Fiat News Index – November 2018

November is in the books, so it’s time for an update to our Fiat News Index. A few refreshers

Want to continue reading this and the other 1,500+ essays you won't find anywhere else?

Already a subscriber? log in here

To learn more about Epsilon Theory and be notified when we release new content sign up here. You’ll receive an email every week and your information will never be shared with anyone else.


  1. Fantastic! 2 questions: how did you pick left to right order for the last graph? Would it make sense to use the same left to right order as the first (generic FNI) graph?

  2. Avatar for rguinn rguinn says:

    It was the default order of the search, so more or less arbitrary. Have since revised to match the FNI rank ordering. Good thought!

  3. Thank you! (Most Excellent)
    Maybe a Bias Index is in those weeds afterall?

  4. Kudos to Rusty and the entire Epsilon Theory team for creating this index . Really exceptional work you all are doing.

    Using this index as a guide, I personally find it quite helpful to let me better “see” what’s going on in the world. And in a surprising way, I become more at ease with the world, have a greater capacity for truly listening to other’s opinions and in addition more tolerance for these (opposing) views and a willingness to change my own that simply wasn’t there before.

    Special work you’re doing to help people like myself “see “ the world in a more open light. It’s working. Please keep it going !

  5. It would seem the science related topics (climate change for example) are problematic topics to examine in this method. The reason for that would be that some causality in science is understood, predictable and law/well tested theory. Although articles in the New York Times might have a specific agenda or view point in articles about climate change they are also likely to have a scientific causality. While just getting the facts from an article is good, just getting the facts for science my also involve scientific causality which I believe is a little different then what you are hoping to achieve with this index… this sentence would send up all kinds of Alabama but I believe it just presents scientific fact, which in this case also happens to include scientific causality…Water boils at 100c, everyday bacteria found in water are sensitive to tempatrue change, as a result boiling water will kill most Bactria. Therefore boiled water it is safe to drink, however there are strains of bacteria that live on the ocean floor near hydrothermalvents, obviously this means not all Bactria is killed by 100c water. These type of bacteria are called extermophiles, fortunately, extremophiles require a harsh environment to survive, and clearly the kitchen sink is not extreme enough for these bacteria.

  6. Although I appreciate the fact that the WSJ and FT are not included because they are in some “other” databases (perhaps with fees involved), they are two of the four missionaries you have identified elsewhere, and as such, I really think you ought to do whatever necessary to include them. Because of that missionary status, their exclusion is not merely a 2/32 exclusion, it is – from a certain point of view – a 2/4 exclusion. To me this weakens the entire effort just a bit.

    So I do hope you will think about what it will take to include the WSJ and FT, and head in that direction.

Continue the discussion at the Epsilon Theory Forum


Avatar for rguinn Avatar for psherman Avatar for Victor_K Avatar for wintermute Avatar for wmthomson22

The Latest From Epsilon Theory


This commentary is being provided to you as general information only and should not be taken as investment advice. The opinions expressed in these materials represent the personal views of the author(s). It is not investment research or a research recommendation, as it does not constitute substantive research or analysis. Any action that you take as a result of information contained in this document is ultimately your responsibility. Epsilon Theory will not accept liability for any loss or damage, including without limitation to any loss of profit, which may arise directly or indirectly from use of or reliance on such information. Consult your investment advisor before making any investment decisions. It must be noted, that no one can accurately predict the future of the market with certainty or guarantee future investment performance. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.

Statements in this communication are forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements and other views expressed herein are as of the date of this publication. Actual future results or occurrences may differ significantly from those anticipated in any forward-looking statements, and there is no guarantee that any predictions will come to pass. The views expressed herein are subject to change at any time, due to numerous market and other factors. Epsilon Theory disclaims any obligation to update publicly or revise any forward-looking statements or views expressed herein. This information is neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation of any offer to buy any securities. This commentary has been prepared without regard to the individual financial circumstances and objectives of persons who receive it. Epsilon Theory recommends that investors independently evaluate particular investments and strategies, and encourages investors to seek the advice of a financial advisor. The appropriateness of a particular investment or strategy will depend on an investor’s individual circumstances and objectives.