Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WSJ Jumps the Shark

ritholtz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 71 posts

Re: WSJ Jumps the Shark

#61

Post by pyre »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #60
steveplace wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, markets move on information. That's half true. Markets move from capital flows of institutions on much larger timeframes-- those flows are what create trends. There is an underlying auction process that facilitates trade and capital flow-- the auction process is the short term noise that is dominated by the larger money about 30% of the time. Yesterday was a great example. Yes, the market had a big move on the…

If you're saying that markets do not move on information alone and then several sentences later saying that serious investor _do_ let this type of information affect them? Looks suspiciously like self contradiction. And I'll bet the WSJ has always done this. Pick up an issue from 1950 and see if it isn't tying current news stories to the market. It was the same then. This seems to me to be another version of "things…

> If you're saying that markets do not move on information alone and then several sentences later saying that serious investor _do_ let this type of information affect them? Looks suspiciously like self contradiction.

I think that your definitions of 'serious investor' are divergent.

Re: WSJ Jumps the Shark

#62

Post by neilk »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #52
steveplace wrote: post #18

I'm surprised this actually made it to HN. I've read Barry's blog and have met him in person. He's one of the brightest, most realistic financial commentators out there. We've seen an increase in media politicizing market movement. The example he cites was Obama coming out and making comments about financial regulation, and then the market takes a dump. So you'll see on Marketwatch, Y! Finance, Motley Fool and others…

Without RTA, I don't think I agree with your comment. For two reasons. First, markets move on information. Maybe one piece of big, important information, like a war, or more generally millions of bits of information. But it is a reasonable observation to note the correlation between big news stories and market moves. Second, most times markets don't move on big news. In that case, the trend that I've seen for over a…

> Without RTA

The article shows that bank stocks were unaffected; the downturn was in commodities. Hence, even as speculation it was worthless.

Re: WSJ Jumps the Shark

#63

Post by SamAtt »

rayval wrote: post #58
SamAtt wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well first, and I mean this with minimal disrespect, but you clearly have a hero worship thing going here (see your last sentence). So you really have a bias of your own. On your point, there are still people on the floor if you don't believe me turn on CNBC and you can see them. But even in a virtual floor it isn't like people don't keep in contact. The market lives and dies by social interactions and it always has.…

The point remains that the WSJ was unique in providing rock solid objective financial journalism, and now it is sliding down to the same level as "every other news institution".

But that's only true if the facts aren't true. If the Dow did really fall because people are worried by the new regulations than the title isn't sensationalist it's just factual reporting. So the question is this: Was it impossible to find out the motivation of investors? I don't think it is (especially when you have big time investors like Warren Buffett coming out against it)

Re: WSJ Jumps the Shark

#64

Post by dagw »

mortenjorck wrote: post #34
hop wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its only been 2.5 years since he bought it. And it was awhile after that it started changing.

I know some people who would put the date as far back as 2002, the year they unintentionally created a certain, unfortunate class-warfare neologism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_duckies

But that was in an editorial op ed piece. Their op ed pieces have always been political, but they always used to do a good job to make sure the politics doesn't leak out from there.

Re: WSJ Jumps the Shark

#65

Post by mynameishere »

steveplace wrote: post #53
mynameishere wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you'll see on Marketwatch, Y! Finance, Motley Fool and others about how the president's comments caused the market to drop. This is rubbish. No, this is rubbish. When the government seeks to regulate huge profit-makers at banks, it's completely rational for those banks' values to fall. This is the consensus view of bullish and bearish commentators alike, and I have no idea why anyone would disagree. The blogger po…

When the government seeks to regulate huge profit-makers at banks, it's completely rational for those banks' values to fall. You're assuming markets are rational, and that the short term change in market structure was directly caused by a speech. Again, the point I was trying to make was not that the sentiment due to the speech had shifted, but that the analysis by the WSJ was very politicized and intellectually dish…

Yeah, it's just awful. Not even worth the trouble of shorting.

http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/index/DXY/charts?countr...

