5 ms·

If no one has been to the site before here it is: http://www.zerohedge.com/ http://www.zerohedge.com/ Believe it or not it has a huge following in the finance

If no one has been to the site before here it is: http://www.zerohedge.com/ http://www.zerohedge.com/ Believe it or not it has a huge following in the finance world due to it often being one of the first ones to break or provide color on important stories. It's not uncommon at all to see a row of traders with tweet deck open allocating a single column to Zero hedge, they are just that prolific with their output. The downside of the site is that they tend to have a very big bearish slant though. No one has ever accused them of being neutral. I hope they continue to run the site. I find it provides a fair bit of value to me.

tobltobs 11y ago
> first ones to break or provide color on important stories. No question about the color, but do you have an example for those "break on important stories".
- whatok 11y ago
  Little old but this is the first example I could think of but this was absolutely not covered in depth by any mainstream outlet http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-26/coming-soon-theater-near-you-mbias-1-billion-world-war-z http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-26/coming-soon-theater...
  - runako 11y ago
    This looks like analysis; did they break anything new here? Also -- were they right on the analysis? The stock chart is inconclusive.
  - tobltobs 11y ago
    That is not a break on an import story. It would have been if they would have posted this before Moody downgraded Zohars. This is nothing else then some collections of freely available news mixed together with some pubertal slang. And their included predictions have a bad hit rate, even for ZH standards.
    - whatok 11y ago
      You're right, it's not breaking news. I misread your quote. Nonetheless, it was a decently done, freely available analysis done on a semi-esoteric topic that really would not be covered by anyone else. If you solely rely on any source for "predictions", let alone ZH, I don't know what to say. No one is ever going to claim that ZH made them rich.
- shrikant 11y ago
  I can't speak to the "important" in that claim, but the folks at ZH have friends and connections in the world of finance from whom they can get leaked communications and reports. For example, this post on Trump's nomination chances [1] draws heavily upon charts produced by Goldman Sachs, presumably for their clients only. [1] http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-20/can-trump-win-general-election-goldman-answers-all-your-election-questions http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-20/can-trump-win-gener... Edited to add: I also know this because a friend of mine had their report leaked and written about on ZH, leading to a bit of a storm in a teacup at their workplace.
  - tobltobs 11y ago
    That is also not an break on an important story. Just some analysis again. But yes, those leaked reports on ZH are interesting. Problem is they also publish lots of stuff from disputable sources. At the end you don't know what to take serious on this website, which results in an entropy of about zero.
  - whatok 11y ago
    Pretty much all financial news outlets receive research from all the sell-side banks. ZH stealing a chart from a GS report is nothing special.
  - justincormack 11y ago
    Bank's client research is widely available.
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  In my experience, for a while when oil was extremely volatile up over $100 per barrel, they were at the forefront of breaking any supply chain stories (ex: Suez Canal). I survey many different sites and I have seen ZH do some very timely and organized reporting. Also, they aggregate a lot of big names (Gross, Gundlach, etc) so I don't have to track down their latest missives. There is a very long and seemingly unending row of garbage barge stories and sensationalism to deal with though, I will never deny that.
- 21 11y ago
  In 2009, when WHO upgraded the bird-flu scare to a "pandemic level 6", I heard the news first on the ZH Twitter. Only one-two hours later did the usual agencies also reported this (probably because they were verifying it).
rmah 11y ago
Regarding the "huge following"... Yes, lots of people read it, send links to friends, etc. But, most of the time those links are sent for comedy or shock value, not because people think it's serious news. To use an analogy, zerohedge is like the 4chan of the finance world.
- jazzyk 11y ago
  If there is shock value, it is because ZH focuses on facts (yes, they are usually well documented facts), which the so called mainstream media chooses to ignore, because the narrative does not suit their corporate owners. Most of ZH's reporting is backed by numbers coming from other sources. They also report rumors ahead of everyone else, which seem implausible, but later turn out to be facts and reported by other outlets. Yes, they have topic selection bias, but so does everyone else.
  - tobltobs 11y ago
    "ZH focuses on facts". Seriously? >They also report rumors ahead of everyone else, which seem implausible, but later turn out to be facts ... Sure, if you spitting out rumors all day there will be one or two cases per year where you hit a nail.
    - jazzyk 11y ago
      Example of focusing on facts: 1. The government releases a report with an important indicator looking good 2. Mainstream Media cheers, telling us how good we have it 3. ZH looks at the report and notices that: - the number was "seasonally adjusted" once, then again - the number will be revised down, a month later usually on a late Friday at happy hour - pesky details: employment growth is in part-time, minimum-wage jobs ZH often reports facts from official government reports/documents - they are typically buried on page 99 out of 100 (for a reason). Some people may choose to call the above rumors or "sensationalism" - feel free to ignore ZH, it is a free country.
      - base698 11y ago

tobltobs 11y ago

> first ones to break or provide color on important stories. No question about the color, but do you have an example for those "break on important stories".

