Tough editing

As you know I do an econ stats, occasional stock tip, thing for an American site. Last November I tipped Ocado. Moving from grocer to grocery tech supplier, gold rush the money’s in shovels, rerating possible. Currently showing a 148% profit that tip. So, I partly preen, a normal sorta thing in such columns, and suggest taking profits as I’ve no new information about what happens next.

The piece is rejected for being “superficial”.

That’s tough editing.

9 thoughts on “Tough editing”

  1. Sounds the editing’s “superficial”. It’s the other half & as important part of stock-tipping. When to cash in. Or were you demonstrating the reverse of the sunk cost fallacy? Is Ocado overpriced at this level? Not a price to buy in at as an investment? What’s changed? An INWTTAP recommendation is only of interest to those bought on the tip. . But the bulk of the readership didn’t

  2. I guess being straightforwardly honest about the no new information was a trigger for the editor. In fact it’s sensible phrasing.

  3. So Much For Subtlety

    The site probably gets a kick back of one sort or another when you recommend buying. Recommending selling is fine, I guess, but you need to tell them to buy something else.

  4. Obviously Seeking Alpha pays by the word because there’s a lot of waffling and repetition there. However, plaudits earned for a very perceptive stock tip that has realised the upside potential that you saw immediately.

  5. Strangely, they don’t pay by the word but by the piece. But they do insist on lots of words so that they feel like they’re gaining their money’s worth. Not that it’s a lot per piece but a bit per day does add up over a month…..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *