why writers rarely check facts -golden butterfly (investment, work, crisis)

[mathjak107]

i happen to find a very detailed review of the golden butterfly on line

https://www.quantifiedstrategies.com...fly-portfolio/

boy the inaccuracies are crazy …

20% commodities? not in the butterfly , it holds 20% gold only …where did they get 20% in gold or 10% in gold and 10% commodities?

commodities has never been part of it .


first it it says it is a misconception the portfolio is diversified ..

then it goes on to say


Expert Insights and Analysis of Golden Butterfly Portfolio

The Golden Butterfly Portfolio is a well-diversified investment strategy that seeks to balance risk and return by allocating assets across multiple asset classes. It is a suitable option for risk-averse investors who are looking for steady, long-term growth.


then it talks about the history of it .

The History and Evolution of Golden Butterfly Portfolio

The Golden Butterfly Portfolio is a relatively new investment strategy, having only gained popularity in the past decade. It was developed as a response to the financial crisis of 2008, as investors were seeking a more diversified and balanced portfolio that could weather economic uncertainty.


i just spoke to tyler the creator of the golden butterfly in the last hour ,and he never saw this site before ..

tyler said the portfolio wasn’t even a thought in 2008 …..

the first time he even started work on it was 2015 and it had nothing to do with 2008.

so once again the financial press is clueless and just writes whether it’s true or not….. they could easily have verified their facts but they chose to just write and put misinformation out there

[ChessieMom]

Originally Posted by mathjak107

they could easily have verified their facts but they chose to just write and put misinformation out there

Unfortunately that can be said for the media in general, these days.

[mathjak107]

eaxactly .

most articles are nothing more then click bait

[Wile E. Coyote]

I think maybe Reuters is still a reliable source. Everything else is reader beware.

A guy I follow on YouTube had the Washington Post send him email and an article that was about him. They said they wanted his comment. But, then, only moments later they published the article (before even having time to read what he responded to them).

I have a feeling they are just churning out articles mindlessly almost. I see a lot of recycled articles. I also see a lot of undated articles (because they do recycle so much they don't even always date things).

[mathjak107]

it looked like a good site i stumbled upon at first .

but after those blatant mistakes , not so much

[moguldreamer]

Originally Posted by mathjak107

eaxactly .

most articles are nothing more then click bait

This one is extremely egregious.

Most articles are written by young lit major journalists living in Mom's basement who can't remember 9/11 who lack more than basic financial sophistication.

This one is worse because the entity purports to be a financially sophisticated entity selling financial services to the public.


This is one reason I prefer to read articles published in peer-reviewed scholarly academic journals.

[treasurekidd]

Originally Posted by moguldreamer

This one is extremely egregious.

Most articles are written by young lit major journalists who can't remember 9/11 who lack any semblance of financial sophistication.

This one is worse because the entity purports to be a financially sophisticated entity.

Just wait until they start churning out AI generated articles. Ugh.

[kmrlongisland]

Originally Posted by Wile E. Coyote

I think maybe Reuters is still a reliable source. Everything else is reader beware.
.

Reuters is part and parcel of the MSM democratic machine. Reuters were all in on Russia collusion, the Ukraine call and now Braggs possible indictment. In none of those stories did they ever have a voice disputing the main MSM narrative. If you need further proof of their obvious bias read their reports on the Nashville shooting. What possibly pertinent facts are left out of the story? It's not what Reuters reports it's what they don't report.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Originally Posted by kmrlongisland

Reuters is part and parcel of the MSM democratic machine. Reuters were all in on Russia collusion, the Ukraine call and now Braggs possible indictment. In none of those stories did they ever have a voice disputing the main MSM narrative. If you need further proof of their obvious bias read their reports on the Nashville shooting. What possibly pertinent facts are left out of the story? It's not what Reuters reports it's what they don't report.

I have done zero research on the subject. It's a subjective feeling based on articles I have read from them over the years. I am not subscribed to anything.

I would argue that being able to rely on what they are reporting (the words on the paper) is kind of rare these days. I have no idea what you are referring to otherwise because I do not follow much.

[FrannyBear]

Originally Posted by kmrlongisland

Reuters is part and parcel of the MSM democratic machine. Reuters were all in on Russia collusion, the Ukraine call and now Braggs possible indictment. In none of those stories did they ever have a voice disputing the main MSM narrative. If you need further proof of their obvious bias read their reports on the Nashville shooting. What possibly pertinent facts are left out of the story? It's not what Reuters reports it's what they don't report.

Your last line says it all -- the media just IGNORES anything that doesn't fit their narrative. There is no true journalism anymore. I find it absolutely frightening and very depressing. Most see no problem with that type of "reporting" as it is already their mindset. Financial "reporting" follows that same formula.