Okay let's break this down:
For example, his track record of written opinion during the gold bullion run-up from approximately the 800 per ounce level until the present, in regard to his views on the gold mining sector, they could be chacterized as being:
buy and hold and buy some more, a devestating view if you had actually taken it for granted and acted thusly so.
Are you serious? A newsletter writer has advocated investing in the gold mining sector using a buy and hold strategy for the last 3 years, during which time gold has gone up more than 100%? That doesn't sound so horrible. Mining companies haven't done as well as bullion, but "buy and hold" tells me that his perspective is longer than 3 years. Have you given the strategy enough time to pan out?
I was not referring to bullion at all. His strategy/view if followed in the straight line he advocated, was a slaughter for anyone who followed it. Hands down.
no critique of his outwardly expressed views or any discussion could persuade him to think otherwise.
Subscribers pay him for his opinion, not to promote yours or anyone else's.
Sure they do. And his opinion lacked. And I commented on it. He showed up infuriated and unexpectedly using his second alias. That is where all this started. At least 13 people rec'd my original post. They knew what I meant and implied.
of course, having an investment opinion and being incorrect is no great crime by itself or in particular when it is limited to your own investment account. It does becomes a greater issue when you charge people $500 per year for your opinion, and you then consistently reject all manner of sound reasons against it on the one hand, and without reflecting it in your own expensive advice to your readers on the other hand. It is, at the least, intellectually dishonest. A Minyanville professoring without an earned degree to make a metaphor.
Again, he has no obligation to reflect your reasoning in his writing.
Absolutely correct. And I have no obligation to refain from criticising it. So what is your point?
I have had over the years numerous discussions with him where what seemed quite obvious to me were rejected by him out of hand. I have witnessed the same in his interactions with other, I believe to be, quite credible, and highly skilled analysts. all well and fine.
So you are angry with him for being steadfast in his own inner voice, and not following what you believe to be more credible people. Can you name some of them, and what strategies they advocated?
Angry with him? Over that? Not at all. He is free to make a fool of himself anytime he wishes. Showing up like an angry attack dog is a whole other matter. He didn't ask the questions you are asking. He did something else. I responded. And no, I won't name the strategies. We're talking about a two year time frame with ebb and flow in that sector. We are talking about conditional situations that unlike the first two great periods since the year 2000 became more and more influenced by macro economic conditions as the crisis influenced both money flows and inflation expectations, just to name two, and as crisis center moved from region to region, currency to currency and via the center point where transactions are settled in the still common script USD. Add in liquidity levels, it is nearly a three dimensional dilema, and far more problematic than a mono/single approach to the trade.
However, in the case of a particular company he had for some time bullishly touted, including that he owned shares in it, and he did so in his newsletter and to me personally, the truth of the matter, while offering the same unwavering positive opinion of it, he had, as he told me in writing, long ago sold it. At the same time, he did not tell his readers and he expressed no regret of any kind when he told me.
That's the first thing you've said that sounds like a fair criticism. If you wanted to give specific details, that would at least give Lance Lewis an opportunity to respond to something tangible.
If he shows up, I'll be happy to, when asked.
This, was not all well and fine, and was the beginning of the end of any positive view I might hold in his regard. I have relied on his own words to form my opinion, in answer to your question.
So you no longer like the opinion that that you formed, based on his words. Have you found, or are you currently looking for, someone else to give you a better opinion? Do you believe that it's a good idea in general to let other people be responsible for your decisions?
You'll need to ask this one again. I have no idea what you are asking in the first sentence. In the second, my investment decisions are mine, and always have been mine once I make them. That doesn't not mean I must agree theoretically or refrain from criticising someone who has set themselves up as a standard bearer. Not anymore than someone critizing the Gartman letter for the same sort of thing. Lewis criticizes Gartman almost daily. Does that make Lewis Gartman's Stalker? Although, if I were Gartman, I'd not like it much, particularly, since the criticism is just. One place where Lewis and I do agree.
I appreciate that you may have made an investment that lost money. That is really frustrating....we've all been there. It's even more frustrating if you relied -- almost entirely it sounds like -- on someone else's opinion that you paid for.
I didn't lose money. Some people did, and they lost a lot of money. I am very sympathetic to those people. I am also sorry if any of them relied too heavily on Lewis' approach over the periods in question. You will have to have this part of the discussion with them, if you so choose.
At some point you need to learn from your mistakes and move on. Don't rely on anyone else to make your investment decisions, especially not the opinion of ONE person.
Thanks for your advice. I agree with your advice. And have followed it for the last 19 years. Its worth following. Move on from what? Discussing the merits of someone's opinion in a volatile investment? Why should I move on from that? Its one of the most elemental investment areas today, though exceptionally challenging in a variety of ways. I'm sure Paulson and Co., are thinking about that right now, among others.
The role of newsletter writers is to articulate a unique opinion, not to manage your money.
Thank goodness he did not nor does he manage my money. As to the role of newsletter writers, your definition is debate-able and I think naively simplistic in the context of the last 15 years of bubble markets. The integrity of their process is not debate-able. It is a key element. As key as plagerizing someone else's work and calling it your own. Ethics don't go away because you put some legalese at the bottom of the page. Being held accountable for your opinion also does not go away. Case in point, you are this very minute holding me accountable for mine.
|