whatok 11y ago
Little old but this is the first example I could think of but this was absolutely not covered in depth by any mainstream outlet http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-26/coming-soon-theater-near-you-mbias-1-billion-world-war-z http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-26/coming-soon-theater...
- runako 11y ago
  This looks like analysis; did they break anything new here? Also -- were they right on the analysis? The stock chart is inconclusive.
- tobltobs 11y ago
  That is not a break on an import story. It would have been if they would have posted this before Moody downgraded Zohars. This is nothing else then some collections of freely available news mixed together with some pubertal slang. And their included predictions have a bad hit rate, even for ZH standards.
  - whatok 11y ago
    You're right, it's not breaking news. I misread your quote. Nonetheless, it was a decently done, freely available analysis done on a semi-esoteric topic that really would not be covered by anyone else. If you solely rely on any source for "predictions", let alone ZH, I don't know what to say. No one is ever going to claim that ZH made them rich.
shrikant 11y ago
I can't speak to the "important" in that claim, but the folks at ZH have friends and connections in the world of finance from whom they can get leaked communications and reports. For example, this post on Trump's nomination chances [1] draws heavily upon charts produced by Goldman Sachs, presumably for their clients only. [1] http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-20/can-trump-win-general-election-goldman-answers-all-your-election-questions http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-20/can-trump-win-gener... Edited to add: I also know this because a friend of mine had their report leaked and written about on ZH, leading to a bit of a storm in a teacup at their workplace.
- tobltobs 11y ago
  That is also not an break on an important story. Just some analysis again. But yes, those leaked reports on ZH are interesting. Problem is they also publish lots of stuff from disputable sources. At the end you don't know what to take serious on this website, which results in an entropy of about zero.
- whatok 11y ago
  Pretty much all financial news outlets receive research from all the sell-side banks. ZH stealing a chart from a GS report is nothing special.
- justincormack 11y ago
  Bank's client research is widely available.
6stringmerc 11y ago
In my experience, for a while when oil was extremely volatile up over $100 per barrel, they were at the forefront of breaking any supply chain stories (ex: Suez Canal). I survey many different sites and I have seen ZH do some very timely and organized reporting. Also, they aggregate a lot of big names (Gross, Gundlach, etc) so I don't have to track down their latest missives. There is a very long and seemingly unending row of garbage barge stories and sensationalism to deal with though, I will never deny that.
21 11y ago
In 2009, when WHO upgraded the bird-flu scare to a "pandemic level 6", I heard the news first on the ZH Twitter. Only one-two hours later did the usual agencies also reported this (probably because they were verifying it).

rmah 11y ago

Regarding the "huge following"... Yes, lots of people read it, send links to friends, etc. But, most of the time those links are sent for comedy or shock value, not because people think it's serious news. To use an analogy, zerohedge is like the 4chan of the finance world.

jazzyk 11y ago
If there is shock value, it is because ZH focuses on facts (yes, they are usually well documented facts), which the so called mainstream media chooses to ignore, because the narrative does not suit their corporate owners. Most of ZH's reporting is backed by numbers coming from other sources. They also report rumors ahead of everyone else, which seem implausible, but later turn out to be facts and reported by other outlets. Yes, they have topic selection bias, but so does everyone else.
- tobltobs 11y ago
  "ZH focuses on facts". Seriously? >They also report rumors ahead of everyone else, which seem implausible, but later turn out to be facts ... Sure, if you spitting out rumors all day there will be one or two cases per year where you hit a nail.
  - jazzyk 11y ago
    Example of focusing on facts: 1. The government releases a report with an important indicator looking good 2. Mainstream Media cheers, telling us how good we have it 3. ZH looks at the report and notices that: - the number was "seasonally adjusted" once, then again - the number will be revised down, a month later usually on a late Friday at happy hour - pesky details: employment growth is in part-time, minimum-wage jobs ZH often reports facts from official government reports/documents - they are typically buried on page 99 out of 100 (for a reason). Some people may choose to call the above rumors or "sensationalism" - feel free to ignore ZH, it is a free country.
    - base698 11y ago