Colin Lokey

Director, contributor success
Colin Lokey
Director, Contributor Success
Contributor since: 2011
Company: Classmate
Ok great. Thanks. Hopefully SA will make the correction as well.
And readers will thank you too.
So let that serve as a cautionary tale for those who trust the "CFA" distinction and other various labels.
When in doubt, see what the Street says (because their notes are at least vetted by compliance) and then take that with 10,000 grains of salt because the sellside penguin brigade is always operating with a bias.
That's the process. Believe nothing, see what the Street has to say, adjust their view for the likelihood that they're talking their book, and go from there.
You're welcome.
The article is factually inaccurate and needs to be corrected. Period.
You're dodging the issue.
This statement in the article: "It is clear that China and Russia have been selling Treasuries in an effort to weaken their own currencies" is patently false.
It should be corrected because it's factually inaccurate.
China has spent $150 billion in the space of 45 days to SUPPORT the yuan by SELLING TREASURYS. The exact opposite of what you said.
Yes, in the long-run, you're looking at around 108 bps of upward pressure on the 10Y for every $500 billion in EM FX reserve drawdowns.
But I'm not sure what this means: "I was not clear on the longer term impact of UST selling by emerging economies."
It's not a matter or short term or long term. What's clear is that you said something that didn't make any sense. When EMs liquidate FX reserves, they are supporting their currencies. That's a fact. It's the reason AsiaPac built up their reserves in the wake of the Asian Financial Crisis. It's not a long-term vs. short-term thing. If my currency is falling vs. USD, I liquidate my FX reserves to offset the pressure. That's the way it is. Your statement reflects a blatant misunderstanding of how this works.
This isn't speculation, or interpretation, this is fact.
The massive FX reserve drawdown in China is a direct result of Beijing's desperate effort to stabilize the yuan in the wake of the devaluation.
This is hugely important when it comes to understanding global finance. China has spent nearly $150 billion propping up the yuan since the August 11 deval.
A failure to understand this is an admission of a complete misunderstanding of modern global finance.
"It is clear that China and Russia have been selling Treasuries in an effort to weaken their own currencies."
No, China is selling USTs to support its currency.
When a foreign central bank sells USD-denominated assets, it's doing so in an attempt to prop up its currency in the face of devaluation pressure.
And that is indeed the problem. As EM liquidates USTs, it offsets DM QE, meaning that when the Fed hikes, it does so into an environment of already tighter global liquidity.
Thank you for this feedback. I've sent you an e-mail.
We have 24-7 moderation and I'm confident we do better here than any other site on the web. Our community does an admirable job of reporting abusive comments and we greatly appreciate that. Moderation will never be perfect, but I think we do a pretty good job. I'm happy to hear your thoughts on how we can improve.
Hi David,
Users/ contributors cannot delete article comments. Only our moderators can remove comments.
Today, we're pleased to welcome Jim Grant to Seeking Alpha
Hi Esekla,
"Money beyond normal article compensation for any of the more well known names?"
By popular demand:
Please understand that we receive over 5,400 comments on Seeking Alpha each day (!). As such, it's impossible for us to monitor each and every comment that comes in. We depend, to a certain extent, on users to report abuse when they see it. Once we identify a particular comment thread where the discussion has devolved into personal attacks, we can then monitor that thread for repeated abuse. We appreciate your help in our efforts to keep the discussion civil. Also, feel free to reach out to me directly with any questions or concerns about moderation.
I would remind everyone that we have a disputes team (of which I am a part) that is available 24-hours/day, 7 days/week. If there are factual errors in an article, we are happy to review them immediately and we will address as necessary. We're proud of the fact that we provide a forum whereby both the bulls and the bears can express their opinions. It takes two sides to make a market. In my experience, traders' convictions are made stronger when they have considered both sides of the argument. If you're truly interested in having an informed opinion about your position, you must first be willing to seriously consider the strongest form of the opposing viewpoint.
Monkey see, Larry, et al.
It is categorically untrue that we do not notify users whose comments have been deleted.
If your comments have been removed we have sent you an e-mail 99.9% of the time. I am happy to resend written documentation of the time, date, and reason for any removals to anyone who perhaps did not receive our initial e-mail. Please e-mail or call me directly so that I can provide this information.
Hi Larry, et al.
Generally speaking, we do not allow community members to use comment threads to promote their paid services or products. There are exceptions to this, including instances wherein a user links to an article which is relevant to the investment idea under discussion, but the article happens to be posted on a site which offers paid services. Assuming, again, that the link is to pertinent information, we would be doing a disservice to readers were we to delete those links.
We are far more lenient on links to paid content within users' StockTalks. We try to leave it up to users as to what they post on their StockTalks as long as the commentary isn't blatantly offensive or so far off-topic (the topic being, of course, investing) as to be completely irrelevant to our audience.
I would also reiterate here what I noted elsewhere in this thread. Some parts of the moderation process are rule-based, and as such can be characterized as somewhat of a "science". Other parts of moderation require a more qualitative, subjective approach and are thus more of an "art". The latter characterization is applicable to our treatment of links to paid sites in StockTalks.
Great question, by the way!
Hi Value Horizon,
This is a mischaracterization of our editorial staff. We do indeed evaluate articles based on content, presentation, etc. I'm happy to discuss this in more detail if you'd like to contact me directly. My contact info is on my profile.
