The Thought Police?
A typical comment from our missive, Charade?
Unfortunately, due to certain editorial practices or policy, it had been quite a while since we posted. In fact, some of our more informative posts over the last few years, have been summarily rejected by said seemingly subjective and objective policy.
Rejection?
1. Our 11/15/14 and 11/21/14 our "ahead of the curve" coverage of "crowdfunding investing", To Be Takei II, The Wrath Of Crowdfunding; Part A; Part B; Part C; earned this:
2. Our 2016 9/11 memorial "The Dogs of War?" an analysis of governmental policy re: defense and the military industrial complex, earned the following (still sitting in drafts if the editors or publisher care to have another look):
3. Our 11/05/16 election and political policy coverage, The Candidate Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 earned this:
4. Most recent our 02/27/16 coverage of judicial policy, "Trump And A Justice For All?" earned this (still sitting in drafts if the editors or publisher care to have another look) :
Rejection comes with the territory, not the first time, nor the last. So we just shrug it off or do we sense a theme in those rejections? Not being "tied to investing" while involving a "critique of policy" would seem to be the narrative of the theme.
Disconnect?
Aside from being detached from reality, sounds like someone does not approve of the exercise in critical thinking necessary to discern what affect and effect underlying policy can have on their investments.
Perhaps this person enjoys operating in a vacuum or void of critical information. Drive while blindfolded much? If you don't know where you are or which direction your really going, you can't navigate to where you would like to be.
Considering the latter three rejections were from a person with CFA (Chartered Financial Analyst) appending their title, gives one serious pause. Funny how the narrative of editorial policy which seems whimsical and incoherent, can work in a deceptive nature.
The fact of the matter, ALL of those missives or "critiques", were tied to investing in the exact same manner, which ALL 116 previous missives the editor's had published. Rather than tied to a specific stock, the missive was tied to underlying policy, which affect best or worst practices, and effect a sector, or markets as a whole.
For the uninitiated, we have a standard disclaimer with all of our missives....
Rejoinders?
Following the "Dogs of War" rejection, we sent our standard rejoinder:
"Fair enough, you as the editor, must balance your audience and sponsors, and there's the trick...
The missive is already tied to how "policy" does or does not generate orders, revenue and profit for certain industry sectors and certain stock listed companies...
As for the policy "critique", bear with me.... if you think your investing audience might want to engage in critical thinking and be aware of any of the above, without watering down or pandering to the LCD (lowest common denominator), please let me know."
Speaking of rejoinders, we feel this topic deserving of further analysis, or as the editors would say a "critique" of policy. Said critique and a conclusion to this editorial policy issue will be forthcoming in "Policy is As Policy Does?"
BTW, regarding our aforementioned standard rejoinder, we never received a response from the thought police. However, in the middle of night, these guys showed up at our door.
"Great to see a new post from you Naybob! I've been trying hard to follow along and learn from you, Salmo, Jeffery Snider, and others, and it is incredibly helpful to read a post that states very plainly and clearly how the various instruments and benchmarks work and what they're function is. After more than a year now I think finally grok what an interest rate swap does, thank you!" - KHatWe Natter.... You and other readers with similar comments are most welcome, glad to be of service and thank you for the kind words. The expression of gratitude "Great to see a new post from you Naybob!" does not fail to resonate with the Nattering One.
Unfortunately, due to certain editorial practices or policy, it had been quite a while since we posted. In fact, some of our more informative posts over the last few years, have been summarily rejected by said seemingly subjective and objective policy.
Rejection?
1. Our 11/15/14 and 11/21/14 our "ahead of the curve" coverage of "crowdfunding investing", To Be Takei II, The Wrath Of Crowdfunding; Part A; Part B; Part C; earned this:
Thanks, but this one isn't for us, as it's not at all tied to more "liquid" forms of investing.Crowdfunding not liquid? Sounds a bit subjective, at least on the surface.
2. Our 2016 9/11 memorial "The Dogs of War?" an analysis of governmental policy re: defense and the military industrial complex, earned the following (still sitting in drafts if the editors or publisher care to have another look):
"Thanks, but while we've understood your efforts previously, this one isn't for us, as it's not at all tied to investing and instead is a critique of policy. While the critique has its merits, it is not appropriate for our site."A critique of policy effecting the military industrial complex is not tied to investing? FY 2017 DOD budget of $582.7 billion and common sense says otherwise.
