Posted on 03/13/2023 9:42:26 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
I am not a major consumer of financial news. I have a sense of how the economy works, in broad strokes, but as for the specifics of how particular sectors of the economy are doing at any one time, and what is happening at individual companies, I just am not up to speed.
In general, I rely, as most people do, on the reporting we get from the media. How else are average people supposed to get information? Pour through the financials of corporations and try to put together a patched-together picture of the whole? Not going to happen.
I let others manage my meager investments, and they are in relatively safe and unimpressive mutual funds.
Still, I like to get broad strokes, and I often have read articles in Forbes, as have many of you. Forbes’ batting average every since a Chinese firm bought a majority interest in the enterprise has been particularly awful, hyping firms which turn out to be frauds.
— Freezing Cold Finance Takes (@FreezingFinTake) March 13, 2023
I admit that I haven’t done a deep dive into the complete landscape of financial news, and other publications have similarly awful track records (Sam Bankman-Fried and Elizabeth Holmes were everybody’s favorites, but the New York Times is hardly as relied upon for financial coverage as Forbes). Perhaps nobody is any good at covering business.
But Forbes’ failures are striking, not only missing big stories that could have avoided disasters but doing the opposite: helping fuel hype that ultimately made the inevitable downfall of bad companies much worse.
Forbes is known for its commitment to capitalism–a commitment that I share. But the foundation upon which capitalism is built is not the free flow of money, but the trust in the institutions that allow people to make smart decisions regarding how the free flow of money takes place.
Money itself is built on that trust, and investments of that money take place in a murky world of limited information. Investors rely upon analysts (almost none of whom advised getting out of SVB while you could) and the financial press to make decisions.
SVB was an All-Star, alright, but not in the way that Forbes implied. Weeks after being named an all-star it became the star of a very bad show indeed, becoming the second-largest bank collapse in history.
Predicting bank runs is a fool’s errand since they depend upon unpredictable psychology, and any prediction of a bank run becomes self-fulfilling, making doing so irresponsible.
But SVB’s troubles were caused by an underlying weakness that a financial magazine is particularly well-placed to discover. By falsely reporting what is manifestly not true–that SVB was a particularly strong bank–Forbes participated in misleading investors who were at great risk.
SVB’s stock value when Forbes made its endorsement of its particular virtues as a bank was $310/share. They are now worth effectively zero.
Two things, in particular, stand out about SVB: its concentration in a volatile industry–startups–that is highly dependent upon a roaring economy, and its wokeness. Neither recommended the bank as a sound investment. Add to that the fact that Cramer promoted it and you knew it was in trouble.
One of Forbes’ Board members lamented after the collapse of the bank that the Left was losing one of its greatest allies, which strikes me as a rather weird take given the scale of the disaster. Was the new commitment of Forbes’ Board to woke ideology related to its judgment that SVB was a particularly great bank? I don’t know, but I have my suspicions.
SVB was very woke, and a Forbes Board member seems more concerned about the Left losing access to capital and power than the collapse of the bank itself.
The focus on ESG and woke politics is a threat to capitalism, and it is scary to see a magazine as prominent as Forbes apparently fall under its spell.
Next up: NATO engages Russians forces openly
Then, the fun really begins...
Maybe this:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/13/politics/hunter-biden-associates-bank-records-subpoena/index.html
The treasury secretary was in Ukraine, the bank’s leadership has been accused of selling bank stock.
And the fed is telling states they must urgently adopt their new rules including the digital money monopoly.
So the fed can use this crisis to get their final chess moves in place.
They are openly telling you they must be able to stop the flow of money at will and according to their agenda.
They have turned into Woke POS, and maybe even slaves of China, like Business Insider.
Not too many years ago, I would have asked, “How much of Forbes ad content is consumed by SVB”?
Now I ask, “Who controls Forbes and who do they have in charge?”
I’m guessing banks are like people since people lie their ass off, banks are run by people and then they get caught.
“What the heck happened to Forbes?”
Their ‘reporting’ on Ukraine is likely the worst in the US, and even gives the Daily Mail a run for its money, which is NOT easy to do.
I suspect that they’ve found a ‘more profitable’ way to make money rather than trying to be honest, just as the news networks did, once drug companies were allowed to advertise on their TV shows.
I see it as they are all part of the ‘woke’ culture. Dumb as rocks and financially suicidal to boot. Go woke, then go broke and stick a fork in it. They deserve everything they get and I detest them getting any taxpayer bailouts.
Forbes' reaction
This isn’t hard to understand, Forbes and I suspect many others new this “climate bank” was in big trouble, and decided to start pumping it up in an effort to save the planet at the taxpayers expense.
We live in a world now where the standard is how Woke an institution or individual is. Proper practice is in the back seat.
Owned by China.
Well, that’s the problem. Being a major consumer of financial news you would eventually surmise a few things. 1.) Journalists have a rudimentary understanding of finance at best. 2.) Journalists and business network talking heads are often being played by businesses and their representatives. 3.) Journalists report. That’s their full time job. They do not trade for a living - successful traders are the experts and they are NOT in the news. You probably never heard of them. Is it really a good idea to rely on non experts? 4.) Journalists are not financially astute. They spend tens of thousands of dollars and go into debt to go to j-school where they learn to write at a sixth grade level and ask who, what, when and where.
The Government-Media-Banking Complex at work.
Forbes is CHINA owned.
Does a Chinese investment group own Forbes?
Forbes Media, which encompasses the magazine Forbes and other related business ventures, is majority-owned by Integrated Whale Media Investments. The Hong Kong investment group purchased a controlling stake in the company in 2014 for an undisclosed amount.
Forbes is as woke as SVB.
It looks like the federal government, and just about every department in it is focused on climate change and LGBTQ issues. The actual performance of the department is secondary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
