Keep an Eye on The Wall Street Journal

[insurehound]

You need to keep an eye on annuity articles that the WSJ writes on annuities. I have found several error that I have forwarded to them. You have to wonder where their writers get the info!

 

[patch36]

It has always been that way. They get their info from people who do not sell them and do not like the competition for the money. AUM, trail commissions, and annual fees drive the logic right out of the brains of the RIA's and FA's. IMO, YMMV.

 

[Franz Kafka]

Agents and RRs who have sold them as investments probably share some blame on this. It's called a policy, has a DB, CSV and you pay the premium. Sounds like a friggin insurance to me.

 

[insuranceexec]

If you think they are bad try reading the DowJones News Wire. I had a reporter who called me asking me how an annuity really works...............LOL

I told her to go and get an insurance license......"I mean I would not call you and ask you how to write a news article".....LOL

 

[JMO Fan]

Be careful how you respond to the press. Making their job harder can easily backfire. More than one reluctant insurer has been headlined as "Insurer Refuses to Cooperate" in the news. :(

 

[Freddie]

Be careful how you respond to the press. Making their job harder can easily backfire. More than one reluctant insurer has been headlined as "Insurer Refuses to Cooperate" in the news. :(

Rule number 1 - anything you tell a reporter will usually be twisted to make you look bad if that is their agenda and they usually have an agenda.

The WSJ has really gone downhill since Rupert Murdoch bought them about 8 months ago. The writing is not as good and the paper does some Obama fawning like the rest of the media. Investor Business Daily is a much better paper but the coverage is thinner for news.

 

[Guest]

The WSJ has really gone downhill since Rupert Murdoch bought them about 8 months ago. The writing is not as good

Having read the WSJ every day, front to back, for the past 27 years, I was expecting to see changes, but to my eye it has not happened. Tell me a piece that was not as well-written as anything in the pre-Murdoch era? I'd like to read what you are talking about.

And as for editorial slant, as a moderate-liberal, I've not seen anything on the ed or op-ed page that makes me believe that the WSJ has moved even an inch from being just to the right of Jerry Falwell and Rush Limbaugh. I'd love to see the WSJ embrace a rational "middle" but I don't think it will ever happen

 

[Freddie]

Having read the WSJ every day, front to back, for the past 27 years, I was expecting to see changes, but to my eye it has not happened. Tell me a piece that was not as well-written as anything in the pre-Murdoch era? I'd like to read what you are talking about.

And as for editorial slant, as a moderate-liberal, I've not seen anything on the ed or op-ed page that makes me believe that the WSJ has moved even an inch from being just to the right of Jerry Falwell and Rush Limbaugh. I'd love to see the WSJ embrace a rational "middle" but I don't think it will ever happen

The WSJ has always been pro-open borders - possibly the main reason why your state is bankrupt. Maybe if you were paying attention you would see that they added a new editorial writer who is a horrible writer and a hard core lefty spewing DNC talking points. Thomas Frank or something. he makes that old loser Al Hunt sound like Limbaugh.

The paper is more People magazine now. They are using kid gloves on O. O's policies so far are part EU bureacrat, Chavez and Mugabe.

The rational middle you are seeking which Chavez is the middle to you is the NY Times (gag). By it soon before it hopefully goes out of business and milliosn of trees are saved. The best paper is in So Cal with IBD.

 

[Guest]

The WSJ has always been pro-open borders - possibly the main reason why your state is bankrupt.

The WSJ is not pro open-borders at all. But they DO understand that someone has to pick the crops... and it's probably not going to be you or I. Most people would call this conservative practicality... or um... good capitalism?

Maybe if you were paying attention you would see that they added a new editorial writer who is a horrible writer and a hard core lefty spewing DNC talking points. Thomas Frank or something. he makes that old loser Al Hunt sound like Limbaugh.

You don't even know his name but you are certain he is a horrible writer. You read this paper how often. Once maybe?

The paper is more People magazine now.

The paper has always done biography of interesting people. Again, you've read this paper how often? Once maybe?

They are using kid gloves on O. O's policies so far are part EU bureacrat, Chavez and Mugabe.

Oh lord, another under-educated insurance agent speaking their mind... not knowing the very first thing about which they are talking about.

The rational middle you are seeking which Chavez is the middle to you is the NY Times (gag).

See above comment.

By [sic] it soon before it hopefully goes out of business and milliosn of trees are saved. The best paper is in So Cal with IBD.

When a conservative says the WSJ is too liberal and hopes it goes out of business, I know that his party (and his political philosophy?) is destined to forever be a minority party.

Most of you folks use the WSJ as a prayer mat. But this election has so shaken you that you want to eat your own young. Good grief, the only intelligent daily conservative media you have is the WSJ... and you want it to go paws-up? What other paper is going to carry your water the way the WSJ does? The Palm Beach Post? The Miami Herald? Good luck with that!

And IBD is only a one-tick pony. It's a stock-market reporter, not a national player in the major media. How may awards, large and small has the WSJ won as opposed to IBD? If I want to read about butterfly option spreads or about the short-sale up-tick rule, IBD is fine. If I want to make an investment in a company from the Middle East, I read the WSJ.

 

[sman]

Yep, there Al goes again wooing conservatives to his side. Who wouldn't want to be part of Al's camp? With all the degrading and demeaning speak that comes from Al's mouth, it surely makes me want to be part of his group.

You speak of the "rational" middle, yet you are so far left that you would recognize the middle as far right. Freddie's suggestion that Obama's policies so far are "part EU bureacrat, Chavez and Mugabe" may be stretching it a bit, but if you believe Obama is in the middle, you are out of your mind. This spending bill that was just rammed down out throats is nothing more than a vote buying package. Obama is letting the great Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid run the Democratic party.

Do you remember this quote?

"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a governemnt big enough to take from you everything you have."

European countries are welfare societies and are much worse off than we are in the United States. But for some reason, your party of choice wants to move us in that direction. Please don't take this as a defense of the Republican party. They aren't much better in my opinion.

I think we can all agree that California is a left leaning state (and that may be putting it lightly). And just where are they today from a financial standpoint? Just about bankrupt. You've got a moderate governor who starts furloughing workers and what do they do, they picket as if the state of California is REQUIRED to let them work. Since when is it a right for someone to hire and pay a person? If they don't like that their hours and pay is being cut, then go find another job.

Lastly, I know how you like to ridicule people on this board for not being able to write so I thought you might want to know you used incorrect grammar above. You stated:

"and it's probably not going to be you or I."

It should have been, ...and it's probably not going to be you or me.