Many new publications have begin going behind paywalls recently. The numbers are growing and competition for customers may become fierce. As for me, $40 monthly is beyond what I would be willing to pay for any of the recently paywalled publications.
I decided to invest w evergreen based on the quality of this newsletter/analysis in 2020. I imagine paywalling the haymaker would reduce the acquisition of new clients, even w the macro remaining unpaywalled. Also agree w others, 40$ is quite outside my budget, but also, as a client, does leave a bad taste in the mouth being charged for insights on the strategies/reasoning behind my managed investments - its a key differentiatior of evergreen compared to other managers- please consider access to paying clients, quite surprised that wasnt already being proposed....since not a decamillionare, my investment account is etf based, so appreciated the haymaker balancing that w single stock recommendations. Not interested in paying for paywall after already paying 1% management fee...doesnt seem fair
I would say that $40 sounds rather high. I waited a long, long time to subscribe to Doomberg for $30 a month. But maybe that's just me. I wish the best for you! Great content.
Hi David - First of all I would like to say I really enjoy Haymaker and Making Hay Monday! Prior to your changes due to SEC compliance, I bought some of the stocks you recommended and have done well. If a paid subscription will allow you to return to that format I would gladly pay for your advice. The pay model you suggested seems reasonable, but if two of your goals are a) grow your subscriber base and b) comfortably within the budgets of your average reader, you might want to consider lowering your yearly fee. I also subscribe to John Mauldin's Yield Shark and just renewed my 5th year with them. They charge $99/yr and I have also done well with many of their recommendations. I'm not saying you have to match Yield Shark annual subscription rate, but I do believe a lower fee will help you achieve these goals quicker. Keep up the good work and l look forward to your new format this summer! Cheers, Bill
I like the Haymaker very much. As an 80 year old retired man, trying to augment a small pension with sound income investments, my budget is limited. I am a long term subscriber to WSJ and Barron's, luckily locked into both at $1 per week each. I also rely heavily on Twitter, YouTube, and other internet sites. For me, and I think many others in my demographic, $40/mo would be a little too high. Maybe, some type of tiered subscription program would work, for example, a special rate for students, young first time investors, and retirees, $99 per year, as an example.
Really enjoy your writing, your candidness and the overall topics and guests that you bring. However I am not here for stock recommendations from you and, like many have said, there are far too many macro subscriptions in my inbox to justify the anticpated fee. Hope things work out and wish you well with all endeavors on whatever way you proceed. Cheers
My wife and I subscribe to two different newsletters/services already (IIRC, InvestTech was $250/2yrs and Grant's for $480/1yr). Given what those provide and that there is such an abundance of good free and/or lower cost content (Steven Clapham has nice list), it'd be hard for us to justify. Decreasing price in future may be problematic if taken as an incentive for folks sitting on the fence to wait.
If the paywall allows you to make individual stocks/bonds recommendations again, then I guess I would consider it (though 40$/month is pretty high) however those should be less US-centric and more open to people in other locations (Europe, Asia). If the publications remain 'generic' for SEC compliance, I am afraid that wouldn't work for me- as mentioned earlier there are many good macro insights out there and we can't pay for them all.
I've enjoyed your writings for several years. I'm afraid I will have to say good bye when you go behind a paywall, even at 300/yr. As a 75 year old retiree, I'm reportable to my boss of 53 years, who doesn't fully appreciate the worth of your insights. Thanks for what you have been providing for these many years. I never looked at it as for profit venture for you.
When you go behind a paywall, will you be able to give recommendations? If so, your $40 seems reasonable. The content is great even without recommendations, but there are so many excellent publications (Doomberg, Grant Williams, Dan Ferris) and I can't subscribe to all of them. Retail investors need good information, but we are small investors for a reason--not enough money to be big investors.
Several thoughts and suggestions. First, congratulations on a solid year! The team is doing a great service,and one that’s subtly different from a lot of fee-for-service newsletters out there. (For context, I’ve subscribed to several research- and model-portfolio-oriented services over the years, and am not an Evergreen client.) Having the insights from someone in David’s business, coupled with someone who’s not shy about being clear when he’s “eating his own cooking” or too early/late on a call is an important differentiator from other newsletters. The weekly updates on likes/dislikes/neutral, coupled with rationals for changes are very valuable. These are things of value, things I’d willing pay for.
