Lionel K.

I read Forbes more than I would like to because they often cover topics of interest for me, namely regarding the stock market.
But they provide factually false information and as "investing experts" they know that they're providing false information.
For instance, they constatly trash Roth IRAs versus traditional IRAs because "paying taxes beforehand will make you earn less compared to someone whom only pay taxes afterwards whom have a big headstart". It may be counter intuitive but it's entirely false. Let me prove it to you. Let's say taxes are 15%, you invest $1000 and will double your gain over time.
By paying taxes beforehand, you only invest $850 after taxes, which will double, so that's $1700.
If you pay taxes later, you invest $1000 and it doubles afterwards so that's $2000. Now you take off 15% taxes so that's $300 off, leaving you $1700.
As you can see with this example, Forbes tends to push false narratives that can be mathematically proven false. Is there a conflict of interest, is content sponsored to push a narrative, are the journalists letting their own beliefs take over what's actually true? I don't know but don't trust what they say.

There is one stock and one ETF I have been paying a lot of attention to the last 3 years (FANG and SPXL).
Now with the coronavirus, these two stocks became very clearly insane opportunities. There was no way that it wasn't completely oversold and would go back to much much higher values quickly.
So when I saw Zacks recommend staying away from these (giving them the worst grades possible), they scared me but I decided to suck it up and believe my knowledge about these.
So what did not listening to Zacks get me? Well SPXL gave me +50% in 2 months, FANG an insane +160% in 2 months.
I don't know who called them experts, but they lied. It's not all, every single stock I've owned I realized they've always been wrong. But the example I'm showing is so over the top they lost all credibility to me.
At this point I'm using Zacks to do the exact opposite of what they recommend, and honestly, my portfolio is doing better than it would have in my wildest dreams.
Don't believe a word they say.

They used to be good and investigate. But when now they say that the vaccine ban in europe was false regarding the rotavirus (I was in France, it was literally in every single media outlet: the rotavirus being banned because it was proven to kil toddlers), when they say the dansing israelis is false because "muh racism" when several news outlet reported it and it's an absolute fact, they made themselves not reliable anymore.
I can't believe they didn't fact check these issues. What I believe tho, is that they hide truths when they think the truth could have a negative outcome.
They couldn't care less about the truth, they say what is false is true and what is true is false, if they think it can make things better.
They're not any better than the fake stories they pretend to fight.
Search a controversial fact that you know to be truth and witness for yourself: they are not reliable.