We must heavily modify the weekly market commentary each week before we send it to our clients. There is a consistent theme of negative coverage bias, as though the authors are writing heavily biased political editorials. Much of the language used attempt to stoke feelings of fear and anxiety, rather than simply reporting factual events and data. The last thing we want is to expose our clients to content that might frighten them, and perhaps even influence financial decisions based on the terrible way the stories are written that may not be in their best interests. Also, what purpose are the authors hoping to achieve by the selection of the negative quotes expressed in the "Food for Thought" section each week? It seems that almost every week the quote selected has a strong negative connotation, and I very much take issue with that. This week there was a quote form Warren Buffet, "It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it". Really? Is that necessary? What is the point in that? I find the writing in the weekly commentary to be quite offensive, and todays was no exception. The insinuating undercurrent is clearly biased left politically as though the authors were writing an editorial for the Washington Post, New York Times, or CNN. I acknowledge that the markets and the economy do contract, and so I'm not expecting every story to sound Pollyanna or view everything through a rose-colored lens. All I'm asking is for the editorial B.S. to be left out of the commentary, and simply report factually what has happened. In the meantime, I will no longer continue to use your awful content which requires so much editing. Until you change the tone of what you write we will look elsewhere for market commentary that is just that, market commentary.