Hi Larry,
We try to strike a reasonable balance here. If a user (any user, it need not be a contributor) posts a link to his or her paid service and that link goes to an article, chart, table, etc. that is relevant to the article on which the comment was posted, we'll generally allow it to stand (for example if the link goes to a free article on the user's site and at the bottom of that article there's a signup option). Conversely, if the link goes to something that's entirely unrelated to the topic under discussion and is thus simply a blatant attempt to solicit business, we will generally remove the link from the comment. I would also note that we are far more lenient on this with StockTalks. While hard and fast rules are important, part of moderation is an art not a science and I try to ensure the team is evaluating each report on its own merits while still preserving the spirit of our community guidelines and our site TOU.
Hi Critical Investor,
"Having sound but disagreeing comments removed has everything to do with the status of the author > lots of followers, PVs."
This is not true at all -- or at least it hasn't been on my watch. The "status" of the author has absolutely nothing to do with how we treat abuse reports.
We send an e-mail on nearly every single comment deletion. Exceptions to this are exceptionally rare (I would estimate less than one or two instances in several thousand).
Hi Nate,
The bar for deleting comments is quite high and in fact, it is around 3 times higher than it was 6 months ago. I'm happy to elaborate on this further if you'd like to contact me directly.
Our moderation team is completely independent and is beholden only to our community guidelines and our Terms Of Use. Decisions are based on whether comments violate those guidelines and terms and nothing else. I can assure you that the team's decisions are unbiased. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please contact me directly. My contact information is on my profile.
I would add that allowing authors to maintain their pseudonymity ensures that Seeking Alpha will continue to be a platform where readers can get both sides of the story. A contributor who wants to voice legitimate concerns about a company may be discouraged from doing so if forced to reveal his or her real identity to the public. Fear of reprisal can exert a "chilling" effect on the dissemination of information that is useful to the investing public. By protecting authors' right to use a pen name, we effectively create an environment where the bulls and the bears feel equally at home discussing their ideas.
Hi everyone,
Eli is correct. We have dramatically decreased the proportion of reported comments that are deleted. I'm going to speak frankly because I think it's an important point. The numbers don't lie. We are deleting around 3 times fewer abuse reports than we were six months ago. This is not an anomaly based on a few observations -- the sample size on this is around 650/day. As such, it is indisputable that we are doing a far better job of preserving free and open debate. Thank you all for your participation.
Hi blueice, wyostocks, DividendInvestor, and the whole SA community,
First, I want to apologize if our moderation policy comes across as arbitrary or inconsistent at times. To the extent it does appear inconsistent, I would note that there are more than 4,000 comments posted everyday on Seeking Alpha (how awesome is that?!) and it is impossible for the moderation team to monitor every comment thread. We depend, to a certain extent, on the community to report abuse when they see it (crowdsourcing in action) and because of this, there will be times when the comments deleted on a particular thread are not in fact the most abusive comments in that thread. We do try to mitigate this by reviewing certain threads in their entirety, but given the sheer volume of comments left on the site, reviewing each and every comment is not possible.
While I do not want to speak to individual comments here, I would say that two things we are particularly keen on addressing are comments which constitute allegations of bad faith against others and comments which do not add anything to the discussion.
Finally, I want to make it clear that the threshold for having comments removed by our moderation team has never been higher (I watch the statistics on this each and every day). Without getting into specifics, the numbers overwhelmingly show that we have made great strides lately in the extent to which our moderation team defends the rights of readers to engage in free and open debate.
Please note that I am always available to discuss moderation questions or concerns. If you feel you have had a comment deleted unjustly by our moderation team, I am an e-mail or a phone call away. My contact information is on my profile and I'm always available to talk with members of our community.
Although we do monitor comment threads, we depend, to a certain extent, on the community to report abuse. There are over 4,000 comments posted per day on Seeking Alpha (which is awesome, by the way). We cannot read each and every one. The beauty of the system (crowdsourcing wins again) is that between our 3.4 million users, someone does read the majority of the comments and when they see abuse, they typically report it which is what makes the system work.
Hi NC Investor,
We have 24-hour comment moderation and a member of our moderation team reviews each and every comment that is reported to us as abusive. However, we do not delete every comment that is reported as abusive, but only those that expressly violate our community guidelines. Admittedly, the threshold here is high, as our first priority is to preserve free and open debate as long as it is conducted constructively and with an eye towards civility.
Part of what makes Seeking Alpha great is that we provide a forum for users to engage in serious, impassioned debate and we are focused on protecting that. A recent academic study confirmed the predictive value of Seeking Alpha comments which disagreed with the investment thesis presented in articles -- protecting users' right to refute others' analysis is thus critical to preserving the value of the platform for readers.
All of that said, we do ban commenters on occasion and we do send warnings prior to such bans. We also have various internal systems to detect new accounts that have been created by previously banned users. Also, we are discussing ways to improve the comment threads on the site and an "Ignore" button has been mentioned in these discussions.
Please don't hesitate to report abuse when you see it and know that someone looks at all of these reports. If you have any questions or concerns about our policies or decisions, please don't hesitate to reach out:
David Siegel did a fantastic job on Bloomberg TV.
Although we welcome and encourage constructive debate, we should all remember that what makes Seeking Alpha such a wonderful platform is that everyone is encouraged to share their opinions. No one wins if contributors are discouraged from discussing their ideas.
If you believe there is misinformation, we encourage you to write an article and share your insights with the SA community.
I think very few investors have any kind of visibility into this space. One of the great things about this article, for me anyway, was that it better prepared me to read and understand their other articles.