Seeking Alpha

I've been a paying user of this site for a little under a year. The site does a great job compiling the data and has useful comparison tools. You have to understand that there is going to be bias articles out there used to drive artificial growth. If the companies don't, "pay their dues", to these financial writers Seeking Alpha will have negative things said about them. (The same thing happens with consumer reports). What I'm trying to get at is there are a bunch of reviews rating this site 1 or 2 stars due to this bias.

I'm perfectly willing to pay what I pay just for the way the data is compiled. It saves me an hour or so a week, definitely worth the price of admission.

This site actually used to be reasonable but it has deteriorated to complete trash. There appears to be zero review of the articles published and the writers, in general, don't have the knowledge of finance that even a first year finance student should have. Wrong assumptions, ignorance of generally accepted models and methods, and incorrect mathematics abound. Then when you point out their errors Seeking Alpha either argue or get downright nasty even if you direct them to any of a number of commonly used textbooks which they obviously have no desire to read. Get your investment advice from your barber instead.

As a new investor in the US Market. This is a good place to go for information and research on stocks. Their podcast is also a helpful tools for improving your knowledge.
The only downside is that their presenter is not always interesting. (see: Wall Street Breakfast) some of the episode can put you to sleep.

I wish their apps are more user friendly. The user interface is cumbersome. Also for up to date market and price info, I need to use other apps.

I have been on SA for over 5 years & can tell you it's a scam site. The "moderators " as well as Editors write "news" articles daily to sway stocks their way. Most of the authors IMO are not only paid by SA, but no doubt are being paid from outside brokerage houses as well to try to sway the stocks in their favor either pro or con.

The site allows any Joe Blow to be a member without any kind of bio or way to show Seeking Alpha are a real person. So many new no bio trolls appear & throw out one liners to try to control the threads. They can have your post tossed at will. Also the moderators will ban you if you don't follow their thinking. SA no doubt has trolls patrolling articles that could have some members banned for not agreeing to their thinking. I have complained countless times about their site being totally biased. They could care less. The moderators are totally biased and definitely have their select authors.

I was very vocal about the stock SDRL, & was constantly ridiculed by no bio trolls with the names of Million$man, Elvis Level, A Prudent Investor, Sallie DD, and even their prized "author" Stobe Fox Capital berating my posts. Actually Stone Fox Capital woukd write an article & then use an assortment of false alias names to respond to members on his article. He even slipped once & admitted that I was indeed actually talking to him through his made up alias. Then SFC started to hound me on all of my other stocks I follow & started to have ny posts pulled on those other stock articles.

SA should be banned from operating as a business on the internet, but lax laws pertain to stock sites. DO yourself a favor and remember anytime you get "free advice" over the internet to take it with a grain of salt.

SEEKING ALPHA is a totally biased stock website out to control stocks any way they can. Do your own due diligence & trust your gut feelings when buying or selling stocks. Nobody will look after your money interests better than you. The internet is stock full of scammers.

If you correct an article or comment that the article claiming disinvest in any company with a carbon footprint, be prepared for the alpha moderator to belittle you and delete your comment. Please be collegial, providing real facts is annoying.

Here is my latest back and forth with the biased and slanted FAKE NEWS reporting concerning Peabody coal company::

This article can be best summarized as EIA forecasts coal consumption decline of 0.7% through 2050. Peabody identified with possible mine closure in future (with contract that includes penalties and early closure protections). Dump Peabody prior to bankruptcy ruling as it has great market risks. In addition coal companies may receive government assistance to thwart forecasted decline. Dump Peabody now.

Oh and by the way, the management at Peabody is like the tobacco industry. And the coral reef is dying. And corporations in most of the world have exploited resources of the people (except Norway). Dump Peabody. Since CO2 is used today for enhanced oil recovery and CCS will create more CO2 and possibly impact oil production. Dump Peabody. And CCS is not commercially viable and the smart coal executives know this fact (uh yeah). Dump Peabody. Look the Southern Plant intended to demonstrate the next generation of coal gasification that also happened to have a small CCS involving enhanced oil recovery component has failed. Dump Peabody.

Ignore Peabody will come out of bankruptcy as a viable company. Ignore EIA forecasts. Ignore facts, logic or common sense. The coral reef is dying and Peabody, the greedy tobacco like corporation, is claiming a post bankruptcy value if $3.1 billion. This allows them to issue new shares and wipeout the existing unsecured creditors and equity holders. Dump Peabody.

Oh let me parrot, the sky is falling. Dump Peabody. It is a little insulting to have facts and disagree with my bedtime story. The moral of the story is what?

The summary is:

Feel free to keep investing in coal if you wish to be in denial.

Maybe I will invest in coal or maybe I won't. No current investments unless through mutual funds. However, when I do look at coal, your article will have no value in determining if Peabody is a viable investment. Maybe if you included some bible quotes and said dump Peabody?

