May 25, 2011
– Comments (2)
Fascinating ... I can't count the number of times people tried to get me to look at their material, and each time I had a glance I was wholly unimpressed with the content. Never once took them seriously, so it's nice to know my instincts were correct there.
See comment #24 from this post on April 4, 2010:
Thanks for posting this, but we can't call that news. Not to expend too much energy on semantics, but I can't stress how important the distinction is between, for example, a CNBC news piece on this issue, and a press release from a shoddy-looking organization like this NIA that hasn't a chance of ever being viewed as a credible or impartial source.
The internet is a phenomenal medium for rapid exchange of information, but if we permit the lines between opinion blogs and fact-checked published articles -- or the line between mainstream news coverage and press releases from inconsequential organizations with not-so-hidden agendas -- to be blurred ... then we do ourselves a huge disservice.
While following this story I seem to fall into the category of most of the other people criticizing NIA, in that I do like the videos that they put out and the material in them (while I understand they're heavily biased), I never took their stock picks too seriously.
One thing I haven't seen anyone point out is how selective they are with their dates at reporting the quality of their picks. Some they report until their current date, while others they pick the date that a stock peaked rather which is fairly dishonest since they never mention a date that they suggested that their readers sell.
AgFeed Industries, Inc. (FEED) Suggested on November 3rd, 2009, at: $4.60 High on January 7th, 2010, of $5.69 +24%
No mention of anything suggesting to sell on January 7, 2010. So if anyone bought based on their recommendation and held because they never suggested the stock might be on its way down, that particularly stock is currently worth $1.05. They're touting a 24% gain, but without suggesting a sell, to me that looks instead like a 75% loss.