4 ms·

Honestly, this story is so unbelievable that it leads me to believe that many journalists have no idea how investing or the stock market work. Even if he starte

Honestly, this story is so unbelievable that it leads me to believe that many journalists have no idea how investing or the stock market work. Even if he started with $100,000 to invest, it would be an insane annual yield. A yield so high, that even crazy frauds like Bernie Madoff wouldn't promise it. It's not that you couldn't make $72 million dollars by investing in the stock market in a few years, but rather that it would usually take a rather large principal to do so. This isn't the same as the UVA rape story, as that took months of reporting and fact checking. That's one of the biggest journalistic mess ups in the last decade or so, and will have far reaching consequences for Rolling Stone. We'll be discussing the UVA rape story for the entire next episode of my podcast. This is the more run-of-the-mill story about how a lot of journalists have so little knowledge about things outside of journalism that they get duped by these stupid and false feel good stories. This is more embarrassing than harmful.

talmand 12y ago
It seems that many "journalists" these days can't be bothered to learn much about anything that they "report" on. I miss the old days of "two sources or we don't print".
- danielweber 12y ago
  Just a few days ago the New York Times took a google translate of an Italian Huffington Post article as the source for a papal proclamation.
- aikah 12y ago
  well nobody but advertisers is paying for that.How can you expect anything serious when your client isnt the reader?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
ghshephard 12y ago
Bernie Madoff offered returns in the 10% range. If he had started with $100K, after three years, he would have claimed to have $33K in returns, for a total of $133K. Just to put these kids claims into perspective.
- pwthornton 12y ago
  Yes. Madoff offered higher-than-normal returns but still something that looked plausible. Returns that could plausible food people. There must be people who really think you can become rich just from trading stocks. But that's not how it works. When you have a lot of money, you can make more money by buying and trading stocks, index funds and other similar vehicles. Once you have enough money, you could certainly make millions a year in stock, but that requires you to have millions of dollars in the first place. But the idea that you could take a small amount of money and a couple of years later have almost $100 million just from buying and trading stocks is not believable to anyone who has ever bought and sold stocks. This sounds like the plot of a bad (good?) Disney movie. Most of my money is tied up in retirement accounts, but I do have some stock as well. If my individual stocks made 10% a year for several years in a row, I'd be very, very happy. With compounding interest and dividend reinvestment, that money can grow at a robust rate, but it's not going to make me rich. This story almost sounds like the reporter kind of confused this with investing in IPOs and the current tech boom. You can make a much bigger return off of investing in startups early, but most random teenagers aren't able to buy into startups.

talmand 12y ago

It seems that many "journalists" these days can't be bothered to learn much about anything that they "report" on. I miss the old days of "two sources or we don't print".

danielweber 12y ago
Just a few days ago the New York Times took a google translate of an Italian Huffington Post article as the source for a papal proclamation.
aikah 12y ago
well nobody but advertisers is paying for that.How can you expect anything serious when your client isnt the reader?

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

ghshephard 12y ago

Bernie Madoff offered returns in the 10% range. If he had started with $100K, after three years, he would have claimed to have $33K in returns, for a total of $133K. Just to put these kids claims into perspective.

pwthornton 12y ago
Yes. Madoff offered higher-than-normal returns but still something that looked plausible. Returns that could plausible food people. There must be people who really think you can become rich just from trading stocks. But that's not how it works. When you have a lot of money, you can make more money by buying and trading stocks, index funds and other similar vehicles. Once you have enough money, you could certainly make millions a year in stock, but that requires you to have millions of dollars in the first place. But the idea that you could take a small amount of money and a couple of years later have almost $100 million just from buying and trading stocks is not believable to anyone who has ever bought and sold stocks. This sounds like the plot of a bad (good?) Disney movie. Most of my money is tied up in retirement accounts, but I do have some stock as well. If my individual stocks made 10% a year for several years in a row, I'd be very, very happy. With compounding interest and dividend reinvestment, that money can grow at a robust rate, but it's not going to make me rich. This story almost sounds like the reporter kind of confused this with investing in IPOs and the current tech boom. You can make a much bigger return off of investing in startups early, but most random teenagers aren't able to buy into startups.