Everyone likes to be right and the easiest way to be right is to surround oneself with people and opinions that are predisposed to be similar to ours. When investing, it pays to be contrary. That sets you up to be wrong some of the time. The thing is, if you are right 60% of the time, and manage risk properly, there is a good chance you’ll make money. The most basic principle of investing is buy low and sell high. When doing this you’ll seldom hit the actual bottoms or tops; you are buying when the market is going down and selling when it is going up. That in itself is contrary to most retail investors’ practice of buying high and selling low.
Mutual Fund Flows and Sentiment as Contrarian Indicators
The majority of retail (casual) investors use mutual funds and ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds) to invest in the markets. Fund flows (deposits vs. withdrawals) are generally regarded as contrary indicators. This is a component of a broader series of indicators classified as investor sentiment that provide some insight into future directions of the market. The basic principle is: when many investors are bullish the market is more likely to go down and conversely a higher level of bearishness or negative sentiment indicates the market is likely to make a move higher. TrimTabs Investment Research reports on these fund flows and in a recent report stated:
We observed that equity prices tend to fall after equity exchange-traded funds (ETFs) rake in large sums of money. Conversely, the market tends to rise after equity ETFs post heavy outflows.
The report then issues this conclusion:
We have two explanations for the strongly negative correlation between equity ETF flows and future market returns. First, ETFs are traded mostly by retail investors and day traders. These are the least informed and most emotional market participants—the ones most likely to lose money over time. Second, we suspect hedge funds use ETFs when liquidity dries up. Hedge funds were forced to close individual stock positions during the credit crisis, so they bought equity ETFs instead. Equity ETFs posted large outflows in 2009, when liquidity improved.
These concepts are not really as complicated as they seem to be. It’s Economics 101. When demand outstrips supply, prices go up and when supply is larger than demand, prices go down. When funds are flowing into stocks, markets rise but at some point most people are invested and there isn’t enough uninvested capital left to drive prices higher.
Whatever the internal dynamics, the retail investors are generally the last to join in a rally and their main vehicle of investment are mutual funds and ETFs so large inflows into those instruments suggests that the market is near the top. That’s why many retail investors get the timing wrong and end up losing money. Nobody likes being wrong or losing money, it makes us feel pretty lousy about ourselves! This is borne out in the current rally where the retail investor is reticent to return to the markets after being burned so badly in the housing/banking crisis of 2008 – maybe one time too many in the last decade. As Adam Shell recently wrote in USA Today:
Yet, increasingly, investors on Main Street are not playing the stock market game with confidence like they used to, mainly because the game of making money has gotten tougher and more volatile since the financial crisis. Retail investors are buying fewer stocks. They are paring back on stocks and stock funds they already own. Instead, they’re moving into safer investments, like cash and bonds. “Investors are on strike,” says Axel Merk, president and chief investment officer at Merk Mutual Funds.
Fox News Doesn’t Make You Dumb. It Just Keeps You that Way
I don’t think the decision by retail investors to stay away from the markets is a good one. Markets have historically been a better investment than many other asset classes with the S&P 500 returning roughly a 7% annual rate of return. Stocks should, at the very least, be a strong component of a diversified portfolio. Instead of shying away from being wrong, investors – people in general – should expose themselves to a broader group of opinions, to alter unsuccessful behavior and improve decision making.
The findings of a new study, Misinformation and the 2010 Election, from the University of Maryland’s World Public Opinion show that 9 in 10 voters in the 2010 election believe they encountered information that was misleading or false, with 56% saying this occurred frequently. The study also concludes that those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe misinformation.
The bad news for FOX News viewers is that merely watching the channel appears to be toxic. Most voters believed a few whoppers during the 2010 election cycle. But daily watchers of FOX News believed more misinformation than everyone else.
The underlying problem uncovered by this study is that today’s news organization are not unbiased deliverers of the day’s events, these outlets are partisan interpreters of the day’s events packaged to appeal to their viewership or constituency. I don’t claim one network or source is a more egregious offender than another. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but each carries a bias that should be understood before assuming what we are digesting is “news” and not opinion.
This Article is Biased
This article exposes some of my own biases. We all have them and those views can be positive as they give us the strength to make decision with confidence. Most of the stocks I own are lesser-known, yet-to-be-recognized small technology stocks. I short stocks that people recommend as buys, such as Coinstar (CSTR), and I shy away from momentum stocks with historically unjustifiable valuations. I believe you should never buy a stock for which you can’t make a historically significant case of undervaluation. In our markets his is contrary behavior, but it works, and it helps me sleep at night.
If we are making bad decisions, like buying market tops and selling bottoms like the recent bottom in 2008, it is positive to examine our biases and correct them where possible. The best way to correct faulty assumptions is to take in a variety of disparate view points and make informed decisions. We can’t do this confining our media consumption to sources that only reinforce our previously held views. Religion and patriotism should allow for independent thought and interpretation. We should all try to broaden our information sources in 2011 and perhaps we can overcome the ‘misinformation’ gap and make some more profitable investment decisions.
