Confessions Of A Pundit

NEWSWEEK

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

SPONSORED BY

Being wrong in the past is not much of a liability as long as one is right in the present. Known as Dr. Doom, Nouriel Roubini is nothing if not unequivocal in his views. His firm, RGE Monitor, has seen demand for its offerings soar after Roubini's predictions of plunging home prices and systemic collapse were vindicated. The ubiquitous Mark Zandi, who sold his consultancy to Moody's and now serves as their chief economist, has been a steady voice about the need for massive stimulus, and as the Obama administration has enacted much of what he has been recommending, that in turn has amplified demand for his input.

Such input can be quite lucrative. Financial-services analyst Meredith Whitney has graced magazine covers for her acerbic and blunt evisceration of the banks she has covered. Several weeks ago, she left her well-paid post at Oppenheimer to start her own economic consultancy, where she will charge many of her former employer's clients for her own unambiguous analysis.

There may be "experts" who knowingly skew their analysis to serve their own bottom line. But I believe they are rare. The issue is less the integrity of those selling their wares than the market forces that choose them. When times are good and people feel confident, experts who support that view find more traction—and more demand—than those who don't. When times turn troubled, as they most certainly are now, those whose perspective rhymes with the prevailing gloom appear wiser than those who do not.

Prominent experts, therefore, are often simply those whose voices are in harmony with today's mood and who have an easier time selling their stories. That doesn't mean that the analysis is inherently flawed—only that it is inherently market-driven. So the next time you hear from an "expert" on the market or the economy, bear in mind that at day's end, he or she is more Howard Schultz than Delphic oracle.

Karabell is president of River Twice Research.

I also think that some prominent economic experts only say what the public wants to hear, instead of giving an objective and detailed analysis of the facts and telling the truth about a certain situation. We saw in the past that experts, who should have seen the signs for the economic crisis, gave a lot of misinformation to the U.S. citizens about the country???s economy. So why do we listen to them? I read an interview in CEO Magazine with the economic oracle of the International Institute of Management, Med Yones, who foretold the economic crisis accurately in January 2007. The interview gives a detailed overview about the economic crisis by mentioning the causes, the impact of Obama???s policies on the economy, a best and worst case scenario, solutions and a future outlook. For more information, please take a look at

http://www.ceoqmagazine.com/2009Q1/economics/financialcrisis/index.htm

The article is an odd mix of expose (all experts have agendas), advice column (decisive pundits get hired), and apology (the rise of certain pundits is market driven). Karabell begins the article by describing the fickle, self-interest of financial analysis and ends it by telling not to worry - the market determines who we listen to. Is this supposed to make us feel better? Karabell ends the article telling us to question financial experts but his argument suggest that we should question the entire investment system.

1. He contradicts himself about experts skewing their opinions. First, he says that all analyst ???emphasis??? perceptions that fit their niche. He worked for a company that focused on growth markets, so he depicted a half -full picture. Pundits working for more bearish companies provide a half-empty image. Fair enough, except he also claims that pundits don???t ???skew their analysis to serve their own bottom line.??? Emphasizing sounds a lot like skewing to me. Karabell probably meant to say that most pundits don???t out right lie or purposely rig their options. But we can rest assured that they skew their opinions, for he already told us so. We don???t have to back pedal - they do it.
2. Karabell does not seem worried about disclosure either. Wouldn???t the public benefit from knowing professional stance of TV experts? Wouldn???t this information help us decipher their opinion? Isn???t this a very easy step that would help bring clarity and accuracy to professional economic reporting? Mr. Karabell evidently doesn???t think so, for his confessional article doesn???t even mention such simple adjustments.
3. The psychological basis of markets - the most important thing Karabell says is that investors choose experts based on how they are currently feeling. When investors feel confident, bullish experts become popular and when worried, bear experts reap the rewards. For all the fancy number talk and derivative parades, human emotion drives the market. Could we have a better indictment of our insane wealth transfer system? Again, Mr. Karabell must not agree for he tells us not to worry - the markets drive us. NO, NO, NO - our emotions drive the markets and that is what your agruement suggets.

Karabell pulls a fast one on us but telling us a bit of truth but then pretends that it doesn???t really matter. Human emotion and self interest drive our financial markets - take it from him, even as he refuses to admit what he said.

The questions is do we really want to continue handing over so much our national sovereignty to these small group of greedy, emotional men?

I don???t.

www.theysaynothing.com

Member Comments

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: JonasBank @ 03/30/2009 5:52:55 PM

I also think that some prominent economic experts only say what the public wants to hear, instead of giving an objective and detailed analysis of the facts and telling the truth about a certain situation. We saw in the past that experts, who should have seen the signs for the economic crisis, gave a lot of misinformation to the U.S. citizens about the country???s economy. So why do we listen to them? I read an interview in CEO Magazine with the economic oracle of the International Institute of Management, Med Yones, who foretold the economic crisis accurately in January 2007. The interview gives a detailed overview about the economic crisis by mentioning the causes, the impact of Obama???s policies on the economy, a best and worst case scenario, solutions and a future outlook. For more information, please take a look at

http://www.ceoqmagazine.com/2009Q1/economics/financialcrisis/index.htm
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: bullyboy @ 03/12/2009 10:47:56 PM

Succinct, logical, reasonable and historically accurate. Well done.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: TheySayNothing @ 03/04/2009 3:32:53 PM

The article is an odd mix of expose (all experts have agendas), advice column (decisive pundits get hired), and apology (the rise of certain pundits is market driven). Karabell begins the article by describing the fickle, self-interest of financial analysis and ends it by telling not to worry - the market determines who we listen to. Is this supposed to make us feel better? Karabell ends the article telling us to question financial experts but his argument suggest that we should question the entire investment system.

1. He contradicts himself about experts skewing their opinions. First, he says that all analyst ???emphasis??? perceptions that fit their niche. He worked for a company that focused on growth markets, so he depicted a half -full picture. Pundits working for more bearish companies provide a half-empty image. Fair enough, except he also claims that pundits don???t ???skew their analysis to serve their own bottom line.??? Emphasizing sounds a lot like skewing to me. Karabell probably meant to say that most pundits don???t out right lie or purposely rig their options. But we can rest assured that they skew their opinions, for he already told us so. We don???t have to back pedal - they do it.
2. Karabell does not seem worried about disclosure either. Wouldn???t the public benefit from knowing professional stance of TV experts? Wouldn???t this information help us decipher their opinion? Isn???t this a very easy step that would help bring clarity and accuracy to professional economic reporting? Mr. Karabell evidently doesn???t think so, for his confessional article doesn???t even mention such simple adjustments.
3. The psychological basis of markets - the most important thing Karabell says is that investors choose experts based on how they are currently feeling. When investors feel confident, bullish experts become popular and when worried, bear experts reap the rewards. For all the fancy number talk and derivative parades, human emotion drives the market. Could we have a better indictment of our insane wealth transfer system? Again, Mr. Karabell must not agree for he tells us not to worry - the markets drive us. NO, NO, NO - our emotions drive the markets and that is what your agruement suggets.

Karabell pulls a fast one on us but telling us a bit of truth but then pretends that it doesn???t really matter. Human emotion and self interest drive our financial markets - take it from him, even as he refuses to admit what he said.

The questions is do we really want to continue handing over so much our national sovereignty to these small group of greedy, emotional men?

I don???t.

www.theysaynothing.com