If a person is extolling the greatness or bemoaning the futility of a
company or its stock, does it make you feel better if said person
discloses his/her own interest in the company? Scott Rothbort of
Lakeview Asset Management does just that. Whether he is crotch-kicking
Microsoft or back-slapping McDonald's, at the conclusion of each
article, he gives full disclosure as to his interest and position in
regards to the stock in question.
While I found his opinions to be self-serving and goal-oriented (that
is, set forth for the express purpose of moving others to his position
on a particular stock), his commitment to disclosure is certainly
refre****ng. For instance, in his January 28, 2008 blog entry, he
listed five reasons to buy McDonald's stock. At the conclusion of the
entry, was this note:
At the time of this Blog entry Scott Rothbort, his family and or
clients of LakeView Asset Management, LLC were long shares of MCD --
although positions can change at any time.
I find myself wondering how differently the blogs and articles of
market analysts might read if they were held to this kind of standard?
What if every media commentator had to explicitly state his own
financial interest and position on a stock about which he/she was
writing, and the interests of others with whom he/she is in any way
entangled? Would their evaluations and *****sments change? Would they
still set their sights on the same targets? Would their opinions carry
as much weight?
Since this kind of honesty and forthrightness is not likely to be
employed any time soon, maybe the onus is...well, on us. Maybe it is
time we take their offerings with a grain of salt. Maybe we should
refuse to take their statements at face value and insist on
investigating and reaching our own conclusions.
After all, an opinion is not gospel, even if someone pays you to give
it, regardless of whether your name is Rothbort, Greenberg, Cramer,
Smith...or Jones.
That's the Word on the Street.
Veracity Jones
www.basherbusters.com
|
