Michael, I don't really understand your comment: <<But for me, given the size of my portfolio and the amount of time I spend on it, I can justify a couple of hundred dollars a year for another source of info. He's not the only one, and even with his mistakes he's definitely not the worst.>>
I found that when I was investing small amounts, CTSL was quite seductive. As my trading account went into seven figures, I realized that I could no longer afford to subscribe. Reason is that I would read it, and sometimes incorporate its false logic into my strategy. Although MM implies that he has primary sources of information, I actually have cross-checked his sources and found him to be well down the food chain.
His writings about biotech are puerile, at best. Software is better, but often misses important issues. Electronics is much better, but these days maybe trailing edge. I have not looked to see if he knows dot.com. I know that the Sand Hill folks don't consider him a player.
My interest in his current recommendations is limited to the fact that he is one of the few tech letters out there with any kind of circulation. I assume that his circulation numbers have dropped as Hulbert rankings have declined. But I like to keep abreast of the categories and names that various letter writers say are interesting, because these are the ones that are likely to get stockmarket play.
I typically read CTSL at the library to get the list a couple times a year. Same with Dick Davis, Market Logic, and Zweig. I read Value Line regularly.
My hope had been that a CTSL thread would allow me to not read any of the editorial content put out by MM. But if subscribers think they belong to an exclusive club, so be it. My experience has been that an occasional 20 minute chat with Charlie Munger has been a lot more profitable than hours of information from Michael Murphy. And Charlie doesn't get hung up on copyright law, and that sort of BS.
Maeling |
