By Dan Denning – Southbank Investment Daily (Great Britain) –
New readers are often confused that editors and publishers can have diametrically opposed views on critical financial and economic issues. Why isn’t there just one view? And don’t we know it’s not helpful to present contradictory views?
I’ve answered the question hundreds of times, but not lately. So I’ll have another quick go. It’s about independent thinking. First, I don’t tell any of the editors or writers what to think or write. If I did, they wouldn’t want to work with me. And what would be the point of hiring someone who thought like you and agreed with every view you took?
All I ask is that the arguments we make are well-researched and that they push the boundaries of conventional wisdom. We’re in business to provide you with alternative thinking. There’s no profit to you in reading about a risk after it’s already cost you money, or in reading about a great investment opportunity after it’s already gone up.
So there’s no house view and there never will be. It’s every brain for himself. And that makes sense insofar as every brain is different. Your appetite for risk your investment goals, even your own cognitive biases – they’re all unique to you. You need to read the ideas, weigh the arguments, and then make a decision and own it.
If you want to be told what to think, then may I suggest a subscription to the Financial Times. Then you’ll know all the correct opinions and views to express in public. You’ll be popular and comfortable, and quite often, wrong. But at least you won’t have to think for yourself!