I hope technology positively affects your life in 2011 and all your stock investments are winners.
Steven Bulwa is an investment analyst with a focus on new developments in technology and the companies poised to benefit. He has contributed to TheStreet.com, Realmoney.com, Business Insider, Huffington Post and SeekingAlpha.com, among others. Visit www.bulwatechreport.com, or follow @BulwaTech, to learn about technology companies with true growth prospects for 2011 and beyond.
Follow us on Twitter.
Sign up for Mediaite’s daily newsletter.
Jon Cohn notes that the GOP's game of chicken on whether to raise the debt ceiling is pretty goddamn insane:
And the alternative—failing to increase the debt ceiling? What precise effects would that have? This isn't my area of expertise, but my colleague Alex Hart knows a thing or two about it. Here's what he wrote last week:
Recent history provides a sense of just how scary this would be. “The reason the markets calmed down [during the financial crisis] is that we took [the banks’] toxic assets and handed the financial institutions Treasurys,” says Kevin Hassett, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “If we’re in a default situation, the Treasurys themselves are the toxic assets, and it’s not clear what we can hand anybody to calm them down.”
The sad thing is, Graham seems to grasp this: In the same interview, he notes that default could be catastrophic. But that's not stopping him from making his demands. And that's particularly disheartening, since he is supposed to be one of the more reasonable members of the Republican Senate caucus.
And the alternative—failing to increase the debt ceiling? What precise effects would that have? This isn't my area of expertise, but my colleague Alex Hart knows a thing or two about it. Here's what he wrote last week:
Recent history provides a sense of just how scary this would be. “The reason the markets calmed down [during the financial crisis] is that we took [the banks’] toxic assets and handed the financial institutions Treasurys,” says Kevin Hassett, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “If we’re in a default situation, the Treasurys themselves are the toxic assets, and it’s not clear what we can hand anybody to calm them down.”
The sad thing is, Graham seems to grasp this: In the same interview, he notes that default could be catastrophic. But that's not stopping him from making his demands. And that's particularly disheartening, since he is supposed to be one of the more reasonable members of the Republican Senate caucus.
And this is precisely why the Democrats should (but certainly won't) call the GOP's bluff on the debt ceiling. Look, the Masters of the Universe have parked a lot of cash in treasuries over the past few years since t-bills are traditionally one of the safest investments around during times of extreme uncertainty. If the GOP puts the United States into serious risk of defaulting, the Masters of the Universe stand to lose a lot of money as the treasuries they've purchased become as toxic as Greek or Irish debt. This is why the GOP's Wall Street overlords will never, repeat never, tolerate them playing around seriously with raising the debt ceiling and it's why the GOP will cave if Obama and the Democrats stick to their guns (which they won't, incidentally, as many of them actually will welcome the GOP giving them political cover to slash Social Security and other key programs).
But would the GOPers really risk losing countless sums of money for their masters if they created a sovereign debt crisis? Sorta doubt it. And it's worth letting them try simply to watch them slink away in defeat.
Onto more economic news!
- Felix Salmon depressingly notes how Larry Summers will likely be replaced by yet another rich person with strong ties to Wall Street:
From today’s WaPo report it seems that the shortlist to replace Larry Summers at the NEC has been whittled down to three men — Gene Sperling, Roger Altman, and Richard Levin. [...]
[T]hey’re all multi-millionaires with close ties to Wall Street. None more than Altman, of course, who has his own bank. But Levin is on the board of American Express, which paid him $181,362 in 2009, and where he has shares and “share equivalent units” worth $539,000. Which might not be a huge sum compared to the $1.5 million or so that he’s earning at Yale, but is still more than enough to make him a denizen of Wall Street rather than Main Street.
Finally there’s Sperling, who in some ways is the worst of the three when it comes to grubbing money from Wall Street. The other two have well-defined and easily-understood jobs; Sperling, by contrast, signed up with the Harry Walker Agency and started giving speeches to anybody with cash, including not only Citigroup but even Allen Stanford. He also wrote a monthly 900-word column for Bloomberg for $137,500 a year, which works out at about $13 per word. Then he started “advising” Goldman Sachs on its charitable giving, which advice came very expensively indeed:
Goldman Sachs paid Sperling $887,727 for advice on its charitable giving. That made the bank his highest-paying employer. Even Geithner’s chief of staff Patterson, who was a full-time lobbyist at the firm, did not make as much as Sperling did on a part-time basis. Patterson reported earning $637,492 from Goldman Sachs [in 2008].
Well, peachy. If there's one thing America needs, it's a another person who used to be on Goldman's payroll making key economic policy recommendations.