3. Our 11/05/16 election and political policy coverage, The Candidate Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 earned this:
The political angle would be a stretch.. The focus here goes away from investor decision making for long stretches and invites distracting comments, particularly in the sections each devoted to the candidates themselves. If you can excise those portions and revise the article so that it stays specifically on investment decision making, we can take another look.After SIX draft versions which complied with every editorial request:
I'm making a final determination that this article is not going to work. The focus remains on politics with insufficient investment commentary.Politics and who controls the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government, which is the single largest GDP spending source, "goes away from investor decision making?" Just a bit outside comes to mind.
4. Most recent our 02/27/16 coverage of judicial policy, "Trump And A Justice For All?" earned this (still sitting in drafts if the editors or publisher care to have another look) :
Thanks very much. In its current form this is too far afield from investment commentary to be a fit for us.Too far afield from investment commentary? Disconnect? Again, governmental, political and judicial policy have substantial impact upon macroeconomics.
Rejection comes with the territory, not the first time, nor the last. So we just shrug it off or do we sense a theme in those rejections? Not being "tied to investing" while involving a "critique of policy" would seem to be the narrative of the theme.
Disconnect?
Aside from being detached from reality, sounds like someone does not approve of the exercise in critical thinking necessary to discern what affect and effect underlying policy can have on their investments.
Perhaps this person enjoys operating in a vacuum or void of critical information. Drive while blindfolded much? If you don't know where you are or which direction your really going, you can't navigate to where you would like to be.
Considering the latter three rejections were from a person with CFA (Chartered Financial Analyst) appending their title, gives one serious pause. Funny how the narrative of editorial policy which seems whimsical and incoherent, can work in a deceptive nature.
The fact of the matter, ALL of those missives or "critiques", were tied to investing in the exact same manner, which ALL 116 previous missives the editor's had published. Rather than tied to a specific stock, the missive was tied to underlying policy, which affect best or worst practices, and effect a sector, or markets as a whole.
For the uninitiated, we have a standard disclaimer with all of our missives....
Disclaimer?
Investing is an inherently risky activity, and investors must always be prepared to potentially lose some or all of an investment's value. Past performance is, of course, no guarantee of future results.
Before investing, investors should consider carefully the investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses of an investment vehicle. This and other important information is contained in the prospectus and summary prospectus, which can be obtained from the principal or a financial adviser. Prospective investors should read the prospectus carefully before investing.
Seeming incoherence in editorial practices or policy not withstanding, aside from the inherent and coherent tie in to investing included in ALL of our missives, we also include the following for the uninitiated...
Market Plays?
As for how all of the above ties into the potential and partial list of market plays below... the market as a whole could be influenced, and this could tie into any list of investments or assets. Those listed below happen to influence the indices more than most.
There are many macroeconomic cross sector and market asset correlations involved that affect your investments. Economic conditions, the eurodollar, global dollar debt and monetary policy all influence the valuation of the above and market plays below, via King Dollar's value, credit spreads, swap spread pricing, market making, liquidity, monetary supply and velocity, just to name a few. For a complete missive series listing covering those subject and more, click here.
The potential global economic developments discussed in this missive could affect numerous capital and asset markets, sectors, indexes, commodities, forex, bonds, mutual funds, ETFs and stocks.
Rejoinders?
Following the "Dogs of War" rejection, we sent our standard rejoinder:
"Fair enough, you as the editor, must balance your audience and sponsors, and there's the trick...
The missive is already tied to how "policy" does or does not generate orders, revenue and profit for certain industry sectors and certain stock listed companies...
As for the policy "critique", bear with me.... if you think your investing audience might want to engage in critical thinking and be aware of any of the above, without watering down or pandering to the LCD (lowest common denominator), please let me know."
Speaking of rejoinders, we feel this topic deserving of further analysis, or as the editors would say a "critique" of policy. Said critique and a conclusion to this editorial policy issue will be forthcoming in "Policy is As Policy Does?"
BTW, regarding our aforementioned standard rejoinder, we never received a response from the thought police. However, in the middle of night, these guys showed up at our door.
Comments