Hacker News Reader

Comment by darawk | Hacker News Reader

I would argue that it's ethical as long as they disclose that they've done it in a clear way.

But then it becomes self-fulfilling.

Only if his argument is compelling to people with enough money to drive the price. The average investor doesn't even know how to short stocks.

All the average investor needs to know how to do is sell their shares and in four simple steps the media person/short seller makes their money:

1. Media person shorts stock

2. Media person tells viewers stock is worthless

3. Viewers holding stock get nervous, sell shares

4. Stock price goes down, media person cashes in.

I do think it is a bit unfair to say they need to hold their investments in a blind trust, but definitely agree that disclosures about their positions should clear and abundant.

The most important thing to look for when seeking financial advice of any kind is to verify that the person giving you the advice is a fiduciary. This is a legal status which means they're required to give you advice that they genuinely believe will benefit you the most rather than advice that maximizes their own quarterly bonus. Most "financial advisors" are not fiduciaries.

Does it? If it's clearly labeled that you are writing this opinion piece and have a stake in its outcome, I think people can evaluate it on its own merits.

I think there's actually a case to be made that that sort of financial journalism would be much better than the veneer of impartiality that we have now.

I would find Bloomberg articles much more compelling if I knew that their authors had personally invested in their truth. At the very least, it'd quickly weed out the ones who are regularly wrong. And, if they cited the amount of their investment, it'd give you a proxy for the strength of their own conviction. All extremely critical data that you can never fully attain from prose alone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com