Friday, June 12, 2009
The Truth About Adam Feuerstein
In a moment of boredom I came across the latest release of 'the Street.com's Biotech Mailbag,' a biotech column where readers interact with the host, Adam Feuerstein, by sending in questions about biotech stocks which Feuerstein answers in the form of his column.
I used to follow the mailbag every week, just as I used to watch Jim Cramer's CNBC show 'Mad Money', but it didn't take me long to realize that both Cramer and Feuerstein had their own agenda- and looking out for the little guy wasn't part of it.
Cramer is great at explaining the intricacies of the market in his
books, but his TV show has become a platform for lunacy and his "BUY BUY BUY" rating on a stock is usually the curse of death for that particular stock.
Likewise, Feuerstein has been dead wrong more often than not (although I haven't been keeping up with his column, so his record for being right may have improved) and he has cost the small investor big gains because of his failure to even remotely entertain an opposing view to his. He reminds me quite a bit of Keith Olbermann- someone who likes to hear himself talk, but fails to recognize that there is an opposing opinion to his.
When investing in biotech, it's best to look at both sides of the story and place your buy/sell orders accordingly. However, taking a small amount of money and, after some Due Diligence, placing it on a long shot that has a chance, as Dendreon (DNDN) did (twice), an investor has the chance at realizing substantial gains.
Feuerstein misses that point and instead of advising investors to do their own Due Diligence, he'd rather them just read his column and take his opinion as the holy grail. That's not looking out for the little guy, and I'm sure glad that I did not heed his advice when I, as a small investor just getting started in the biotech market, would have missed the boat on quite a few stocks that have realized substantial gains after he wrote them off.
What's comical about his latest column is that when asked about his constant sceptical opinions, he writes:
I do love a good bear story, I must admit. Journalists are natural-born skeptics, and the high yuck factor in biotech only exacerbates the condition.
So he's a journalist now- he says so himself.
The problem with 'journalism' today is that the so-called journalists have forgotten that it's not all about them- it's about the audience. The journalist is supposed to report the facts and the let the audience base an opinion off of those facts. An accompanying commentary isn't a bad thing, but both sides of the story need to be entertained.
Feuerstein, like NBC, doesn't get this; They think it's all about them. Rather than giving an unbiased report on a stock or news item, the likes of Feuerstein and Keith Olbermann (we'll use him as an example to represent NBC), would rather tell the audience what to think than to feed them enough information to come up with an opinion of their own.
In the investing world, an investor can ill afford this and the time spent reading a Feuerstein column would be better spent researching the market or looking for a better source of unbiased information.
Someone who reports opinion over fact, is far from a journalist, especially one that is a self-proclaimed skeptic that likes a 'good bear story'. That means that he is more likely than not to take a possibly good bull story and swing it into a bear story to suit his own satisfaction- and that can cost potential investors a lot of money.
Investors, do your own Due Diligence. That's the name of the game. Period.
http://vfcsstockhouse.blogspot.com/2009/06/truth-about-adam-feuerstein.html
