On Book Reviewing, Part 2 (What not to write if you want a good review from me)

Most of the time, when a book is bad, I don’t write a review.  Sometimes it will inspire me write a screed against a certain topic that the book was about, and occasionally a negative review.  But most often I say nothing.

What to avoid if writing a finance/investments/economics book?

1) Don’t claim you are an expert when you have a thin resume.  If you are writing, you better have some real accomplishments behind it.  Particularly irritating are vigorous self-promoters and newsletter-writers that are facile writers — they say lots of clever things, but they are not subject to market discipline in the same way that a portfolio manager is, who manages real money, and has real results, good or bad.

2) If you are merely pushing the services of your firm, don’t write a book.  It is very annoying to read a book where the says, “This is the broad outline, but if you want the whole enchilada, buy my service.

3) Don’t advertise your book as popular if it is academic.  Please don’t raise the hopes of people if they find by the middle of the book that they can’t understand it.

4) Don’t write a book that has already been written unless you have a very, very special gift for teaching that makes the concepts far more accessible to the average person.

5) Just because it is a “little book” does not mean it deserves to see the light of day.

6) You may think you have boiled down the concept for dummies, idiots, whatever.  In investing, dimwits tend to lose — no amount of simplification will replace study.

7) Books that forecast total destruction get no play with me, because they assume that we can’t adjust.

8 ) Books that are a series of essays from “experts” don’t grab me.  Good books take a position and argue for it.

9) Books that do an extended series of stock screens in order to show the best one are just an exercise in torturing the data to make it confess.

10) Books that force you to study abstract philosophy that I can’t follow means that most people won’t follow it.  Useless.  (I have studied philosophy to a high degree.)

11) Books written by a group of academics rarely make for good reading, unless the editor forces them to interact with each other, which is rare.

12) If you write a book on a controversial area, and you don’t interact with the criticisms of the topic, you lose major credibility with me.

13) If you aren’t an expert, don’t write.  There are a lot of newsletter writers, or radio talk show hosts who know little about the areas they talk about.  Avoid them.  Okay, do research.  Do they really have talent, or are they just facile talkers?

14) Please don’t advertise the past as being the future.  History is not prologue, and by the time your book is published, it is time for those who believe you to lose.

15) Don’t write a book where you tell people that they ought to read your last book or books.  Make your book readable, so that you give a quick summary of the relevant information.  Every book should stand on its own; no one should have to buy another book to read your book.

16) If you are describing a bunch of quirky people who made money deploying small amounts of capital, do not declare them to be great investors, and don’t write about them.

17) Simulations off of past data have little relevance to the future, unless carefully done.  Most are not carefully done.

18) If you are writing a policy book, try to be fair.  If you are a liberal or conservative, that will win a lot of points with me, because it means you have really looked at the issue.  Few things are totally clear.

19) Please, please, don’t write another book on a basic topic where you have nothing new and good to say — asset allocation is a good example for me, and few books get a good review from me as a result.

20) Don’t write books saying that you only need one asset class in order to do well.

Beyond that, I would say, write something unique, and well-researched.  Create a good theme and follow it.  Even if academic, don’t settle for dull writing.  Find a way to make the topic live, and after that, explain the complexities.  Above all else, explain what could go wrong.  Most strategies fail at some point, so explain where failure can happen for the good of your readers; it will give you greater credibility.

There may be another part to this series, but at present, I think this could be all.


  • Ted says:


    How do you get so much reading done? Do you actually read every page or do you just skim? I have calculated that over the past month you’ve averaged about 65 pages a day of just reading books. That would take me about three hours a day. I imagine you do even more reading with respect to SEC filings, news and so on. You read more in a couple of months than I manage to read in a year.

    • Ted, I always carry a book with me, and I read in spare moments while waiting in line, etc. I always read every page, unless I say I skimmed the book. Reading is over 95% of the time. It takes me between 20-60 minutes to read 60 pages, depending on the content.

      Things go somewhat faster after you have read several books on the same theme, because you know what questions to ask.

  • Ted says:

    Thanks for the reply. Wow, that is really fast. I need to try to pick up the pace.