Sunil:
Thank you!

Kirk:
Regarding the titles of a person, and their reliability as a source of information. Let me address this in two ways:

1) Yes, you're right, a person in authority is not always correct. This is why an "appeal to authority" does not have the final say in a logical argument.
2) On the other hand, a person's title IS relevant if they are commenting about something within their circle of competence. Warren Buffett can speak with authority about value investing, for example. I'm not saying he is perfect, but I give his opinion on this topic greater weight than most other opinions.

What about when a person's title or experience does NOT qualify them to speak with authority? This came up in a prior article when a reader asked about Vanessa Otero. The person said that she did not have experience in media or journalism.

Why did I cite Otero's work? I valued her opinion because I could objectively see her process and methodology, and her conclusions seem quite logical. So sometimes, if a news source is diligent and well documented, we do not need to rely on their title or experience. Here is a link to the question and my response:

https://blogs.stage.cfainstitute.org/investor/2019/07/22/how-to-read-fi…

Mike:

Good point.

Trading costs are near zero and data is expanding towards infinity. (Note: Transaction costs may be zero, but there is still the bid/ask spread and market impact.)

But you point out the more relevant problem: Our forecasts have not improved. This is especially true in capital markets, where greater data has not led to better forecasts or superior alpha. That's because transparency and efficiency have risen, and market prices rapidly reflect news. (I believe in semi-strong market efficiency as described by Eugene Fama. Most of the time, anyway...)

Even worse, our CONFIDENCE rises without bound! We have all of this data so we must be smart! Yup, that describes all of us, I'm afraid.

Our pride can't be eliminated, but it CAN be mitigated.

Thank you!
Rob