I have 3 issues with this site. It allows any tom $#*! and harry to put out articles, including people who have no clue about investing but make it sound like Seeking Alpha do. Following clueless people in investing your money is one thing, but letting people with obvious monetary interest mess your mind up with biased or false info is another. That is, short sellers can put out negative write ups to knock stocks down, and it almost seems like they time it with coordinated short attacks. Look at ticker Gale as an example. Then, what really ticks me off is when I respond to the articles by calling out what is happening the moderators censor my comments repeatedly. Stay away from Seeking Alpha, completely untrustable IMHO.

I used to publish articles regularly on Seeking Alpha. I became very dissatisfied when I saw that Seeking Alpha would allow people to post illegal and deceptive research in response to my articles. When I responded and told readers that the posts were illegal, Seeking Alpha put me on moderation. Then I looked and saw that my positive articles were not being put on third party sites such as Yahoo! While SA was putting all the short articles about this stock on these third party sites. When I complained to SA, they just stonewalled me. I believe the editors or owners of the site take positions in the stocks and then favor those authors who express a viewpoint consistent with SA's position in the stock.

As a newbie investor I didn't know what to invest in and needed advice. Seeking alpha was the first place I found that gave"professional" advice. After 1 year from taking their advice I'm still down on all the stocks Seeking Alpha highly recommended. Ideleted their app and stopped listening. Turns out I make better gut decisions than those professionals ever could. Oh they also freaked me out so much because they follow trends worse than anyone. If a stock is going down a little, no matter its potential the seeking alpha site is flooded with doomsday type stocks telling you how you're gonna lose everything. This results in you selling at a loss almost Everytime. Awful awful site. Stay away at all costs.

There is no worse site on the web than Seeking Alpha. Their iOS mobile app is 1000 times worse than the desktop version. Seeking Alpha make it virtually impossible to report bugs, as email and pw is required, then you're informed it's incorrect. NOT!

Many decent writers have abandoned the site for greener pastures and though there are still a few articles worth reading, the majority are from uninformed people who don't know much about investing.

The recent iOS update made the already terrible experience almost completely intolerable.

POS-that's all one need say about this.

Having just read some of the "critics" I must demur. Their rage is hyperbolic and therefore, untrustworthy.

If, for example, you had followed the advice of the Fear and Greed writer you would be very successful. Same goes for Jani Ziedins. You pick your advisor you take your losses or profits accordingly. At least here you are exposed to a vast range of opinions.

On the minus side, I do find that it is annoying to be excluded once I have used up my 2 articles (I am not a subscriber) but then I have long ago worked out who to pick for a valuable read so it is not such a problem.

To those of you who still want to rant I advise reading Karl Popper, one of the most interesting logicians and philosophers who ever lived, next only to Aristotle. He will give you a more sober approach to the critique of others' work. In veritate locuti sumus ad iram. Oliver

Seeking Alpha is an invaluable tool for trading. Information is able to be organized in an easy to read graph format and sorted as desired. The rating system is very helpful. I read many of the contributors articles and gain lots of insight and often good ideas of stocks to watch. I also enjoy reading the comments made on the articles and often gain further insight into a stock, being often surprised at what the other members know about a company or their management, or critiquing the author. The ease of finding dividend dates and sorting by that date to take advantage of upcoming dividends is simple, as is the history of the dividends and measured safety. Finding earnings reports due is right at your fingertips. How companies compare to its peers is an added layer for additional research and judegement. I often find that the newsfeed is more up to date than at my broker, or my cell phone app. I wouldn't want to trade without it.

Who post articles to generate new subs replacing lost subs who either blew up or lost their investing accounts following those recommendations, rinse, repeat. * Be warned all borrowing a page from TWTR SA allows/assists any subs salesman to block/delete any and all comments its authors don't approve of, all marketing like TWTR. And Seeking Alpha have been deleting politically incorrect comments

As far as financial headlines SA relies on free alerts from Marketwatch, CNBC etc to report business news so you may read about those hours later after financial media's reported them or even not at all. They really just focus on promoting subscriptions salesmen now. That's their business model

If you go to Seeking Alpha you will be bombarded with ads. What's more? Seeking Alpha added a modal that asks you to register and that is impossible to block. If you do, the site becomes unusable and the developer purposefully made it extremely hard to get rid of the registration modal event along with the scrolljacking and other assorted tricks they use to make sure you never ever get rid of the registration modal unless you register. That wouldn't be an issue except if you do register, you get bombarded further with incredibly spammy emails, even if all you wanted was to read their articles in peace and give them clicks and ad revenue.

It's so underhanded and unethical in design that I worry whether the site is safe to use!

