9 ms·

The vested interest is the point. Why would you trust someone hyping a stock if they don't stand to benefit from any price rise?

yokaze 6y ago
> Why would you trust someone hyping a stock if they don't stand to benefit from any price rise? Because they wouldn't be _hyping_ a stock? If someone owns stock, they benefit from a price rise, so any evaluation is a reflection of that. If someone doesn't own stock, they don't benefit from a price rise, but from rendering a correct evaluation.
- bananaface 6y ago
  Someone who doesn't own a stock benefits from the publicity. Peter Schiff has made a lot more money from books and his gold brokerage than investing in gold.
michaelt 6y ago
This is the natural contradiction in stock buying advice. If the guy making the recommendation doesn't hold the stock, that makes his advice suspect as why isn't he following his own advice? But if the guy making the recommendation does hold the stock, that makes his advice suspect as he'd profit just as much from promoting bad stocks as good ones. Isn't he just recruiting greater fools?
- lethologica 6y ago
  That reminds me of a question I was once asked: You're in the hospital and are about to have surgery. You see the surgeon, just before the surgery is about to start, reading up on the operation he's about to perform in a textbook. Do you trust that surgeon more, or less now?
  - dstick 6y ago
    Interesting question, but the answer has to be less. I don’t have to lookup certain Sql queries, or code syntax because I know it by heart. Pretty sure I can whip out a prototype without leaving the IDE. If he’s looking something up, even if just for a quick refresher, that means it stems from some sort of doubt / insecurity.
    - piva00 6y ago
      This is not a prototype, this is a surgeon performing production-level work. It's the same as if you had to whip out a basic service (as trivial as it core domain logic could be) but with all the details it need: deployment pipeline, monitoring, logging, a future-proof architecture (or do you want to be living with subpar heart surgery because the prototype was faster to deliver?). The analogy breaks down very quickly, I just wanted to demonstrate how absurd your statement is.
      - imtringued 6y ago
        It is entirely possible that looking at how to perform the procedure prevents fringe failures of surgery. Imagine your surgeon does his job extremely well but it turns out he performed the wrong surgery on the wrong patient because he trusted his memory too much.
  - dwighttk 6y ago
    Less. I want a surgeon to have done my procedure a good number of times already recently (if I get to choose.)
    - Proziam 6y ago
      I disagree. Pre-X checklists exist because the reliability gained by going through step-by-step isn't easily replicated by other means. And, even if the surgeon has done your procedure every day this week, what are the odds they did it for someone with exactly your 'specs'? Surely there are considerations to be made based on age, gender, allergies, fitness level, and much more that it would be worthwhile to address prior to cutting into the patient.
      - dwighttk 6y ago
        Checklist, sure. Textbook, no.
    - barry-cotter 6y ago
      That level of specialization doesn’t really exist in the US outside of the Oklahoma Surgery Center. Surgeons do a kind of surgery, not a particular surgery. That’s part of why some Indian surgical places are so good; much, much more specialization than is the norm in North America or Europe.
      - refurb 6y ago