Brad DeLong gives it the old college try and insists that Sperling is actually a liberal, but to me this isn't even about standard left-right ideology anymore but about whether people have bought into the idea that the Great Wall Street Casino is a sustainable economic model. Sperling could be a perfectly nice guy who really wants to help people get affordable health care and good education, but as long as he thinks Wall Street's Ponziconomy is the best way to generate wealth in this country, he should have no business influencing national economic policy.
- On a more positive note, there has been some legit good economic news over the last couple of weeks. Initial jobless claims dipped below 400,000 for the first time since 2008 last week and we got word yesterday that manufacturing is picking up steam:
Manufacturing activity expanded for a 17th month in a row in December, rising to the highest level in seven months, a purchasing managers' group said Monday.
The Institute for Supply Management's index for manufacturing activity ticked up to 57 in December. That's the highest reading since May and up from 56.6 in November.
The reading came in slightly lower than the 57.3 level expected by a Briefing.com consensus of economists. Any reading of more than 50 indicates expansion in the sector, and the index has remained above this mark for 17 consecutive months.
For the first time in forever, you can see real-life green shoots for the economy. Of course, several things could quickly derail any recovery this year (see: refusing to raise the debt ceiling) so let's keep our fingers crossed.
- And for what it's worth, the fake economy is also doing well right now, with the Dow closing in on 11,700. This doesn't mean anything to the millions of people who can't find a job, but the media seem to think it's the most important economic metric EV-ARRRR so there you go.
What else is happening, peeps?
robert shumake
Are Korea's “Bending” away from Bluster? « Liveshots
LONDON After a 2010 that saw the Korean peninsula edge towards the brink of nuclear Armageddon,
500 More Red-Winged Blackbirds Found Dead in Louisiana - AOL <b>News</b>
Days after 100000 fish and approximately 4000 red-winged blackbirds were found dead in Arkansas, 500 deceased blackbirds and starlings were discovered on a Louisiana highway.
Moore: EA not backing away from Tiger <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net
Read our news of Moore: EA not backing away from Tiger.
robert shumake
Are Korea's “Bending” away from Bluster? « Liveshots
LONDON After a 2010 that saw the Korean peninsula edge towards the brink of nuclear Armageddon,
500 More Red-Winged Blackbirds Found Dead in Louisiana - AOL <b>News</b>
Days after 100000 fish and approximately 4000 red-winged blackbirds were found dead in Arkansas, 500 deceased blackbirds and starlings were discovered on a Louisiana highway.
Moore: EA not backing away from Tiger <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net
Read our news of Moore: EA not backing away from Tiger.
robert shumake
Everyone likes to be right and the easiest way to be right is to surround oneself with people and opinions that are predisposed to be similar to ours. When investing, it pays to be contrary. That sets you up to be wrong some of the time. The thing is, if you are right 60% of the time, and manage risk properly, there is a good chance you’ll make money. The most basic principle of investing is buy low and sell high. When doing this you’ll seldom hit the actual bottoms or tops; you are buying when the market is going down and selling when it is going up. That in itself is contrary to most retail investors’ practice of buying high and selling low.
Mutual Fund Flows and Sentiment as Contrarian Indicators
The majority of retail (casual) investors use mutual funds and ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds) to invest in the markets. Fund flows (deposits vs. withdrawals) are generally regarded as contrary indicators. This is a component of a broader series of indicators classified as investor sentiment that provide some insight into future directions of the market. The basic principle is: when many investors are bullish the market is more likely to go down and conversely a higher level of bearishness or negative sentiment indicates the market is likely to make a move higher. TrimTabs Investment Research reports on these fund flows and in a recent report stated:
We observed that equity prices tend to fall after equity exchange-traded funds (ETFs) rake in large sums of money. Conversely, the market tends to rise after equity ETFs post heavy outflows.
The report then issues this conclusion:
We have two explanations for the strongly negative correlation between equity ETF flows and future market returns. First, ETFs are traded mostly by retail investors and day traders. These are the least informed and most emotional market participants—the ones most likely to lose money over time. Second, we suspect hedge funds use ETFs when liquidity dries up. Hedge funds were forced to close individual stock positions during the credit crisis, so they bought equity ETFs instead. Equity ETFs posted large outflows in 2009, when liquidity improved.
These concepts are not really as complicated as they seem to be. It’s Economics 101. When demand outstrips supply, prices go up and when supply is larger than demand, prices go down. When funds are flowing into stocks, markets rise but at some point most people are invested and there isn’t enough uninvested capital left to drive prices higher.
Whatever the internal dynamics, the retail investors are generally the last to join in a rally and their main vehicle of investment are mutual funds and ETFs so large inflows into those instruments suggests that the market is near the top. That’s why many retail investors get the timing wrong and end up losing money. Nobody likes being wrong or losing money, it makes us feel pretty lousy about ourselves! This is borne out in the current rally where the retail investor is reticent to return to the markets after being burned so badly in the housing/banking crisis of 2008 – maybe one time too many in the last decade. As Adam Shell recently wrote in USA Today:
Yet, increasingly, investors on Main Street are not playing the stock market game with confidence like they used to, mainly because the game of making money has gotten tougher and more volatile since the financial crisis. Retail investors are buying fewer stocks. They are paring back on stocks and stock funds they already own. Instead, they’re moving into safer investments, like cash and bonds. “Investors are on strike,” says Axel Merk, president and chief investment officer at Merk Mutual Funds.
