one listening.
*In the early days of the recovery period, when markets remained volatile and everyone was convinced that buy-and-hold was a dead strategy (good call), the financial web was inundated with "trading teachers". You didn't really need any credentials to set yourself up as a trading tutor, just an online chat room and a URL. Many of those blogs went away when the phenomenon ran its course and the good ones mostly became paid services instead. It's hard to teach people to trade in real life because the typical student isn't born with the right temperament to begin with. It's expensive to learn this about ourselves.
*A lot of the blogs that sprouted up during the crisis found themselves rudderless when the the chain reaction of economic explosions finally stopped. In the absence of a major disaster unfolding, the authors realized that they didn't have much to say about the status quo, especially as volatility dropped to a below-trend level and stayed there for years on end. After Lehman, AIG and TARP, covering Greece for another 48 months probably seemed more than a little pointless to this group, so they walked away.
*Lastly, there were lots of one-trick ponies or blogs based on a narrow premise that didn't really have the leeway to evolve. Remember LOLFed, a site based on memes using pictures of FOMC members? It was really fun.
The Reformed Broker
Does anyone remember Ultimi Barbarorum? It was a markets and investing blog ostensibly written by a latter-day Baruch Spinoza, how's this for an About page:
"Hi, thanks for looking at our blog. There are 2 of us running it, but we both prefer to stay anonymous. This is the only live Spinozist blog on the internet we know of. We love Spinoza, and wish more people did too.
The name of our website comes from an important event in Spinoza's life. Johan and Cornelius de Witt were the political leaders who oversaw the great Golden Age of the Holland of Rembrandt, of Vermeer, of the great scientific and commercial achievements of the Dutch Republic. They were lynched by a mob in The Hague in 1672, and literally torn to bits."
If you're asking yourself "WTF?" I'd just say that you had to be there.
I think it's cool that these blogs came along, tore it up for awhile, and then went away before running too thin. Not that there's anything wrong with sticking around; I'll gladly accept the two posts a year from Long or Short Capital if that's all they're able to get around to. Better than nothing.
And then there's a much smaller list of financial blogs that have kept the fire burning. There's Eddy and Tadas and Barry and Epicurean Dealmaker and Howard Lindzon and Yves Smith and Bess Levin, people whose sites predate the financial crisis and are still delivering each day.
There are the sites that were born in the crisis, like mine and Zero Hedge – both of which started the same month (just a coincidence).
There are also the 2.0 financial blogs – the ones that were born recently and have had the opportunity to build on everything that had come before. Sure, lots of times they're saying things that have already been said, but most readers don't care. As long as they're seeing the information presented in a fresh, interesting way, the readers will click and share. There's no shame in revisiting these well-worn paths. The award-winning and highly regarded investing writer Jason Zweig describes his gig at the Wall Street Journal like this:
"My job is to write the exact same thing between 50 and 100 times a year in such a way that neither my editors nor my readers will ever think I am repeating myself.
That's because good advice rarely changes, while markets change constantly. The temptation to pander is almost irresistible. And while people need good advice, what they want is advice that sounds good."
That's about right, and that's why there's still room for more blog posts on things like diversification, the impact of investment costs, the benefits of discipline, the difference between tactics and strategy, etc. An up and coming blogger can still do canonical stuff with a topic that's already been covered because brand new investors are arriving every year.
Which brings me to today.
Five years ago, people used to ask me "How do you have so much time to blog?" Nobody asks me that anymore. They get it.
My partners and I built a financial advisory practice around our blogs, based on the premise that smart people wanted to understand the process by which an advisor was investing their capital. We put it all out in the open and did so in real-time, seven days a week. Then that small practice became a firm and that firm grew to include several advisors, two CFAs doing research, two CFPs working directly with clients, four of the top ten investment blogs in the country, etc.
Flickr/Christian Gonzalez
The writing and thinking we do is not a sideshow. It's the main event. We say what we mean, we do what we say and we eat our own cooking. We're out there managing money for real people in live markets. Writing frankly about the ideas we have and the challenges we encounter has been hugely beneficial for us. It's forced us to become better at our jobs.
