Buy-and-hold investing weighs on market liquidity. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting mainly one side of an issue while giving little or no space to alternative perspectives or counterarguments.

The article consistently frames the buy-and-hold culture, investor conservatism, and limited ESG uptake as problems to be solved, using only conference speakers who share that view: - “While long-term investing has always been encouraged, experts warn that Jamaica’s strong buy-and-hold culture is now slowing trading in the secondary market, limiting liquidity and discouraging broader investor participation.” - “As you can appreciate, having a buy-and-hold culture suppresses secondary trading.” - “He attributed this in part to limited understanding of listing requirements and the lack of harmonised rules across Caribbean stock exchanges, calling for greater collaboration to simplify cross-listing processes and encourage participation.” - “She attributed the outcome to limited understanding and lingering misconceptions around sustainable investments, noting a perception among some investors that green investments are less profitable or difficult to understand.” No voices are included that might defend buy-and-hold as a rational strategy, question whether more trading is always beneficial, or raise concerns about risks, costs, or suitability of ESG/green bonds and cross-listings for all investors.

4 suggestions

Include at least one expert or investor who can articulate the benefits of buy-and-hold (e.g., lower transaction costs, long-term wealth building, reduced speculative behaviour) and explain why some investors may rationally prefer it.

Add a paragraph noting potential downsides of pushing for more frequent trading, such as higher fees, increased volatility, or the risk of encouraging short-termism among investors and companies.

When describing ESG and green/blue bonds, include a brief mention of legitimate concerns (e.g., greenwashing risk, complexity of impact measurement, liquidity of such instruments) and, if possible, a quote from a cautious or sceptical investor or analyst.

In the section on cross-listings and regional integration, add context on possible costs or challenges (regulatory burden, listing fees, disclosure requirements) and why some firms might reasonably decide not to cross-list.

Appeal to authority

Relying on the opinions of experts or authorities as if they are conclusive evidence, without providing supporting data or acknowledging uncertainty.

The article leans heavily on statements from named financial professionals to support normative conclusions, without presenting empirical evidence: - “experts warn that Jamaica’s strong buy-and-hold culture is now slowing trading in the secondary market, limiting liquidity and discouraging broader investor participation.” - “She argued that the fundamentals supporting green and climate-focused investments are already sound, suggesting that pension funds should not need to be compelled to participate…” - “Buchanan said cross-listings would allow companies to build brand recognition, access a wider investor base and improve their ability to raise capital.” These are plausible claims, but they are presented largely as authoritative judgments rather than as hypotheses supported by data. No statistics on trading volumes, liquidity measures, ESG performance, or cross-listed firms’ outcomes are provided.

4 suggestions

Accompany expert opinions with relevant data, such as historical trading volumes, bid-ask spreads, or turnover ratios to demonstrate how buy-and-hold behaviour affects liquidity.

When stating that “the fundamentals supporting green and climate-focused investments are already sound,” add concrete evidence (e.g., performance indices, default rates, or case studies) or qualify the statement as the speaker’s opinion.

For claims about benefits of cross-listings, include examples or studies showing how specific Caribbean or comparable companies improved capital access or valuation after cross-listing, and note any mixed or contrary evidence if it exists.

Explicitly signal uncertainty by using phrases like “according to Williams,” “Buchanan argues that…,” and “data from X suggest…” rather than implying these are settled facts.

Unsubstantiated claims

Statements presented as fact without sufficient evidence or sourcing.

Several evaluative or causal statements are made without supporting data: - “When trading activity is low, investors become hesitant to participate, and companies face greater difficulty raising capital.” (General statement that may be true in many contexts but is not backed by specific evidence for Jamaica or the Caribbean.) - “She attributed the outcome to limited understanding and lingering misconceptions around sustainable investments…” (The failure to raise capital in the Caribbean is attributed to investor misunderstanding, but no survey or data is cited.) - “He attributed this in part to limited understanding of listing requirements and the lack of harmonised rules across Caribbean stock exchanges…” (Again, attribution of cause without evidence.) - “the average person is afraid of equities because they don’t understand it, and they can put their money in the bank and get a surer return.” (A broad generalisation about Barbadian investors, presented via quote, with no data.)

4 suggestions

Provide empirical support where possible, such as survey data on investor attitudes, statistics on capital-raising difficulties, or comparative returns and volatility of equities vs bank deposits in the relevant markets.

Qualify causal attributions with language that indicates they are hypotheses or perceptions (e.g., “Williams believes this may be due to…”, “Buchanan suggests that one factor could be…”).

