Publishing Guidelines

[Editor’s note: These publishing guidelines were last updated on Sept. 2, 2022]

By Sarah Smith, Editor-in-Chief, prides itself on the quality of the informed, opinionated financial analysis we provide. Our writers and editors work tirelessly to ensure the stories we publish meet the rigid standards of our publishing guidelines. These standards encourage writers to utilize their unique experiences to create compelling stories that are 1) backed by facts, 2) free from outside influence, and 3) are transparent in the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest.

We aren’t perfect. But we are committed to doing our best to get it right and serve our readers. If you believe we have fallen short, please reach out to us via email.

On Opinionated Writing:

Our writers are not journalists. We intend to inform, educate, and entertain our readers, but we do not attempt to be unbiased in the way that journalists strive for.

No one can predict with 100% certainty what will happen in the future, but we can make educated guesses based on logical arguments. While InvestorPlace strives for fact-based commentary, our content typically leans toward actionable market advice based on our writers’ perspectives. This means that our content, unless otherwise stated, is the opinion of the writer, and the writer alone.

On Differences of Opinion:

We often publish multiple points of view on the same stock, and readers may encounter articles that offer conflicting advice (buy/sell) on the same stock. We encourage our readers to read and consider these multiple points of view in instances in which there are conflicting opinions on a stock. In fact, we embrace that diversity of opinion because we believe it improves the overall understanding of a company’s investment prospects, and thus serves our readers.

In many cases, we will publish opinion articles that go against conventional wisdom and subvert the status quo. These stories may challenge our readers’ own opinions and elicit emotional responses. We aim to do so respectfully, and do so to bring readers multiple perspectives to best stimulate their own thinking on a subject. We also encourage our authors to revisit their analysis of a stock when the facts change. content contains fact-based news and data that is carefully checked for accuracy. Our content also contains analysis-based opinionated commentary. For this reason, all articles will feature the following disclaimer, with a link to this page, at the end of the article:

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the writer, subject to the Publishing Guidelines.

On Ownership Disclosures: writers are passionate about investing, and many hold positions in the markets. At the same time, we understand that there is both real and implied bias that may come with writing about a company that the writer owns.

Many of our writers expressly avoid covering stocks they own themselves, in large part because we often hear from readers that they don’t want any real or perceived bias in our articles. Other writers do cover stocks they own, because it shows the passion of their conviction. believes in transparency and we owe it to our readers to be clear regarding a writer’s personal position in any stocks or cryptos he or she covers. As such, we demand all writers disclose if they hold a position in any security mentioned in each article so that our readers can make up their own mind about what impact that ownership may have on the writer’s opinion. Further, our editors are prohibited from allowing their holdings from influencing the editorial feedback they would provide to writers.

Our disclosure policy does not extend to securities held within mutual funds or exchange-traded funds.

On Trading Prohibitions:

Writers are prohibited from trading in any security they cover in an article on for 72 hours after publishing an article about the security.

We Do Not Provide Individualized Investment Advice:

We aim to inform, but it is up to our readers to decide their own best investing decisions. The truth is that the one-to-many microphones of our website cannot — and does not strive to — provide investment advice that is right for each of our readers. Quite simply, we do not provide individualized investment advice.

On Outside Compensation for Favorable Analysis:

Except in limited instances, we compensate our writers for the articles they write. All writers publishing on are prohibited from accepting outside compensation to publish views in favor of or against a given security for articles that appear on our website.

On Covering Penny Stocks:

There are many definitions for the term “penny stock,” but most definitions refer to companies whose low market capitalization and trading volumes afford bad actors a ripe opportunity for market manipulation. In accordance with this view, generally seeks to publish content on securities with a market capitalization above $100 million.

In instances where we deem a “penny stock” worthy of coverage InvestorPlace may publish an article on the company, which will include the following disclosure:

With only the rarest exceptions, InvestorPlace does not publish commentary about companies that have a market cap of less than $100 million. That’s because these “penny stocks” are frequently the playground for scam artists and market manipulators. If we ever do publish commentary on a low-volume stock that may be affected by our commentary, we demand that’s writers disclose this fact and warn readers of the risks.

Read More: Penny Stocks – How to Profit Without Getting Scammed.

On Sourcing and Facts: asks writers to link directly to primary sources when citing statistics. We have a team of editors who check numbers to help ensure accuracy at the time of publication. Whenever our writers cite work done by another organization, we strive to link to it. If our writers are making a claim about market trends, we ask that they provide a link when one is available.

We welcome our readers to contact the editors of directly if they encounter errors or other factual inconsistencies.

On Linking to Sources:

If our writers have quoted from another article, we ask that they link to the original source of the information. If any of our writers incorporates another author’s work in order to bolster their own argument, it must be properly credited. If the source is something we can’t link to —  a research note that isn’t publicly available — we will still explicitly name the source.

We do all of this because proper sourcing and use of links helps the reader. Further, it also allows our readers to verify the veracity of our writers’ claims.

On Plagiarism:

Plagiarism is strictly prohibited. While has content sharing arrangements with other publishing partners, we never reuse the work of others without their consent or clear attribution.

On Primary Sources:

We believe financial media plays an important function in the everyday decisions of Main Street investors. Therefore, it is incumbent on us to publish authoritative content with facts and opinions our readers can trust. For this reason, our writers may include exclusive quotes from primary sources. When used, these sources provide essential background information to our writers’ arguments and help explain complex topics in language that’s accessible. Any information gathered directly from primary sources will be used in one of, or a combination of, the following: quoting or paraphrasing. When quoting, the source’s words are used in the article verbatim and presented in quotation marks (“) with their desired attribution. When our writers paraphrase, the context of the source’s quote is rewritten in the writer’s own words. Paraphrased remarks will not appear in quotations but will feature attribution.