All of the money managers we respect, from Jeremy Grantham to Howard Marks to Warren Buffett to Rob Arnott to Cliff Asness to Meb Faber, have done much the same thing. They've been incredibly open about their philosophy and process in print – whether through white papers or books or investor letters or widely circulated memos.
We like to think we're following the same path, only our primary medium is blogging and tweeting – apropos of the times we live in.
Writing this blog every day for seven years and having an amazing reader base to share my thoughts with has quite literally changed my life. I never could have dreamed that my free wordpress account would open up so many doors. This blog has directly led to thousands of events, connections, relationships and friendships that would have been unimaginable without it. If you've been with me since the beginning and have stuck around through it all, then you've been a big part of that and I can never truly repay you or thank you enough.
But I can try.
And so I'll end here with a commitment to you, all of you, that I will always do my best to keep you informed about the markets and the economy as I see them. I'll continue to link out to the most crucial and entertaining articles and posts, as they come spilling in over the transom each day. I'll attempt to be fair about the subjects I cover, even when fairness isn't deserved. I'll keep my opinions informed at all times and I'll always consider the other side of an argument before I dismiss it.
Most importantly, I will remain open-minded and willing to change when the facts no longer support a long-held belief. Even if it means I'll have to admit to being wrong – especially then. I like to think you come here because I keep it real, not because I think I'm always right (believe me, I'm not).
The intent of this blog was always about discovery and learning, for both readers and myself. Continuing on that mission is the least I can do to say thank you for an amazing seven year run.
Cheers and thanks!
Read the original article on The Reformed Broker. Copyright 2015.
More from The Reformed Broker:Buy AutoTrafficRSS script now for $27 only!
We will send the script to your PayPal email within few hours,Please add FullContentRSS@gmail.com to your email contact.With this feat, the actor, who recently turned 50, has zoomed past Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who has 15.8 million followers on the micro-blogging site.
The actor joined Twitter on January 3, 2010, and since then has known to be one of the most active users on the platform, regularly tweeting special family photos, favourite film memories, poetry and philosophical quotes. The superstar is known to engage with his fans across the globe very closely with interactive chats.
On his 50th birthday earlier this week, fans took to Twitter to celebrate this occasion with celebratory tweets, photos and videos of their on-screen idol, showcasing their love and sending birthday wishes to the superstar. Shah Rukh will be next seen in Rohit Shetty's "Dilwale" alongside Kajol, Varun Dhawan and Kriti Sanon. The film will release on December 18
Buy AutoTrafficRSS script now for $27 only!
We will send the script to your PayPal email within few hours,Please add FullContentRSS@gmail.com to your email contact.I've been at this blogging thing for more than a decade now. Looking back on those years, I find it incredible that I've lasted this long. For one thing, I still marvel that there are apparently thousands of people out there who still like to read my nearly daily musings (or, as George Carlin would call them, brain droppings) after all these years. More importantly, being a public advocate for science is a rough business, as I've documented over the years. Back when I first started out, I was completely pseudonymous and anonymous. I kept my real name relatively secret. It was less than five months after I started blogging that the doxxing began, starting with a man named William O'Neill of the quack group the Canadian Cancer Research Group, who sent e-mails threatening to sue to my department chair, division chief, cancer center director, and, of course, me. I admit that it freaked me out and almost ended my blogging career right then and there. Fortunately, my chair, the late great Steve Lowry (who is missed) thought nothing of it and supported me. Since then, every so often someone, be it an antivaccine activist (most commonly) or a cancer quack (less commonly) or an HIV/AIDS denialist (only once) has tried to make trouble for me at work or elsewhere. I've gotten used to it.
