SA Editor George Moriarty

Long-term horizon, etf investing
SA Editor George Moriarty
Long-term horizon, ETF investing
Contributor since: 2012
Good morning.
Due to the discovery of this violation of our contributor policies, we will no longer be publishing articles by this contributor, Kanak Kanti De, and we have canceled his Marketplace services, effective immediately.
Thanks,
GBM
This is not the forum for concerns about a single article. If you have concerns about an article's accuracy or facts, please feel free to review our dispute policy (http://bit.ly/pL5gZ6) and submit a dispute to our team.
Thanks,
GBM
Thanks for the comment. I will bring your concerns to the moderation team's attention.
We do have an active moderation team that works to maintain civil discourse on the site. I would refer you to this link for our moderation policies - http://bit.ly/S99OoL - and ask that if you feel there are further issues to discuss, feel free to contact me directly.
Thanks,
GBM
The Yellen test is fun. Just asked four adults and two high school students. The closest answer I got was the high school senior with "It's an older lady..."
Does speak to so much about the market.
Thanks,
GBM
Thank you Thomas.
Folks, while we strive to steer clear of politics on Seeking Alpha due to the quick and frequent descent into ad hominem rather than productive argument, we felt this analysis of the markets and their impact on elections is relevant to investors. Our hope is that you will enjoy the analysis and focus the discussion on that. Thanks, GBM
Having had the opportunity to watch Seeking Alpha from the outside and inside, I can only say thank you David. You laid the foundation of a service that has wholly disrupted the investment content landscape, and have inspired many to step into the fray. I'm excited and proud to be part of the team carrying your vision onward. On a personal level, I can honestly say I've benefited from every interaction, and I wish you all the best. "May the best day of your past be the worst day of your future"
David, one of the reasons I wanted to post this was to get comments from people on the very real signal-to-noise challenge faced by companies like Twitter and, as you note, SA.
On Facebook, you're almost forced to curate your newsfeed by the two-sided 'friend' process, where Twitter follows are one-sided. This enables a higher signal rate, I think, because both parties are engaged (at least nominally). Yet even the most cautious Twitter curator can find themselves overwhelmed by one person they follow applying the engagement tricks you mention above.
So my question is, how can a user more successfully curate their feed on sites that have one-sided engagement practices? And how can these sites support the effort?
Sharing this with my staff, who all work remotely. Great stuff, and thanks.
GBM
Nice recap Brian. On the face of it, I definitely agree this deal would seem a reasonable fit for IBM. One question: Dan Primack at Fortune notes that IBM only has $8.8 billion in cash on hand, so he isn't sure they're likely in a deal that will be around $50B. What weight do you put on that, and how they might be able to structure the deal?
Whitney Tilson issued a correction to this article late this afternoon. Please see the top of the article for his complete explanation and a note on what has been changed.
Hi Benni,
If you'd like to discuss specific issues/concerns, or simply get started, feel free to shoot me a note and I'll be happy to get you on board. As Eli noted above, we always want more contributors.
Thanks,
GBM
Larry,
Emails are often used as supporting points in articles, and as he didn't give away any personal information, I don't see it as being inappropriate. It's rather common practice.
Thanks,
GBM
Hi all,
Thank you for commenting on this. A few editors discussed this article when it was submitted and we decided that Robert had a creative take on crowdsourcing, so we went ahead and published it.
As so many of our authors comment on the incredible value our readers provide, I personally thought this was a unique and worthwhile effort from an established contributor. Now does that mean I'm right? Nope, but I will learn from the comments you all leave.
Please continue to share your thoughts on this article, and as Larry notes, let me know when you disagree with any decision (letting me know when you agree is cool too) and we'll all get better together.
Thanks,
GBM
Stay tuned. We have outlooks on energy coming from two of our stars in the sector.
Thanks,
GBM
The intent was not to add controversy, it was to clarify, and the miss on that intent is why it's our policy not to change titles without consultation. So to answer your question, we aren't in the business of clickbait titles, but instead our policy is to publish titles that accurately represent the analysis.
Thanks,
GBM
Due to an editorial error, the initial title was posted without the author's approval. Because this varies from our process, at the author's request, we reset the title to his original. We apologize for the confusion on this matter.
Thanks,
GBM
For clarity, I should note that there was not sufficient evidence provided in any of these cases for us to remove the articles.
