I once ran a specialized email discussion list of over 1,000 subscribers. Dissenting opinions were welcomed as long as they were presented in a civil way, but I did not consider myself to be under any obligation to maintain a forum for incessant and abusive carping.
In the beginning, anyone on the list behaved any way they wanted, but the signal-to-noise ratio began to suffer and the folks with something interesting to say would either keep silent or leave the list entirely. So, I started stepping in whenever some demented verbal bully would appear on the list. I'd immediately warn him, and then, as if on cue, he would automatically start screaming about Freedom Of Speech and Nazis, and sometimes that would trigger a wave of hysteria among other raving goons of the Free Speech Patrol, and pretty soon the whole affair would degenerate into garbage.
So I arrived at a policy of nipping such nonsense in the bud. All ad hominem attacks resulted in immediate dismissal from the list. Then, lo and behold, the people with something constructive to add to the list came out of hiding and the list flourished.
"BUT WHEN A BAD CALL IS MADE...OWN UP TO IT! Don't pretend it never happened."
But how far does Bob have to go to "own up to it"? Does that mean he has to talk on the air to every cranky holder of his QQQ call? Does that mean he has to provide an online forum for every disgruntled boob with access to the Internet?
As far as I can see, Bob has addressed the issue -- not to the satisfaction of every critic, naturally, and no, he has not groveled in the dirt before the Grand Inquisitors, but there's no way to placate ALL these people, so he has to draw a line somewhere.
And what is a "Good Call," anyway? As a daytrader, not every trade I make is profitable, but even the the trades that I have to stop out are still Good Trades. The market sometimes presents me with an opportunity that, by my judgement, should work out well in most cases. When I see a trade that presents, say, a 65% chance of being a winner, I put my money on it. When I do, I will be right 65% of the time. When I am wrong the other 35% of the time, it doesn't mean that I should not have entered the trade. Over time, I will do very well taking that type of trade, and I will take that type of trade every chance I get.
The same is true in investing. When an investor does all the research and likes what he sees, he puts his money in. But when an unforeseeable event happens -- a natural calamity, an Act Of God (or Greenspan!), etc. -- then does that mean the investor made a mistake putting his money into that investment? No, it does not. What he then needs to do is make the proper adjustments , such as stopping out,or revising his expectations in light of the new factors, and move on to the the next opportunity.
I wouldn't say that Bob's QQQ was "bad" at all. There were plenty of other great traders who were expecting a November-December rally and had their money in the market. Now, it looks like the rally has simply been delayed by a month or two. Unfortunately, the unforeseeable delay cause a bad reaction and the market hit some nasty lows. Nevertheless, the short-term rally is beginning to show its head now and the QQQ should, at minimum, get back into the 70s very soon. I think that, worst case, anyone still holding the QQQ call will easily be able to get out even. I'll even go a step farther and say that the Qs will exceed 100 within the next year or so. I am in from 53 1/2 and I expect to see an easy double. If the market doesn't go the way I expect, I will not consider it a Bad Trade. Instead, I will at worst simply stop out with no more than a 7% loss and then I'll move on to the next high-percentage opportunity.
"After the bulletin comes out, he sends the next newsletter almost totally ignoring the advice that was in the bulletin. And then when people question it on the bulletin boards, he kicks them off. Then, when subscribers bad mouth his advice, he kicks them off. Then, when the tide of negative comments is overwhelming, he shuts down the boards. When people call the show on the QQQ trade, he screens them out...and if they sneak by the screener, he shuts them off."
Good for him, I say!
"IS AVOIDING ACCOUNTABILITY THE SAME AS A LACK OF INTEGRITY? "
If being "accountable" means playing Sisyphus, then the answer is NO.
ig |