For broad generalisations about “the average person,” either cite a study or rephrase to make clear it is anecdotal (e.g., “In my experience, many people I speak with in Barbados are wary of equities…”).

Where data is not available, explicitly acknowledge this (e.g., “While there is limited formal data on this, industry participants say…”).

Hasty generalization

Drawing broad conclusions from limited or anecdotal evidence.

Some statements generalise about entire populations or markets based on limited examples: - “When you speak to someone in Barbados, the average person is afraid of equities because they don’t understand it, and they can put their money in the bank and get a surer return.” - The German-based company’s fundraising experience in the Caribbean is used to imply a general problem of misunderstanding and misconceptions about sustainable investments across the region: “She attributed the outcome to limited understanding and lingering misconceptions around sustainable investments…” These extrapolate from individual experiences or impressions to broad claims about ‘the average person’ or the whole region.

4 suggestions

Rephrase generalisations to reflect that they are based on limited observations, e.g., “Some investors in Barbados appear to be afraid of equities…” instead of “the average person is afraid of equities…”.

Clarify that the German company’s experience is one example and avoid implying it definitively represents the entire Caribbean market; add wording like “This case may reflect…” or “This suggests that, at least in this instance…”.

If available, include broader data on equity ownership rates, risk attitudes, or ESG uptake in Barbados and the wider Caribbean to justify or nuance these claims.

Avoid using singular anecdotes as the primary basis for sweeping regional conclusions; instead, present them as illustrative cases within a more data-informed discussion.

Oversimplification

Reducing complex issues to a single or overly narrow cause or solution.

Several complex market behaviours are attributed mainly to education or understanding gaps, which may be one factor but not the only one: - “That education gap, she said, is particularly evident when it comes to newer instruments such as green and blue bonds… Williams cautioned that without a proper understanding, investor participation will remain limited.” - “She attributed the outcome to limited understanding and lingering misconceptions around sustainable investments…” - “He attributed this in part to limited understanding of listing requirements and the lack of harmonised rules across Caribbean stock exchanges…” Other possible factors (regulatory risk, currency risk, liquidity constraints, historical experiences with markets, macroeconomic conditions, or institutional trust) are not discussed.

4 suggestions

Acknowledge that investor education is one of several factors influencing participation, and briefly mention other plausible contributors such as risk tolerance, historical market performance, regulatory complexity, and macroeconomic conditions.

When attributing low ESG uptake or cross-listing activity to understanding gaps, add qualifiers like “among other factors” and, if possible, list some of those factors.

Include a sentence or two noting that more research is needed to disentangle the relative importance of education, regulation, and market structure in shaping investor behaviour.

Frame proposed solutions (education, lower minimums, cross-listings) as part of a broader toolkit rather than as near-complete solutions to liquidity and participation challenges.

Biased language (mild framing bias)

Using wording that subtly frames one side as more reasonable or desirable without explicit argument.

The language used to describe the pro-liquidity/ESG side is generally positive or normative, while the status quo is framed as a problem: - “experts warn that Jamaica’s strong buy-and-hold culture is now slowing trading… limiting liquidity and discouraging broader investor participation.” (Buy-and-hold is framed as something that ‘weighs on’ or ‘slows’ the market.) - “conservatism continues to limit activity…” (Conservatism is described as a limiting factor, implicitly negative.) - “She argued that the fundamentals supporting green and climate-focused investments are already sound, suggesting that pension funds should not need to be compelled to participate…” (Implies that not participating is somewhat irrational.) These word choices subtly position one set of behaviours (more trading, more ESG, more cross-listing) as the obvious or correct path, without explicitly arguing the case or presenting countervailing considerations.

4 suggestions

Use more neutral descriptors for investor behaviour, e.g., “risk-averse” or “cautious” instead of “conservatism continues to limit activity,” and explain both potential benefits and drawbacks of that caution.

Balance phrases like “weighs on market liquidity” with a brief note that buy-and-hold can also have benefits (e.g., stability, long-term focus), even if the article’s focus is on liquidity concerns.

When stating that pension funds ‘should not need to be compelled’ to invest in ESG, clarify that this is the speaker’s normative view and acknowledge that fiduciary duties and risk-return assessments may lead to different conclusions for different funds.

Where possible, replace implicitly evaluative verbs (e.g., “limit,” “suppress”) with more descriptive ones (e.g., “reduce trading frequency,” “result in lower turnover”) and then explain the implications.