Fox News Doesn’t Make You Dumb. It Just Keeps You that Way
I don’t think the decision by retail investors to stay away from the markets is a good one. Markets have historically been a better investment than many other asset classes with the S&P 500 returning roughly a 7% annual rate of return. Stocks should, at the very least, be a strong component of a diversified portfolio. Instead of shying away from being wrong, investors – people in general – should expose themselves to a broader group of opinions, to alter unsuccessful behavior and improve decision making.
The findings of a new study, Misinformation and the 2010 Election, from the University of Maryland’s World Public Opinion show that 9 in 10 voters in the 2010 election believe they encountered information that was misleading or false, with 56% saying this occurred frequently. The study also concludes that those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe misinformation.
The bad news for FOX News viewers is that merely watching the channel appears to be toxic. Most voters believed a few whoppers during the 2010 election cycle. But daily watchers of FOX News believed more misinformation than everyone else.
The underlying problem uncovered by this study is that today’s news organization are not unbiased deliverers of the day’s events, these outlets are partisan interpreters of the day’s events packaged to appeal to their viewership or constituency. I don’t claim one network or source is a more egregious offender than another. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but each carries a bias that should be understood before assuming what we are digesting is “news” and not opinion.
This Article is Biased
This article exposes some of my own biases. We all have them and those views can be positive as they give us the strength to make decision with confidence. Most of the stocks I own are lesser-known, yet-to-be-recognized small technology stocks. I short stocks that people recommend as buys, such as Coinstar (CSTR), and I shy away from momentum stocks with historically unjustifiable valuations. I believe you should never buy a stock for which you can’t make a historically significant case of undervaluation. In our markets his is contrary behavior, but it works, and it helps me sleep at night.
If we are making bad decisions, like buying market tops and selling bottoms like the recent bottom in 2008, it is positive to examine our biases and correct them where possible. The best way to correct faulty assumptions is to take in a variety of disparate view points and make informed decisions. We can’t do this confining our media consumption to sources that only reinforce our previously held views. Religion and patriotism should allow for independent thought and interpretation. We should all try to broaden our information sources in 2011 and perhaps we can overcome the ‘misinformation’ gap and make some more profitable investment decisions.
I hope technology positively affects your life in 2011 and all your stock investments are winners.
Steven Bulwa is an investment analyst with a focus on new developments in technology and the companies poised to benefit. He has contributed to TheStreet.com, Realmoney.com, Business Insider, Huffington Post and SeekingAlpha.com, among others. Visit www.bulwatechreport.com, or follow @BulwaTech, to learn about technology companies with true growth prospects for 2011 and beyond.
Follow us on Twitter.
Sign up for Mediaite’s daily newsletter.
Jon Cohn notes that the GOP's game of chicken on whether to raise the debt ceiling is pretty goddamn insane:
And the alternative—failing to increase the debt ceiling? What precise effects would that have? This isn't my area of expertise, but my colleague Alex Hart knows a thing or two about it. Here's what he wrote last week:
Recent history provides a sense of just how scary this would be. “The reason the markets calmed down [during the financial crisis] is that we took [the banks’] toxic assets and handed the financial institutions Treasurys,” says Kevin Hassett, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “If we’re in a default situation, the Treasurys themselves are the toxic assets, and it’s not clear what we can hand anybody to calm them down.”
The sad thing is, Graham seems to grasp this: In the same interview, he notes that default could be catastrophic. But that's not stopping him from making his demands. And that's particularly disheartening, since he is supposed to be one of the more reasonable members of the Republican Senate caucus.
And the alternative—failing to increase the debt ceiling? What precise effects would that have? This isn't my area of expertise, but my colleague Alex Hart knows a thing or two about it. Here's what he wrote last week:
Recent history provides a sense of just how scary this would be. “The reason the markets calmed down [during the financial crisis] is that we took [the banks’] toxic assets and handed the financial institutions Treasurys,” says Kevin Hassett, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “If we’re in a default situation, the Treasurys themselves are the toxic assets, and it’s not clear what we can hand anybody to calm them down.”
The sad thing is, Graham seems to grasp this: In the same interview, he notes that default could be catastrophic. But that's not stopping him from making his demands. And that's particularly disheartening, since he is supposed to be one of the more reasonable members of the Republican Senate caucus.
