Interesting thing I noticed this week:
MM put out a special notice on the hotline Friday warning of an "another trash piece" by Mark Hulbert in the Sunday New York Times, suggesting we ignore it, etc.
However, I was amused to receive -- on the same day! -- another mailing touting MM's new Technology Investing magazine. Naturally, it highlights Hulbert's ancient "#1 Rating."
So which is the true Mark Hulbert? The one we're cautioned to ignore today, or the one who gave out that #1 a long time ago...
In fairness, the NYT piece wasn't even all that bad. Not really focusing on CTSL, just using it as one of many examples of cases where a newseletter's recommendations will perform differently from the mutual fund(s) run by the newsletter editors. It explored some of the reasons for this and also cited Navallier, Value Line and I think a couple of others. The main point was "don't buy a fund based on newsletter performance and vice-versa." No specific trashing of anybody.
My impression is that the quality of research in the newsletter appears to be getting better and somewhat more focused. Even managed to justify renewing again for the qualitative stuff, but still need to do my own numbers. (Dropped OSS, for the price a true waste of money...)
mg |