I'm relatively small potatoes, though, and, as I have a demanding day job and can't go "all in" advocating science, I probably will remain so. When a science advocate's prominence rises, the attacks from the antiscience side become more relentless and frightening. Paul Offit knows this, having endured death threats from antivaccine activists. Michael Mann knows this, having endured a concerted effort by anthropogenic climate change denialists to discredit him professionally and personally. Edzard Ernst knows this, having been targeted by the Quacktitioner Royal himself. Indeed, he was just awarded the Maddox Prize—and deservedly so!—because of what he's endured standing up for science. Kevin Folta knows this, having been targeted by the "Food Babe Army," followers of Vani Hari, who has become the queen of food pseudoscience and fear mongering, for his tireless refutation of her fear mongering about "teh ebil chemicalz" in food and, of course, genetically mo dified organisms (GMOs).Unfortunately, the pressure has been so great that Folta made this announcement on his Facebook page yesterday afternoon (click to embiggen if the type is too small):
A sad day for public science advocacy: Kevin Folta announces that he is ceasing his public advocacy.
This is a depressing development. Yet another public advocate of science has been driven to give up the fight because of the harassment of anti-science forces. Kevin was one of the foremost voices countering anti-GMO pseudoscience, and now he is gone. I'm not criticizing him for his decision. I really can't blame him for deciding that his advocacy just wasn't worth the price he was paying. Consider the price. Besides having to deal with anti-GMO activists harassing him online, he had to deal with numerous complaints to his administration about his science advocacy. I've had but a taste of what I know Folta has been going through. Periodically, some antivaccine crank or cancer quack will "complain" to my department chair, dean, or cancer center director. At first, they'd ask me what it was about; now I don't even hear about them. Indeed, the last time the topic came up in a discussion with my department chair he confirmed that he periodically gets complaints from peopl e trying to make trouble for me at work.The worst incident occurred five years ago, when Jake Crosby wrote a profoundly dishonest blog post accusing me of an undisclosed conflict of interest, in essence that I was in the pocket of Sanofi-Aventis and a shill. As a result, a lot of antivaxers wrote complaints to my dean and the board of governors of the university. Fortunately, my university supported me. My dean even called me to ask me if I felt threatened. I told her that I didn't feel physically threatened, but clearly I was being threatened with other harm. Since then, there hasn't been an attack at work that has caused me more than momentary annoyance, and the administration has learned that such complaints are usually nothing.
As I said, I'm small potatoes. Imagine having to endure what I endured five years ago, but on a much more frequent basis, along with a steady drip-drip-drip of other complaints. Imagine having to deal with being smeared on NaturalNews.com, the Food Babe's website, and basically all over the Internet as a shill for Monsanto. Imagine being the subject of an intentionally harassing fishing expedition in the form of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request:
After receiving a FOIA request from US Right to Know—a nonprofit dedicated to exposing "the failures of the corporate food system"—the University of Florida notified Folta, a food and agricultural science professor at the university, that he would have to turn over all of his e-mails relating to correspondence with 14 different firms involved in agribusiness. His options: Submit all of his emails and allow lawyers to sift through them independently, or spend hours doing it himself alongside legal counsel.
The request is a response to public arguments by Folta that genetically modified foods are safe. Folta compares the strength of the scientific consensus on GM safety to the consensus on climate change and vaccines, and US Right to Know—or USRTK—believes the food and agricultural industries may be pressuring Folta and other scientists into voicing such arguments.
On January 28, US Right to Know sent out a FOIA request targeting 14 scientists at four universities, including Folta, requesting that they all turn over their email correspondence with industry representatives. Gary Ruskin, the executive director of USRTK, says the move is essential for uncovering the food industry's efforts to manipulate scientists into advancing pro-genetically-modified propaganda.
No, the move was "essential" for nothing of the sort. The only purpose of Ruskin's intellectually dishonest FOIA request was to harass the universities where scientists defending GMOs work, to chew up resources and the scientists' time, and, if Ruskin was lucky, to find something he could distort to make it look as though a scientist were in the pocket of Monsanto. Indeed, it's hard not to conclude that Ruskin was clearly lying through his teeth when he told Keith Kloor that the scientists targeted had been chosen for their involvement in GMO Answers, an industry sponsored website that posts answers to public questions about the safety of GMOs, or genetically modified organisms. After it was pointed out that some of the scientists had never published articles for GMO Answers and had no relationship with the website, Ruskin changed his story and claimed that they were targeted for making public statements against California Proposition 37, which would have required the la beling of GMO-containing foods.