And this is precisely why the Democrats should (but certainly won't) call the GOP's bluff on the debt ceiling. Look, the Masters of the Universe have parked a lot of cash in treasuries over the past few years since t-bills are traditionally one of the safest investments around during times of extreme uncertainty. If the GOP puts the United States into serious risk of defaulting, the Masters of the Universe stand to lose a lot of money as the treasuries they've purchased become as toxic as Greek or Irish debt. This is why the GOP's Wall Street overlords will never, repeat never, tolerate them playing around seriously with raising the debt ceiling and it's why the GOP will cave if Obama and the Democrats stick to their guns (which they won't, incidentally, as many of them actually will welcome the GOP giving them political cover to slash Social Security and other key programs).
But would the GOPers really risk losing countless sums of money for their masters if they created a sovereign debt crisis? Sorta doubt it. And it's worth letting them try simply to watch them slink away in defeat.
Onto more economic news!
- Felix Salmon depressingly notes how Larry Summers will likely be replaced by yet another rich person with strong ties to Wall Street:
From today’s WaPo report it seems that the shortlist to replace Larry Summers at the NEC has been whittled down to three men — Gene Sperling, Roger Altman, and Richard Levin. [...]
[T]hey’re all multi-millionaires with close ties to Wall Street. None more than Altman, of course, who has his own bank. But Levin is on the board of American Express, which paid him $181,362 in 2009, and where he has shares and “share equivalent units” worth $539,000. Which might not be a huge sum compared to the $1.5 million or so that he’s earning at Yale, but is still more than enough to make him a denizen of Wall Street rather than Main Street.
Finally there’s Sperling, who in some ways is the worst of the three when it comes to grubbing money from Wall Street. The other two have well-defined and easily-understood jobs; Sperling, by contrast, signed up with the Harry Walker Agency and started giving speeches to anybody with cash, including not only Citigroup but even Allen Stanford. He also wrote a monthly 900-word column for Bloomberg for $137,500 a year, which works out at about $13 per word. Then he started “advising” Goldman Sachs on its charitable giving, which advice came very expensively indeed:
Goldman Sachs paid Sperling $887,727 for advice on its charitable giving. That made the bank his highest-paying employer. Even Geithner’s chief of staff Patterson, who was a full-time lobbyist at the firm, did not make as much as Sperling did on a part-time basis. Patterson reported earning $637,492 from Goldman Sachs [in 2008].
Well, peachy. If there's one thing America needs, it's a another person who used to be on Goldman's payroll making key economic policy recommendations.
Brad DeLong gives it the old college try and insists that Sperling is actually a liberal, but to me this isn't even about standard left-right ideology anymore but about whether people have bought into the idea that the Great Wall Street Casino is a sustainable economic model. Sperling could be a perfectly nice guy who really wants to help people get affordable health care and good education, but as long as he thinks Wall Street's Ponziconomy is the best way to generate wealth in this country, he should have no business influencing national economic policy.
- On a more positive note, there has been some legit good economic news over the last couple of weeks. Initial jobless claims dipped below 400,000 for the first time since 2008 last week and we got word yesterday that manufacturing is picking up steam:
Manufacturing activity expanded for a 17th month in a row in December, rising to the highest level in seven months, a purchasing managers' group said Monday.
The Institute for Supply Management's index for manufacturing activity ticked up to 57 in December. That's the highest reading since May and up from 56.6 in November.
The reading came in slightly lower than the 57.3 level expected by a Briefing.com consensus of economists. Any reading of more than 50 indicates expansion in the sector, and the index has remained above this mark for 17 consecutive months.
For the first time in forever, you can see real-life green shoots for the economy. Of course, several things could quickly derail any recovery this year (see: refusing to raise the debt ceiling) so let's keep our fingers crossed.
- And for what it's worth, the fake economy is also doing well right now, with the Dow closing in on 11,700. This doesn't mean anything to the millions of people who can't find a job, but the media seem to think it's the most important economic metric EV-ARRRR so there you go.
What else is happening, peeps?
robert shumake
robert shumake
Are Korea's “Bending” away from Bluster? « Liveshots
LONDON After a 2010 that saw the Korean peninsula edge towards the brink of nuclear Armageddon,
500 More Red-Winged Blackbirds Found Dead in Louisiana - AOL <b>News</b>
Days after 100000 fish and approximately 4000 red-winged blackbirds were found dead in Arkansas, 500 deceased blackbirds and starlings were discovered on a Louisiana highway.
Moore: EA not backing away from Tiger <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net
Read our news of Moore: EA not backing away from Tiger.
robert shumake
Are Korea's “Bending” away from Bluster? « Liveshots
LONDON After a 2010 that saw the Korean peninsula edge towards the brink of nuclear Armageddon,
500 More Red-Winged Blackbirds Found Dead in Louisiana - AOL <b>News</b>
Days after 100000 fish and approximately 4000 red-winged blackbirds were found dead in Arkansas, 500 deceased blackbirds and starlings were discovered on a Louisiana highway.
