|
|
|
How to read financial news By Morgan Housel
How do you make use of it all? As a financial writer who spends an embarrassing amount of time sifting through news, I have a few suggestions:
•
Read things you know you're going to disagree with. There is so much media content today that you can always find someone who agrees with you. Bullish on Apple? Thousands of writers are, too. Think the government is a giant conspiracy? There are countless blogs for that. Think the global recession was caused by celestial bodies falling out of alignment? I'm not kidding, folks -- there are blogs for that, too, and I'm doing you a favor by not telling you what they are.
The huge diversity of opinions makes readers vulnerable to something called "confirmation bias." It's when you start with an answer and then dig for information that backs it up. It's really dangerous, because once you find someone else who agrees with you, you become more convinced that you are right -- even though you can find someone who agrees with you about literally anything.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here. You don't have to get crazy with this. But whenever you're convinced of a trend or a theory, go out of your way to read the counterargument. At worst, you continue to disagree with it. At best -- and frequently -- you gain a perspective you'd never thought of before.
• Read old news. As "The Black Swan" author Nassim Taleb writes, "To be completely cured of newspapers, spend a year reading the previous week's newspapers."
It is treated as a given that old news loses value. I disagree. Reading old news can provide far more insight than current news.
Consider this, from a December 2008 Wall Street Journal article:
"Mr. Panarin posits, in brief, that mass immigration, economic decline and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar. Around the end of June 2010, or early July, he says, the U.S. will break into six pieces -- with Alaska reverting to Russian control ...
"California will form the nucleus of what he calls the 'Californian Republic' and will be part of China or under Chinese influence. Texas will be the heart of the 'Texas Republic,' a cluster of states that will go to Mexico or fall under Mexican influence. Washington, D.C., and New York will be part of an 'Atlantic America' that may join the European Union."
The value in these prediction-type articles -- which make up a big portion of financial news -- comes months or years after they are published, when you can see how hopelessly inaccurate they were.
Or take this headline from August 2011: "Dow falls 512 in steepest decline since '08 crisis."
That wasn't a bad prediction, of course. It's what actually happened, and it felt like a big deal at the time. But 1 1/2 years later, how many people still care about it? No one. The Dow Jones has regained all of its losses and then some. What seemed monumental then is irrelevant now. You gain that perspective only in hindsight.
These are both extreme examples. But read enough old news, and you quickly realize two things: The majority of predictions never come close to being true, and most of what we think is important news is trivial in the long run. Once you become convinced of this, you react differently to today's newspaper.
• Read a mix of professional and amateur content.
Professional journalists -- those at The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Financial Times and so on -- will always be more factually accurate, have better access to reputable sources and be able to dig deeper than most amateur bloggers.
But they also have deadlines, quotas and bosses with quarterly earnings to worry about. That makes them susceptible to turning non-news into something meant to sound important. The best examples are journalists ascribing reason to daily market moves. "Dow Falls on Profit-Taking," for instance. No one knows what that means.
On the other hand, amateur bloggers tend to write only when they have something meaningful to say (though there are exceptions). When stumped, they just don't publish anything, sometimes for days on end. It's no big deal. They answer only to readers, who demand quality and nothing else.
Ideally, you should read a healthy mix of both, never one or the other.
• Don't think every news story is actionable.
This might be the most important. Thousands of news articles are published every day. Few should compel you to action.
Quarterly earnings news stories rarely provide anything substantive enough to cause you to buy or sell. Same for industry trade news, analyst upgrades and downgrades and -- especially -- economic reports.
Most financial news should, at best, be treated as something that incrementally helps you understand the big picture.
Here's a short list of my favorite financial writers and websites (besides, of course, Fool.com):
(Morgan Housel owns shares of Berkshire Hathaway. The Motley Fool owns shares of Apple and Berkshire Hathaway.)
Interested in a private Judaic studies instructor — for free? Let us know by clicking here.
Comment by clicking here.
Morgan Housel, a columnist at The Motley Fool, is a two-time winner, Best in Business award, Society of American Business Editors and Writers and Best in Business 2012, Columbia Journalism Review.
• Housing: Partying like it's 1925
• A rebuttal to student loan horror stories
• CONGRATULATIONS: We just saved half a trillion dollars
• End this crazy tax: It will boost the economy
• Medicare: A dangerously good deal
• Economic future looks bright
• The Biggest Threat to Your Portfolio (It's Not What You Think)
• Bond Market Bull Run dead at 30
© 2013 The Motley Fool. Distributed by Universal Uclick for UFS
| ||||||||||||||||||
