EchoBlog

It’s been a hot minute since I wrote, so excuse the delay. I’ve had some medical issues and then frankly lost interest in writing for a bit. But nothing lasts forever, except death and herpes.

As many of you know, I subscribe to a number of different investment research tools and services. It’s a hobby to try them out and as I learn about them, I write about them.

So I decided to write a review of CNBC pro which I’ve been using for at least a year now. Let’s get down to it.

CNBC pro costs $299 per year.

To answer this question, I need to dig in a bit about the purpose of CNBC pro and what it provides. To me, CNBC pro is just an extension of what you see watching CNBC. It’s a series of opinion articles formed by interviews with market “experts,” analyst opinions, and analyst upgrades. There is very little original news content - all of the news content is available on CNBC.

The types of articles you’ll see on CNBC pro which don’t appear on CNBC are those touting stocks or downgrading stocks. You’ll see the conviction lists of Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, and various hedge fund managers.

Is it helpful? That is up to the investor. It reminds me of The Hill newspaper which publishes a lot of opinions of members of Congress that often come across as one yelling at the other across the page.

Every day CNBC pro bombards you with new analyst predictions that this or that stock is going up 30%, 60%, 90%, or with bearish predictions that Tesla or the stock market is going to drop 30% from here.

What CNBC pro is good at is getting you to click on a sexy headline. Here’s an example from today:

Alphabet shares dip to start the week. Here’s what the experts have to say

Tempting right? What experts you’re thinking. What could they say?

In fact, it said almost nothing. It noted that Jim Cramer discussed the company with a link to promote Cramer. Then it noted that Morgan Stanley weighted Alphabet as overweight. That was the whole article. Horrible.

Here’s another juice headline of the type they use often:

Analysts love these 15 cheap stocks - and give one 250% upside

Oh my god what could it be! (they hope you think). It’s Broadwind Energy - a stock yet to make a profit with shrinking revenue growth. Sounds like a lot of BS to me.

Others on this list include the usual CNBC pumps before summer: First Solar, Enphase, Exxon, Valero, and others (FUTU, Quantas, Lufthansa, Renault, Schlumberger, etc).

It’s all speculation where the stocks will go from here with almost no analysis. The Main screening criteria is that the stock has a buy rating from 40% of analysts covering it (so if there’s one analyst he/she is included), it has to be traded at a lower forward p/e relative to their average 5-year p/e ratio, and the analyst price target must be +30% from current levels. There are no reasons for how they got to these magic numbers included.

Goldman says dividend growth stocks will outperform under current conditions. 10 names it recommends

Another classic pump up post from CNBC pro - citing Goldman Sachs as the source of truth. Often, it’s a junior analyst at Goldman with a few years experience and a bad track record who is making the recommendation.

That doesn’t seem to matter to CNBC Pro - to them it’s Goldman Sachs - the entire firm is recommending the stock! OMG buy buy buy! (sarcasm).

I really hate these tactics and find it completely misleading. But hey, it must be working for them if they keep doing it.

The caution flag from wealthy investors does get my attention and is my main reason for keeping the subscription. Often I’m guessing they are on the other side of the trade or trying to push down the stock price via their short positions, but the information is pretty useful if the arguments presented are sound.

Here’s a sample:

Howard Marks says commercial real estate defaults could add market stress in the months ahead

Now, this gets me to read since it is a risk and something I’ve been wondering about myself. It goes on to say:

We’re very likely to see mortgage defaults in the headlines, and at a minimum, this may spook lenders, throw sand into the gears of the financing and refinancing processes, and further contribute to a sense of heightened risk,” Marks wrote in his latest memo Monday. “Developments along these lines certainly have the potential to add to whatever additional distress materializes in the months ahead.”

Not terrible insightful, but having this from CNBC gives a little edge on what to look out for. He went on to blame some of this on the work for home model.

Here’s How The Top Stock Picking Services Performed in 2021 and 2022

7 Mistakes Every New Trader Should Avoid

ncG1vNJzZmirmaK9rbHFoqWappOae7TBwayrmpubY7CwuY6pZqKrXZi7o6%2BMqamoZaekv7W0jK2fnmWTpMC1