Posting stock picks creates the obvious pressure: be right and you'll look smart; if you're wrong your sins are on display for all to see. Most either shy away from this or bombard the reader with innumerable "buys" so that it becomes impractical to work through the math to find out how valuable the advice really is.
Naturally, the reader must be weary of either of the two extremes. Outside politics, and in most environments where discussion of the stock market is heated, failure to take a definitive position shows lack of confidence, and an unwillingness to (justifiably) allow others' to criticize your ideas. Being overly sanguine about every idea, on the other hand, is reckless and dishonest.
Thus the logical responses when a stocks attractiveness is considered are: 1) I don't know, 2) It's probably a bad idea, and there are myriad reasons for this: it's too complicated; the business is lousy ; management is inept; My brother-in-law knows I guy who's an insider and he says it's going up. And finally, 3) It's worth owning, usually because the numbers look good and the business is solid--note the nebulous terms "good" and "solid"; I'm being purposefully vague since not all attractively priced stocks are a "buy" for the same reason. But, intrinsic business value rarely changes as much as many of the daily prices quotes would indicate, especially during market malaise.
These three answers may seem painfully simple. In a world of huge egos and image management, however, most are afraid to look like dummies and therefore feel obligated to have a strong opinion about every investment issue. "Oh oil, yeah, it's going up; there's just so much pent up demand." This is a monumental error. I turn to my unofficial and dead mentor Abe Lincoln for a quote that fits nicely with this fallacy: “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”
The cure for this vice is to embrace the 50th percentile. Just be average with some things. My answer is, I don't know where oil prices will be in six months. Please understand, however, that references to this are short-term forecasts. One can assume that certain long-term imbalances will lead to glaring macroeconomic consequences (e.g., America's entitlement programs). Also, there are some great macro-economists. But given my understanding of history, very, very few get both the timing and the event correct.
That is why I choose to be a business analyst and not an economist. And so, I move forward boldly, with the philosophy that good ideas are rare, simple, and should be put up to the scrutiny of the economics of the business against the market's perception. I publish ideas knowing what's on the line with the hope I'm right more often than not.