Moore: EA not backing away from Tiger <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net
Read our news of Moore: EA not backing away from Tiger.
robert shumake detroit
Break it Down
To help with both the actual writing and to help improve the overall article, I recommend you first make sure you have a great title. Using the keyword or topic that you're targeting, come up with a witty, short title that describes what your article will be about.
After coming up with the title and the general idea of the article, put in some subheads. Depending on how many words you're shooting for, you'll want to use at least two subheads and most probably more. Come up with a good way to further break down the topic of your main article and make these the subheads.
Once you have the subheads in place, you can begin to fill in the "blanks" underneath the subheads with one or more paragraphs of text relating to the subhead. This makes it a lot easier to stick on topic and not end up with one of those articles that read like you're going in circles.
If you don't want to end up with an article that reads like you're going in circles, stick with the tips above!
Bullets are Good
If you're close to your target word count and you still need a little more, throwing in some useful bullet points is rarely a bad idea. Note, though, that I said useful bullet points. Take some time to break down a complex idea into five or more bullet points composed of small phrases or even single words.
Practice Makes Perfect
To become good at writing for the web, you're going to have to practice - a lot. You should already have a blog, but if you don't, start one up and post to it every day. And don't just throw up garbage. Give yourself a goal (say, 500 words) and craft one good story on one good topic. Doing this day after day helps you perfect your craft.
Online Content Marketplace
If you think you're good enough, you can try to sell your content writing services online. There are quite a few different online communities that cater to this type of service provider. There are also other options like Associated Content, which lets you publish your work to a community to see how well it ranks.
Short Term vs Long Term
There's a phrase that says you shouldn't put all your eggs in one basket. This is great advice when applied to many things, even writing content for the web.
If you need cash quickly in the short term, you can sell your already written articles or write articles to order. The rates for this vary greatly online. It's a way to make sure you have some money coming in, though.
While that money is coming in, you can also invest in the long term with your content. Whether it's creating an informational site full of articles about a particular niche or topic or investing in a blog, putting content online can bring you money over time via advertising.
The over time, it should be noted, usually means a very little bit in the beginning then more as the page matures ... if it's a popular page. That's the gamble you take with writing content for yourself, though.
Tip of the Iceberg
These are just some basic thoughts on writing online content for sale and for publishing. One of the great things about the Internet is that not only can you publish to it, or use it to find writing work, you can also use it to learn. If these tips have whet your appetite about making money online with content, go forth and learn more.
robert shumake
Are Korea's “Bending” away from Bluster? « Liveshots
LONDON After a 2010 that saw the Korean peninsula edge towards the brink of nuclear Armageddon,
500 More Red-Winged Blackbirds Found Dead in Louisiana - AOL <b>News</b>
Days after 100000 fish and approximately 4000 red-winged blackbirds were found dead in Arkansas, 500 deceased blackbirds and starlings were discovered on a Louisiana highway.
Moore: EA not backing away from Tiger <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net
Read our news of Moore: EA not backing away from Tiger.
robert shumake detroit
robert shumake detroit
Everyone likes to be right and the easiest way to be right is to surround oneself with people and opinions that are predisposed to be similar to ours. When investing, it pays to be contrary. That sets you up to be wrong some of the time. The thing is, if you are right 60% of the time, and manage risk properly, there is a good chance you’ll make money. The most basic principle of investing is buy low and sell high. When doing this you’ll seldom hit the actual bottoms or tops; you are buying when the market is going down and selling when it is going up. That in itself is contrary to most retail investors’ practice of buying high and selling low.
Mutual Fund Flows and Sentiment as Contrarian Indicators
The majority of retail (casual) investors use mutual funds and ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds) to invest in the markets. Fund flows (deposits vs. withdrawals) are generally regarded as contrary indicators. This is a component of a broader series of indicators classified as investor sentiment that provide some insight into future directions of the market. The basic principle is: when many investors are bullish the market is more likely to go down and conversely a higher level of bearishness or negative sentiment indicates the market is likely to make a move higher. TrimTabs Investment Research reports on these fund flows and in a recent report stated:
We observed that equity prices tend to fall after equity exchange-traded funds (ETFs) rake in large sums of money. Conversely, the market tends to rise after equity ETFs post heavy outflows.
The report then issues this conclusion:
We have two explanations for the strongly negative correlation between equity ETF flows and future market returns. First, ETFs are traded mostly by retail investors and day traders. These are the least informed and most emotional market participants—the ones most likely to lose money over time. Second, we suspect hedge funds use ETFs when liquidity dries up. Hedge funds were forced to close individual stock positions during the credit crisis, so they bought equity ETFs instead. Equity ETFs posted large outflows in 2009, when liquidity improved.
These concepts are not really as complicated as they seem to be. It’s Economics 101. When demand outstrips supply, prices go up and when supply is larger than demand, prices go down. When funds are flowing into stocks, markets rise but at some point most people are invested and there isn’t enough uninvested capital left to drive prices higher.
