It doesn't make them wrong, but nothing can exclude the possibility that an investor believes that they have the ability to convince others via their media platform that X is a great investment without actually believing X is /otherwise/ a great investment. In which case the investment thesis could be purely "access to greater fools"...
Ok, but how should we treat someone's investment advice if they are advising for investments that they are not personally committed to? I find far more reasons for skepticism there. If you see an opportunity to make money for yourself or your clients, and aren't doing it, then... what are you doing?
We should be skeptical of all investment advice. For a specific fact to make us more skeptical of investment advice, we need to consider the alternative where that was not true. I don't see situations where large investors advising people to put money not where their mouth is gives someone more confidence in their advice.
> If you see an opportunity to make money for yourself or your clients, and aren't doing it, then... what are you doing?
Most other industries have a clear separation between the people who make and sell the product, and the people who publicly opine on the product.
Film journalists aren't film makers, car journalists aren't car makers, games journalists aren't game makers. And if the CEO of EA Games announces the next Madden game is their best ever, you'd take that with a pinch of salt.
Of course, conflict-of-interest-free journalism ain't exactly a growth industry these days, so this probably isn't the model of future stock tips.
Mostly agree, but that logic breaks down when investments are not just liquid entries on a spreadsheet.
One example: I recommended real estate rentals through the 2008-2015 range to several friends despite having none myself. Why? Because it was possible for them to generate significant leverage otherwise unavailable to them and they were in a much better position than me to work the second job of being a landlord.
