Advisor's Weigh In on Trump, Putin and - why not? - Comey too
We all have a right to comment on politics and politicians. It's a free country with - at least to some remaining degree - free speech a given right. And so financial advisors recently weighed in on the Trump-Putin summit, as well as the recently published screed by James Comey. Rather than focus on what - as you might expect - were two opposing views to both the summit and to Comey and his book, there's a lesson to be learned here.
First let's establish the fact that the comments I read were posted by individuals with whom I have some familiarity. When speaking of matters related to finance, the economy, investments, etc., these folks don't always agree, but they can state their views cogently and - in general - clearly. These are not your typical broker pseudo-advisors at one of the wire houses. Rather, they're relatively successful owners or principals at investment advisory firms. Some of them have published extensively in professional journals and trade publications. In other words, within the confines of their chosen professional discipline, they're not slouches.
But, of course, politics is not their chosen discipline. And so it came as no surprise that, despite their intellectual acumen, the vast majority of comments boiled down to exactly what you might expect from the average "Joe" commenting on politics and politicians.
For example, one fellow, a mathematician in background, also runs an investment business. He has published many interesting pieces dissecting the sort of frequently phony mathematics used by the Wall Street marketing machine to garner clients' assets. His wriitng provides good food for thought and he does a good job helping anyone with an interest understand why much of what passes as "fact" in Wall Street publications, even academic publications, can be nothing more than a lot of calculations designed to "prove" a foregone conclusion. This otherwise solid thinker tried to use Comey and his book as an example of "ethical" thinking and behavior that could serve as a standard for reforming the unethical, even corrupt practices of Wall Street. In doing so, he offers no proof or even a good reason that we should believe Comey to be ethical. Nor does he tell us why the book serves as a particularly authoritative, even a reasonably good source, to help us understand and emulate ethical thinking and behavior. From what I could see, it was just his opinion.
Opposing this fellow - in rather large numbers - were those who think Comey is, for want of a better term, a unethical, manipulative slimeball. Again their views boil down to nothing more than their opinion of the man. None of them seemed to know him personally, nor have any special insight or evidence that would back their assertions.
The same spectrum of opinion applied to the Trump-Putin summit. One advisor cites an article by George Will - who can't and never could stand Trump - as backing his assertion that Trump was trumped by Putin during the summit. Another simply cites the obvious fact that there are gobs of Trump haters who hurl vengeful and irrational charges against Trump as his reason for claiming Trump "did good" at the summit.
It's all just layers of "I think," "I feel," "My opinion is," etc., etc. No substance.
In the end, their views can, I think, legitimately be lumped in with those of celebrities who feel their opinions are worth more than the average Joe - simply, I suppose, because they're celebrities. Meryl Streep may be one of the finest actresses of the last half century, but just how that qualifies her to weigh in on global warming or Donald Trump escapes me.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying these people must be silenced, or that they have no "right" to their opinions. What I am saying, though, is that we who, for whatever reason, are exposed to those opinions should be smart enough to take them with not a grain, but an entire block of salt.
Seriously.
First let's establish the fact that the comments I read were posted by individuals with whom I have some familiarity. When speaking of matters related to finance, the economy, investments, etc., these folks don't always agree, but they can state their views cogently and - in general - clearly. These are not your typical broker pseudo-advisors at one of the wire houses. Rather, they're relatively successful owners or principals at investment advisory firms. Some of them have published extensively in professional journals and trade publications. In other words, within the confines of their chosen professional discipline, they're not slouches.
But, of course, politics is not their chosen discipline. And so it came as no surprise that, despite their intellectual acumen, the vast majority of comments boiled down to exactly what you might expect from the average "Joe" commenting on politics and politicians.
For example, one fellow, a mathematician in background, also runs an investment business. He has published many interesting pieces dissecting the sort of frequently phony mathematics used by the Wall Street marketing machine to garner clients' assets. His wriitng provides good food for thought and he does a good job helping anyone with an interest understand why much of what passes as "fact" in Wall Street publications, even academic publications, can be nothing more than a lot of calculations designed to "prove" a foregone conclusion. This otherwise solid thinker tried to use Comey and his book as an example of "ethical" thinking and behavior that could serve as a standard for reforming the unethical, even corrupt practices of Wall Street. In doing so, he offers no proof or even a good reason that we should believe Comey to be ethical. Nor does he tell us why the book serves as a particularly authoritative, even a reasonably good source, to help us understand and emulate ethical thinking and behavior. From what I could see, it was just his opinion.
Opposing this fellow - in rather large numbers - were those who think Comey is, for want of a better term, a unethical, manipulative slimeball. Again their views boil down to nothing more than their opinion of the man. None of them seemed to know him personally, nor have any special insight or evidence that would back their assertions.
The same spectrum of opinion applied to the Trump-Putin summit. One advisor cites an article by George Will - who can't and never could stand Trump - as backing his assertion that Trump was trumped by Putin during the summit. Another simply cites the obvious fact that there are gobs of Trump haters who hurl vengeful and irrational charges against Trump as his reason for claiming Trump "did good" at the summit.
It's all just layers of "I think," "I feel," "My opinion is," etc., etc. No substance.
In the end, their views can, I think, legitimately be lumped in with those of celebrities who feel their opinions are worth more than the average Joe - simply, I suppose, because they're celebrities. Meryl Streep may be one of the finest actresses of the last half century, but just how that qualifies her to weigh in on global warming or Donald Trump escapes me.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying these people must be silenced, or that they have no "right" to their opinions. What I am saying, though, is that we who, for whatever reason, are exposed to those opinions should be smart enough to take them with not a grain, but an entire block of salt.
Seriously.
Comments