I use it as an example because it's actively traded.

If capital flows out of bonds, it most likely goes into stocks

Pass the bong. What's been going on is simple: Bernanke has been scuttling the dollar in order to force people into all forms of risk. Money has been going to bonds and stocks both, the riskier the better:

http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&...

Re: WSJ Jumps the Shark

#66

Post by rayval »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #12
ajross wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the downvotes have more to do with people not wanting to see baldly political rants. The article was about the Wall Street Journal. You replied with an off topic ad-hominem about the authors motivations and intelligence. Bad form.

Technically, the article is about the politics of the WSJ, and the poster responded with a comment on the author's politics. You can't talk about politics without talking about politics.

Technically, the article is about the quality of journalism in the WSJ (plus of course the impact that politics has had on that quality), and the poster responded with a comment on the author's politics and completely ignored the issue of content quality.

You can't talk about journalism by talking only about politics.

Re: WSJ Jumps the Shark

#67

Post by mattmcknight »

steveplace wrote: post #18

I'm surprised this actually made it to HN. I've read Barry's blog and have met him in person. He's one of the brightest, most realistic financial commentators out there. We've seen an increase in media politicizing market movement. The example he cites was Obama coming out and making comments about financial regulation, and then the market takes a dump. So you'll see on Marketwatch, Y! Finance, Motley Fool and others…

Uh...this isn't political. We're hitting the financials with these rules. Being political would be saying that it's a bad thing. This will hit the certain bank profits, so they are among the sectors that took a negative hit yesterday. The little article summary says "pulling down bank stocks", so the blog entry's diversion into commodities is irrelevant.

I think the proposal helps explains the drop in GS. The Volcker rule is going to put a dent in GS proprietary trading desk activities. It might have even a bigger effect on BoA, as a large percentage of their profits were from trading...

For an even clearer demo of the proposal's effect on prices, look at this chart comparing three banks with huge trading operations and three more regional banks that won't be affected by the proposal. http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&...

Re: WSJ Jumps the Shark

#68

Post by jberryman »

steveplace wrote: post #18

I'm surprised this actually made it to HN. I've read Barry's blog and have met him in person. He's one of the brightest, most realistic financial commentators out there. We've seen an increase in media politicizing market movement. The example he cites was Obama coming out and making comments about financial regulation, and then the market takes a dump. So you'll see on Marketwatch, Y! Finance, Motley Fool and others…

The Wall Street Journal since Murdoch, with pretty graphs:

http://www.journalism.org/node/10769

Re: WSJ Jumps the Shark

#69

Post by absconditus »

dschobel wrote: post #26
RyanMcGreal wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Read The Economist. The Economist produces good content, but it's all editorializing, all the time. Articles aren't even attributed to their authors - they just spring fully formed from The Economist's notional forehead.

That's my biggest criticism of the economist, that the content is not attributed to any author. I love the content but it's kind of a bizarre approach to journalism to keep the authorship anonymous. I can't imagine what their rationale is or why their obviously sharp staff stands for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist#Tone_and_voice

Re: WSJ Jumps the Shark

#70

Post by steveplace »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #60
steveplace wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, markets move on information. That's half true. Markets move from capital flows of institutions on much larger timeframes-- those flows are what create trends. There is an underlying auction process that facilitates trade and capital flow-- the auction process is the short term noise that is dominated by the larger money about 30% of the time. Yesterday was a great example. Yes, the market had a big move on the…

If you're saying that markets do not move on information alone and then several sentences later saying that serious investor _do_ let this type of information affect them? Looks suspiciously like self contradiction. And I'll bet the WSJ has always done this. Pick up an issue from 1950 and see if it isn't tying current news stories to the market. It was the same then. This seems to me to be another version of "things…

* Just found your comments popular yet (to me) seemingly uninformed.*

I do this for a living, and I was watching the market movements for this particular event-- the Obama speech was not the true catalyst.

Post reply on HN