A letter in today's Financial Times, Good research needs more data and less 'access', from US equity research company partner, Todd Bault, should be taken to heart by journalists.
I realise that human beings are hugely swayed by stories and narrative, and access is valuable for telling stories. But stories are deceptive.
In investing, the goal is to insulate oneself from emotion and bias. Strong empiricism and data analysis are good ways to do this...
The model of journalism graduates working on some assigned industry frankly doesn't serve a great purpose any more.
Journalists need to be experts in their covered field, so that they do not have to rely on "access" and can steer their way among the data. We desperately need journalists with no sources, only data!
I realise this is not attractive to most journalists, but I fear that means that journalists will gradually be displaced by expert bloggers or other sources...
Ironically, if one can demonstrate empirical and analytical skill and independence, companies will fear and respect you, and you can then get all the "access" you want.
The guy has a point, does he not?
Source: Financial Times Hat tip: Whealie
