This isn’t the kind of financial journalism i expect from nytimes. Today, they have an article titled “Conventional Wisdom, Foiled Again“. The article refers to a study conducted by a couple of professors who find that those stocks which have been dropped from Russel 2000 index tend to perform better then their replacement over a period of time.
While the article has enough “ifs and buts” to cover itself, it does not make good financial journalism at all. First of all, the title conventional wisdom, foiled again is mis-leading. Unless you are a stock market trader, an analysis of stock market technicals does not help an average person. In that sense, this article does not have a place in nytimes. Over and above that, the article does not mention any thing about real conventional wisdom, from the likes of Benjamin Graham, which is, if you look deep enough into any set of statistics you will find a random pattern. Most importantly, the article does not take a critical look at the possible causes of the pattern, nor does it evaluate the effects of trading volume, financial results of the company or sectoral performance.
This would have been a mis-judgement on the part of an incompetent editor, if it were not the kind of article that may incite an average person to get into stocks dropped from Russel 2000. As it stands it borders on being irresponsible.
A place with a view 