Whatever the internal dynamics, the retail investors are generally the last to join in a rally and their main vehicle of investment are mutual funds and ETFs so large inflows into those instruments suggests that the market is near the top. That’s why many retail investors get the timing wrong and end up losing money. Nobody likes being wrong or losing money, it makes us feel pretty lousy about ourselves! This is borne out in the current rally where the retail investor is reticent to return to the markets after being burned so badly in the housing/banking crisis of 2008 – maybe one time too many in the last decade. As Adam Shell recently wrote in USA Today:
Yet, increasingly, investors on Main Street are not playing the stock market game with confidence like they used to, mainly because the game of making money has gotten tougher and more volatile since the financial crisis. Retail investors are buying fewer stocks. They are paring back on stocks and stock funds they already own. Instead, they’re moving into safer investments, like cash and bonds. “Investors are on strike,” says Axel Merk, president and chief investment officer at Merk Mutual Funds.
Fox News Doesn’t Make You Dumb. It Just Keeps You that Way
I don’t think the decision by retail investors to stay away from the markets is a good one. Markets have historically been a better investment than many other asset classes with the S&P 500 returning roughly a 7% annual rate of return. Stocks should, at the very least, be a strong component of a diversified portfolio. Instead of shying away from being wrong, investors – people in general – should expose themselves to a broader group of opinions, to alter unsuccessful behavior and improve decision making.
The findings of a new study, Misinformation and the 2010 Election, from the University of Maryland’s World Public Opinion show that 9 in 10 voters in the 2010 election believe they encountered information that was misleading or false, with 56% saying this occurred frequently. The study also concludes that those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe misinformation.
The bad news for FOX News viewers is that merely watching the channel appears to be toxic. Most voters believed a few whoppers during the 2010 election cycle. But daily watchers of FOX News believed more misinformation than everyone else.
The underlying problem uncovered by this study is that today’s news organization are not unbiased deliverers of the day’s events, these outlets are partisan interpreters of the day’s events packaged to appeal to their viewership or constituency. I don’t claim one network or source is a more egregious offender than another. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but each carries a bias that should be understood before assuming what we are digesting is “news” and not opinion.
This Article is Biased
This article exposes some of my own biases. We all have them and those views can be positive as they give us the strength to make decision with confidence. Most of the stocks I own are lesser-known, yet-to-be-recognized small technology stocks. I short stocks that people recommend as buys, such as Coinstar (CSTR), and I shy away from momentum stocks with historically unjustifiable valuations. I believe you should never buy a stock for which you can’t make a historically significant case of undervaluation. In our markets his is contrary behavior, but it works, and it helps me sleep at night.
If we are making bad decisions, like buying market tops and selling bottoms like the recent bottom in 2008, it is positive to examine our biases and correct them where possible. The best way to correct faulty assumptions is to take in a variety of disparate view points and make informed decisions. We can’t do this confining our media consumption to sources that only reinforce our previously held views. Religion and patriotism should allow for independent thought and interpretation. We should all try to broaden our information sources in 2011 and perhaps we can overcome the ‘misinformation’ gap and make some more profitable investment decisions.
I hope technology positively affects your life in 2011 and all your stock investments are winners.
Steven Bulwa is an investment analyst with a focus on new developments in technology and the companies poised to benefit. He has contributed to TheStreet.com, Realmoney.com, Business Insider, Huffington Post and SeekingAlpha.com, among others. Visit www.bulwatechreport.com, or follow @BulwaTech, to learn about technology companies with true growth prospects for 2011 and beyond.
Follow us on Twitter.
Sign up for Mediaite’s daily newsletter.
Jon Cohn notes that the GOP's game of chicken on whether to raise the debt ceiling is pretty goddamn insane:
And the alternative—failing to increase the debt ceiling? What precise effects would that have? This isn't my area of expertise, but my colleague Alex Hart knows a thing or two about it. Here's what he wrote last week:
Recent history provides a sense of just how scary this would be. “The reason the markets calmed down [during the financial crisis] is that we took [the banks’] toxic assets and handed the financial institutions Treasurys,” says Kevin Hassett, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “If we’re in a default situation, the Treasurys themselves are the toxic assets, and it’s not clear what we can hand anybody to calm them down.”
The sad thing is, Graham seems to grasp this: In the same interview, he notes that default could be catastrophic. But that's not stopping him from making his demands. And that's particularly disheartening, since he is supposed to be one of the more reasonable members of the Republican Senate caucus.
And the alternative—failing to increase the debt ceiling? What precise effects would that have? This isn't my area of expertise, but my colleague Alex Hart knows a thing or two about it. Here's what he wrote last week:
Recent history provides a sense of just how scary this would be. “The reason the markets calmed down [during the financial crisis] is that we took [the banks’] toxic assets and handed the financial institutions Treasurys,” says Kevin Hassett, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “If we’re in a default situation, the Treasurys themselves are the toxic assets, and it’s not clear what we can hand anybody to calm them down.”