If there are material inaccuracies unearthed in any dispute, on this or any other topic, our process is that we do remove articles and leave a note to readers telling them the article is no longer available do to an error of fact.
Thanks,
GBM
Hi, I just wanted to weigh in here quickly.
Energy Trader, you're right, we did receive and review the disputes you have filed on several bearish articles on EXAS, going back to July 2013, and I have reviewed them again tonight. At the time of these disputes, we reviewed the information provided and addressed them promptly, and shared our findings with you.
As per our dispute policy [seekingalpha.com/page... we did in fact offer you the opportunity to prepare a rebuttal, as robust discussion of both sides is SA at its best.
In fact, allow me to invite you to share your thoughts on EXAS again. Given the success the company has enjoyed recently, and your long history with the company and the current management, we'd be more than happy to publish your insights as to what might lie ahead.
Finally, I did receive your most recent dispute today, and I will address that this evening.
Thanks,
GBM
Rich,
This is an inherent challenge, and one we keep trying to get right. The really good writers are able to balance their argument clearly. The challenge we encounter is that instilling the risk to the thesis has to mean something. On a short article, the risks are generally pretty clear. IE, if the author is wrong about the catalysts, the stock is going to go higher. It's harder than it seems on long articles to similarly show that risk. If someone has the conviction of their analysis, they often legitimately struggle to articulate that risk without reciting a standard-sounding boilerplate.
In sum, this is something we struggle with in editorial, finding the right balance, and if you have suggestions on what would meet your described expectation, I'd love to hear it either here or via DM. I'm the first to admit we're not perfect, but some of our best innovations have been the product of community discussion like this, so please keep in touch.
Thanks,
GBM
Ryandan and CWMF (if I may abbreviate),
You touch on an issue here that Critical Investor has mentioned above too, in that the editors have to police a broad swath of coverage. We have a fairly large team of editors reviewing submissions, and I think this is a good time to share that we have systems in place to prevent and identify spam, or topic trolling. I'll spare you the details, but every editor has immediate access to the pertinent details of a writer's history. Also we have introduced dedicated editors to four primary topic areas -- biotech, tech, dividends & income and ETFs & Financials -- and as Critical Investor notes, that has been a boon to these areas and prevented abuse.
However, the balance here is when someone is expert on a topic. We never want to prevent them from sharing their insights. Many times, readers that don't like the angle taken see this as abusive, but from our perspective, someone that has a unique level of expertise should be able to share it, and then defend it against our very active community of commenters. You all suss out pretenders very effectively, and we are able to track that too.
Thanks,
GBM
Thanks Chris!
Larry, I'll take that under consideration, as you do raise a good point.
Thanks,
GBM
Hi Rich,
Just one point of clarity here on our recruitment policies. We've encouraged people to submit articles on topics of interest, but we haven't ever accepted all articles. We do our best to maintain the best level of conversation we can on the site, and to present all sides of the conversation.
Thanks,
GBM
Hi, We have two options for you there. The first is that you can maintain your portfolio, and receive real-time alerts on all your stocks from there. And we recently introduced author alerts, where you can subscribe to receive alerts from some of your favorite writers.
Thanks,
GBM
Due to an editorial error at Seeking Alpha the disclosure was not included at the time of publication. The disclosure has now been added.
The timing has been clarified.
You're very welcome.
My pleasure.
Thanks Kyle, I saw that, nice piece.
Hi CassandraSees,
In fact, we just had a contributor identify a promotion that had gotten through the filter and were able to address it. Many of you have said kind things about us, allow me to take a moment to say how fantastic our readers are in supporting us. Thank you all.
GBM
Microman,
Thanks for the comment and giving me the chance to reinforce that we are NOT abandoning coverage of micro-cap stocks.
We will continue to welcome deep, focused coverage of these companies. Just today we have published focus articles on CLSN by Quoth The Raven, who has done great work on this name all year, WIRX by David Pinsen and Michael Goode alerted readers to a potential risk in XUII.OB.
We are working hard to stop what I think of as endorsement by association, where a questionable stock gets grouped with a larger, potentially more legitimate name and is given the same credibility.
You're not the first person to misunderstand the intention of my note, and even editors need editors, so can you share an idea on how I can make that very clear?
Thanks,
GBM