        In the US, it really depends on the surgery and the center. I know from chatting to some doctors that eye surgery for example, isn't exclusively cataract surgery, but it's like 60% of their surgeries and typically done by a handful of doctors. Back of the eye surgery is done at the same center, but by another set of doctors. So while it's true it's not common to find the type of single surgery centers like they have in India, there are lots of surgeons who do the same surgery weekly or several times per week. But yeah, if you're seeing an ENT at a smaller center, they might be doing 100 procedures a year and no more than 10 of any given type.
      - 6y ago
  - LittlePeter 6y ago
    Interesting question. Slightly related, the book The Checklist Manifesto argues for checklists in operation rooms, to prevent rare but disastrous cases like "scalpel left inside patient", or "wrong blood type administered". So maybe a different version of the question could be: "Do you have more or less confidence in the operating team (surgeon, nurses) using a checklist?" After reading the book I would have more confidence.
    - learnstats2 6y ago
      I would rather surgical teams had industry-standard automated tracking technology with (for example) bar codes and radio frequency tags, than a checklist.
      - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
        > industry-standard automated tracking technology with (for example) bar codes and radio frequency tags, than a checklist The book referenced, The Checklist Manifesto, is worth a read. Checklists outperform automated tracking technologies because checklists don't silently fail.
        learnstats2 6y ago
        Is there an independent reference for this? In my experience, checklists almost always silently fail. [Edited to add: 2015 column in Nature suggests studies giving positive results to checklists don't replicate: https://www.nature.com/news/hospital-checklists-are-meant-to-save-lives-so-why-do-they-often-fail-1.18057 https://www.nature.com/news/hospital-checklists-are-meant-to... ]
        JumpCrisscross 6y ago
        > column in Nature suggests studies giving positive results to checklists don't replicate "In a review of nearly 7,000 surgical procedures performed at 5 NHS hospitals, they found that the checklist was used in 97% of cases, but was completed only 62% of the time8. When the researchers watched a smaller number of procedures in person, they found that practitioners often failed to give the checks their full attention, and read only two-thirds of the items out loud9. In slightly more than 40% of cases, at least one team member was absent during the checks; 10% of the time, the lead surgeon was missing."
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - refurb 6y ago
    I remember chatting with some of the top US specialists in a specific field and they all freely admitted that after seeing a patient with a less common condition that they need to go back a give themselves a refresher. Unless it's something you see every day, it's almost impossible to keep all that information in your head.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
finolex1 6y ago
That makes perfect sense if the person hyping the stock is relatively unknown and has minimal reach. Things get murky if an individual has enough of a following to move markets. If someone with enough clout, say Ackman or Dalio start pitching a particular stock, it's difficult to know whether they actually believe it will rise or if they hope to profit off others listening to them.
Abishek_Muthian 6y ago
Advice from vested interests might not be always beneficial to the investor or the market e.g. From some one trying to short the stock.