The sad thing is, Graham seems to grasp this: In the same interview, he notes that default could be catastrophic. But that's not stopping him from making his demands. And that's particularly disheartening, since he is supposed to be one of the more reasonable members of the Republican Senate caucus.
And this is precisely why the Democrats should (but certainly won't) call the GOP's bluff on the debt ceiling. Look, the Masters of the Universe have parked a lot of cash in treasuries over the past few years since t-bills are traditionally one of the safest investments around during times of extreme uncertainty. If the GOP puts the United States into serious risk of defaulting, the Masters of the Universe stand to lose a lot of money as the treasuries they've purchased become as toxic as Greek or Irish debt. This is why the GOP's Wall Street overlords will never, repeat never, tolerate them playing around seriously with raising the debt ceiling and it's why the GOP will cave if Obama and the Democrats stick to their guns (which they won't, incidentally, as many of them actually will welcome the GOP giving them political cover to slash Social Security and other key programs).
But would the GOPers really risk losing countless sums of money for their masters if they created a sovereign debt crisis? Sorta doubt it. And it's worth letting them try simply to watch them slink away in defeat.
Onto more economic news!
- Felix Salmon depressingly notes how Larry Summers will likely be replaced by yet another rich person with strong ties to Wall Street:
From today’s WaPo report it seems that the shortlist to replace Larry Summers at the NEC has been whittled down to three men — Gene Sperling, Roger Altman, and Richard Levin. [...]
[T]hey’re all multi-millionaires with close ties to Wall Street. None more than Altman, of course, who has his own bank. But Levin is on the board of American Express, which paid him $181,362 in 2009, and where he has shares and “share equivalent units” worth $539,000. Which might not be a huge sum compared to the $1.5 million or so that he’s earning at Yale, but is still more than enough to make him a denizen of Wall Street rather than Main Street.
Finally there’s Sperling, who in some ways is the worst of the three when it comes to grubbing money from Wall Street. The other two have well-defined and easily-understood jobs; Sperling, by contrast, signed up with the Harry Walker Agency and started giving speeches to anybody with cash, including not only Citigroup but even Allen Stanford. He also wrote a monthly 900-word column for Bloomberg for $137,500 a year, which works out at about $13 per word. Then he started “advising” Goldman Sachs on its charitable giving, which advice came very expensively indeed:
Goldman Sachs paid Sperling $887,727 for advice on its charitable giving. That made the bank his highest-paying employer. Even Geithner’s chief of staff Patterson, who was a full-time lobbyist at the firm, did not make as much as Sperling did on a part-time basis. Patterson reported earning $637,492 from Goldman Sachs [in 2008].
Well, peachy. If there's one thing America needs, it's a another person who used to be on Goldman's payroll making key economic policy recommendations.
Brad DeLong gives it the old college try and insists that Sperling is actually a liberal, but to me this isn't even about standard left-right ideology anymore but about whether people have bought into the idea that the Great Wall Street Casino is a sustainable economic model. Sperling could be a perfectly nice guy who really wants to help people get affordable health care and good education, but as long as he thinks Wall Street's Ponziconomy is the best way to generate wealth in this country, he should have no business influencing national economic policy.
- On a more positive note, there has been some legit good economic news over the last couple of weeks. Initial jobless claims dipped below 400,000 for the first time since 2008 last week and we got word yesterday that manufacturing is picking up steam:
Manufacturing activity expanded for a 17th month in a row in December, rising to the highest level in seven months, a purchasing managers' group said Monday.
The Institute for Supply Management's index for manufacturing activity ticked up to 57 in December. That's the highest reading since May and up from 56.6 in November.
The reading came in slightly lower than the 57.3 level expected by a Briefing.com consensus of economists. Any reading of more than 50 indicates expansion in the sector, and the index has remained above this mark for 17 consecutive months.
For the first time in forever, you can see real-life green shoots for the economy. Of course, several things could quickly derail any recovery this year (see: refusing to raise the debt ceiling) so let's keep our fingers crossed.
- And for what it's worth, the fake economy is also doing well right now, with the Dow closing in on 11,700. This doesn't mean anything to the millions of people who can't find a job, but the media seem to think it's the most important economic metric EV-ARRRR so there you go.
What else is happening, peeps?
robert shumake
Are Korea's “Bending” away from Bluster? « Liveshots
LONDON After a 2010 that saw the Korean peninsula edge towards the brink of nuclear Armageddon,
500 More Red-Winged Blackbirds Found Dead in Louisiana - AOL <b>News</b>
Days after 100000 fish and approximately 4000 red-winged blackbirds were found dead in Arkansas, 500 deceased blackbirds and starlings were discovered on a Louisiana highway.
Moore: EA not backing away from Tiger <b>News</b> - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net
Read our news of Moore: EA not backing away from Tiger.
robert shumake detroit
robert shumake detroit
No comments:
Post a Comment