Seeking Alpha is infuriating and it doesn't help that they're often the first site that comes up when searching for news on business and the stock market. As far as I can tell they're run by a team of grey hat hucksters. Steer clear!

Seeking Alpha put me into "moderation status" for months. Their "moderation team" had to approve every single comment that I made prior to publishing it on their site forum. After I notified Trustpilot previously about Seeking Alpha's selective censorship, depriving me of my right to free speech under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, Seeking Alpha lifted my moderation status and gave me freedom to express my opinion(s) without censorship. All of a sudden, today, without warning, Seeking Alpha put me back into moderation mode, meaning that I must receive approval from them before Seeking Alpha will publish my comments. I sent them an email, in accordance with their own recommended company policy, requesting an explanation of what comment(s) caused them to put me back into moderation status. I was polite in my request and advised them that I needed education so that there wouldn't be a repeat of any "offensive" comments that I posted, thus avoiding the need to moderate my comments. They never replied to my respectful request and left me still in moderation mode. I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS RESTRICTION OF MY FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS! Other commenters on Seeking Alpha forums write the vilest, most objectionable comments ever, but they retain their freedom to write whatever they wish without fear of censorship. This is a classic case of persecution of a member of an Internet community by Seeking Alpha.

The newsletter has a total lack of integrity and has become synonymous with enabling short attacks. There have recently been numerous articles on Seeking Alpha with anonymous authors. Anonymous? Really? A recent one was by Night Market research, a made-up name by someone whose bio says he is a "Trader/Investor with credit and equity management who likes sharing investment ideas." In other words - well - we really don't know. Mr. Short Seller (at least he admits he is) goes on to quote in his article opinions for Expert #1 and Expert #2 (both unnamed). How is such market manipulation even allowed? Because people allow it. I encourage everyone to boycott Seeking Alpha, cancel subscriptions, and encourage others to do the same, in order to demand better standards.

I do not have time to write a review but I will do it for this one. I have the same review as Moonie C. Who wrote in March 2021. I started a 14-day free trial of Seeking Alpha (SA from now) premium service. I canceled the subscription within the free trial period and should not have been charged. 2 weeks later, I received my credit card statement and saw a charge made by SA. I wrote an email requesting a refund and called the customer service. The rep told me I only canceled a service called 'The data driven investor' (DDI from now) and not the premium service. I subscribed to a 14-day premium free trial and when I clicked on "cancel" under my account setting "paid subscription", I canceled my premium service. But SA was saying I canceled DDI. Knowing there was a subscription behind the premium service and I canceled the premium service but DDI was canceled, she was not going to refund me. SA's cancellation setting is misleading and it tricks you. I asked her if I could speak with her manager but she was so unwilling. Finally, she went to check, came back and said the manager stepped outside and she would let the person know. I had a whole nine yards going back and forth, getting a scam like customer service. And then I got an email from SA with an open ticket about it. I am going to give a zero star until SA refunds me.

It is a great site with easy-to-use recommendations on stocks and etfs. I use the rating functions very often.
I would suggest to put the sector on the portfolio list, it would be very helpful.
I am curious to learn Alpha pro but I am not sure what exactly will I get there, and the price has Factor 10. Can you elaborate?
Please give also more information on quand, the methodology I trust and follow! I want to know more about it!
Wish you luck and thank you for great service!

Unqualified authors that generate clickbait based on hyperbole. Very few of them have actual financial qualifications. There are some authors that encourage frequent trading and make ridiculous claims. Articles are very long but say very little. Many authors simply cut and paste excerpts from industry sell-side reports. Virtually no new ideas on this site. The content is like reading an 8th grade essay written by a student with a thesaurus.

Most of the authors are completely clueless the only talent Seeking Alpha seem to have is to be bombastic when they put pen to paper. There used to several good writers that I used to follow back in 2011 and 2012 and they all left. I asked them why, the reason was simple, SA was forcing them to focus on garbage and did not let them use Technical analysis or give them room to express themselves in their unique way. What ticked me off was these authors were the few that were right consistently and yet SA found a way to drive them away.

Secondly when you comment you have to comment like a good little boy if you don't your comments are taken down.

And the biggest insult is the almost $200 a month charge for their premium service, which can only be labelled as "premium crap". I speak from experience i took the annual membership (as I knew there was a 30 day free cancellation period) and I cancelled in less than 9 days so that tells you how great this service is. It took 5 days to get my refund back.

Overall you can do a lot better by paying for subscriptions from other sites that are 5X cheaper and 10X better

Seeking Alpha gets a lot of negativity that it really doesn't deserve. This site relies on crowdsourced content, so obviously some authors are going to be better and some are going to be awful. You can easily see an author's track record compared to how the stock is doing and that's how you can know whether to trust their opinion or not.

The author opinions are actually a good resource. You get another method for evaluating stocks. I've incorporated this into my decision making process, and haven't looked back.