yokaze 6y ago

> Why would you trust someone hyping a stock if they don't stand to benefit from any price rise? Because they wouldn't be _hyping_ a stock? If someone owns stock, they benefit from a price rise, so any evaluation is a reflection of that. If someone doesn't own stock, they don't benefit from a price rise, but from rendering a correct evaluation.

bananaface 6y ago
Someone who doesn't own a stock benefits from the publicity. Peter Schiff has made a lot more money from books and his gold brokerage than investing in gold.

michaelt 6y ago

This is the natural contradiction in stock buying advice. If the guy making the recommendation doesn't hold the stock, that makes his advice suspect as why isn't he following his own advice? But if the guy making the recommendation does hold the stock, that makes his advice suspect as he'd profit just as much from promoting bad stocks as good ones. Isn't he just recruiting greater fools?

lethologica 6y ago
That reminds me of a question I was once asked: You're in the hospital and are about to have surgery. You see the surgeon, just before the surgery is about to start, reading up on the operation he's about to perform in a textbook. Do you trust that surgeon more, or less now?
- dstick 6y ago
  Interesting question, but the answer has to be less. I don’t have to lookup certain Sql queries, or code syntax because I know it by heart. Pretty sure I can whip out a prototype without leaving the IDE. If he’s looking something up, even if just for a quick refresher, that means it stems from some sort of doubt / insecurity.
  - piva00 6y ago
    This is not a prototype, this is a surgeon performing production-level work. It's the same as if you had to whip out a basic service (as trivial as it core domain logic could be) but with all the details it need: deployment pipeline, monitoring, logging, a future-proof architecture (or do you want to be living with subpar heart surgery because the prototype was faster to deliver?). The analogy breaks down very quickly, I just wanted to demonstrate how absurd your statement is.
    - imtringued 6y ago
      It is entirely possible that looking at how to perform the procedure prevents fringe failures of surgery. Imagine your surgeon does his job extremely well but it turns out he performed the wrong surgery on the wrong patient because he trusted his memory too much.
- dwighttk 6y ago
  Less. I want a surgeon to have done my procedure a good number of times already recently (if I get to choose.)
  - Proziam 6y ago
    I disagree. Pre-X checklists exist because the reliability gained by going through step-by-step isn't easily replicated by other means. And, even if the surgeon has done your procedure every day this week, what are the odds they did it for someone with exactly your 'specs'? Surely there are considerations to be made based on age, gender, allergies, fitness level, and much more that it would be worthwhile to address prior to cutting into the patient.
    - dwighttk 6y ago
      Checklist, sure. Textbook, no.
  - barry-cotter 6y ago
    That level of specialization doesn’t really exist in the US outside of the Oklahoma Surgery Center. Surgeons do a kind of surgery, not a particular surgery. That’s part of why some Indian surgical places are so good; much, much more specialization than is the norm in North America or Europe.
    - refurb 6y ago
      In the US, it really depends on the surgery and the center. I know from chatting to some doctors that eye surgery for example, isn't exclusively cataract surgery, but it's like 60% of their surgeries and typically done by a handful of doctors. Back of the eye surgery is done at the same center, but by another set of doctors. So while it's true it's not common to find the type of single surgery centers like they have in India, there are lots of surgeons who do the same surgery weekly or several times per week. But yeah, if you're seeing an ENT at a smaller center, they might be doing 100 procedures a year and no more than 10 of any given type.
    - 6y ago
- LittlePeter 6y ago
  Interesting question. Slightly related, the book The Checklist Manifesto argues for checklists in operation rooms, to prevent rare but disastrous cases like "scalpel left inside patient", or "wrong blood type administered". So maybe a different version of the question could be: "Do you have more or less confidence in the operating team (surgeon, nurses) using a checklist?" After reading the book I would have more confidence.
  - learnstats2 6y ago
    I would rather surgical teams had industry-standard automated tracking technology with (for example) bar codes and radio frequency tags, than a checklist.
    - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
      > industry-standard automated tracking technology with (for example) bar codes and radio frequency tags, than a checklist The book referenced, The Checklist Manifesto, is worth a read. Checklists outperform automated tracking technologies because checklists don't silently fail.
      - learnstats2 6y ago
        Is there an independent reference for this? In my experience, checklists almost always silently fail. [Edited to add: 2015 column in Nature suggests studies giving positive results to checklists don't replicate: https://www.nature.com/news/hospital-checklists-are-meant-to-save-lives-so-why-do-they-often-fail-1.18057 https://www.nature.com/news/hospital-checklists-are-meant-to... ]
        JumpCrisscross 6y ago
        > column in Nature suggests studies giving positive results to checklists don't replicate "In a review of nearly 7,000 surgical procedures performed at 5 NHS hospitals, they found that the checklist was used in 97% of cases, but was completed only 62% of the time8. When the researchers watched a smaller number of procedures in person, they found that practitioners often failed to give the checks their full attention, and read only two-thirds of the items out loud9. In slightly more than 40% of cases, at least one team member was absent during the checks; 10% of the time, the lead surgeon was missing."
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- refurb 6y ago
  I remember chatting with some of the top US specialists in a specific field and they all freely admitted that after seeing a patient with a less common condition that they need to go back a give themselves a refresher. Unless it's something you see every day, it's almost impossible to keep all that information in your head.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

finolex1 6y ago

That makes perfect sense if the person hyping the stock is relatively unknown and has minimal reach. Things get murky if an individual has enough of a following to move markets. If someone with enough clout, say Ackman or Dalio start pitching a particular stock, it's difficult to know whether they actually believe it will rise or if they hope to profit off others listening to them.

Abishek_Muthian 6y ago

Advice from vested interests might not be always beneficial to the investor or the market e.g. From some one trying to short the stock.