Of course, whenever you search through thousands of e-mails, you are virtually guaranteed to find something that you can use against your target. Ruskin knew this, and he did indeed find something after Folta complied with the request. It turns out that the University of Florida accepted a one-time unrestricted educational grant from Monsanto of $25,000. This is not an uncommon sort of grant from companies, be they pharmaceutical companies or other companies, and "unrestricted" means just that: The company giving the grant provides the funds for the the institution receiving them to use without preconditions. As Steve Novella has documented, this small grant was used to pay for "travel expenses, snacks, and other minor expenses associated with scientists outreach activities." The finding resulted in a hopelessly biased article in the New York Times by Eric Lipton in September. It was clearly a hatchet job designed to discredit him. In response, besides her usual nonsensica l bloviating, the Food Babe promised to file an FOIA of her own.
I can only guess how the harassment has escalated over the last couple of months. Having no "inside information," I can only speculate based on Folta's statement that he's "under a lot of pressure on many fronts" that perhaps his family is tired of the harassment. Another possibility, as unfortunate as it would be if that possibility were true, is that the University of Florida is pressuring him to shut up. Yes, universities generally support freedom of speech and academic freedom, but not all of them do so to the same extent, and when supporting a faculty member's academic freedom results in too much pushback, even the most dedicated university might have second thoughts. Pressure could be exerted in many ways, particularly given that Kevin Folta is the chairman of the Horticultural Science Department, which, believe it or not, probably makes him more, not less, vulnerable to pressure, because unlike tenured faculty, who are incredibly difficult to fire (and intenti onally so), department chairs generally serve at the pleasure of the dean. The university might not be able to get rid of Folta from the faculty, but it wouldn't be too difficult to threaten his position as chair, either subtly or not-so-subtly.
I'm not saying that this is what happened. I openly admit that I'm speculating about what might have happened based on how universities work. In fact, I really hope that this is not what happened. I hope that the University of Florida supported Folta completely, making his decision to withdraw from public advocacy unrelated to pressure from his administration. Again, I can't blame the guy for deciding to withdraw, knowing just a little of what he was facing and having had only a taste of it myself in comparison.
Over the years, I've noticed many traits that various antiscience cranks share in common, be they antivaccinationists, quacks, anthropogenic global climate change denialists, or anti-GMO activists, and that is an obsession with ad hominem attacks. They can't win on the science because science doesn't support them; so they attack the man—or woman. The tactics they use include online harassment, harassment of families, legal thuggery (as Steve Novella recently suffered), and, of course, harassing them at work by contacting their supervisors or administration. The idea behind this last tactic is to annoy the offending skeptic's boss to the point where he pressures the skeptic to knock it off. This tactic is depressingly effective when the skeptic works for a private company that can fire an employee at will, less so against academics. That's not to say that it never works against academics, but universities tend to value academic freedom and freedom of speech for faculty. Of course, if harassment of one kind doesn't work, maybe another type of harassment might. If harassment at a science communicator's day job doesn't work, maybe a bogus lawsuit or online public attacks might. Whatever the tactic, the idea is to intimidate the critic to silence, or at least to make speaking up so painful that the critic thinks twice about it. At the very least, other scientists who see what happened to, say, Dr. Folta might decide speaking up is just not worth the consequences. Again, that's the idea.
I wish Dr. Folta well and thank him for all that he's done in the service of science. I also hope that a day comes when he decides he can re-emerge and re-enter the conversation.
Buy AutoTrafficRSS script now for $27 only!
We will send the script to your PayPal email within few hours,Please add FullContentRSS@gmail.com to your email contact.