That said, I agree with other comments that $40/$400 is a tad high *if* the SEC-compliance embargo must remain in place behind a paywall. (I too spent a lot of time weighing whether or not to sign up for Doomberg.) The rapid recent explosion of paywalled newsletters and blogs is...well, inflationary, and I’ve reached the point where any new subscription needs to be balanced by letting something else go, as much for my time/attention-span as budget.
I’m happy to get into more detail on newsletter price points if y’all want for market research purposes.
If you are being forced to add a pay wall by SEC, why not set it up as a two tier subscription: $40/year for us not wealthy amateur who really enjoyed your free newsletter, and $40/month for those that can afford more.
The primary value of the publication for me was the specific investment recommendations, and the ongoing tracking of those investments. Now that those are not available due to SEC compliance, the generalized information is much less interesting to me. I surely would not be interested in paying $40/mo for the publication in its current form.
Sorry but $400 seems very steep compared to some of the other offerings out there. $149 or perhaps $199 would be a price level I'd consider if I wasn't already subscribed to a couple of other services.
Many new publications have begin going behind paywalls recently. The numbers are growing and competition for customers may become fierce. As for me, $40 monthly is beyond what I would be willing to pay for any of the recently paywalled publications.
I would consider$400/year only in the context of your pre SEC compliance format, which provided more specific actionable content.
Really like and compare this to Luke Grommen FFTT… $200/yr or $5/week as affordable to avg Joe
I decided to invest w evergreen based on the quality of this newsletter/analysis in 2020. I imagine paywalling the haymaker would reduce the acquisition of new clients, even w the macro remaining unpaywalled. Also agree w others, 40$ is quite outside my budget, but also, as a client, does leave a bad taste in the mouth being charged for insights on the strategies/reasoning behind my managed investments - its a key differentiatior of evergreen compared to other managers- please consider access to paying clients, quite surprised that wasnt already being proposed....since not a decamillionare, my investment account is etf based, so appreciated the haymaker balancing that w single stock recommendations. Not interested in paying for paywall after already paying 1% management fee...doesnt seem fair
I would say that $40 sounds rather high. I waited a long, long time to subscribe to Doomberg for $30 a month. But maybe that's just me. I wish the best for you! Great content.
Hi David - First of all I would like to say I really enjoy Haymaker and Making Hay Monday! Prior to your changes due to SEC compliance, I bought some of the stocks you recommended and have done well. If a paid subscription will allow you to return to that format I would gladly pay for your advice. The pay model you suggested seems reasonable, but if two of your goals are a) grow your subscriber base and b) comfortably within the budgets of your average reader, you might want to consider lowering your yearly fee. I also subscribe to John Mauldin's Yield Shark and just renewed my 5th year with them. They charge $99/yr and I have also done well with many of their recommendations. I'm not saying you have to match Yield Shark annual subscription rate, but I do believe a lower fee will help you achieve these goals quicker. Keep up the good work and l look forward to your new format this summer! Cheers, Bill
I like the Haymaker very much. As an 80 year old retired man, trying to augment a small pension with sound income investments, my budget is limited. I am a long term subscriber to WSJ and Barron's, luckily locked into both at $1 per week each. I also rely heavily on Twitter, YouTube, and other internet sites. For me, and I think many others in my demographic, $40/mo would be a little too high. Maybe, some type of tiered subscription program would work, for example, a special rate for students, young first time investors, and retirees, $99 per year, as an example.
Really enjoy your writing, your candidness and the overall topics and guests that you bring. However I am not here for stock recommendations from you and, like many have said, there are far too many macro subscriptions in my inbox to justify the anticpated fee. Hope things work out and wish you well with all endeavors on whatever way you proceed. Cheers
My wife and I subscribe to two different newsletters/services already (IIRC, InvestTech was $250/2yrs and Grant's for $480/1yr). Given what those provide and that there is such an abundance of good free and/or lower cost content (Steven Clapham has nice list), it'd be hard for us to justify. Decreasing price in future may be problematic if taken as an incentive for folks sitting on the fence to wait.
If the paywall allows you to make individual stocks/bonds recommendations again, then I guess I would consider it (though 40$/month is pretty high) however those should be less US-centric and more open to people in other locations (Europe, Asia). If the publications remain 'generic' for SEC compliance, I am afraid that wouldn't work for me- as mentioned earlier there are many good macro insights out there and we can't pay for them all.
I've enjoyed your writings for several years. I'm afraid I will have to say good bye when you go behind a paywall, even at 300/yr. As a 75 year old retiree, I'm reportable to my boss of 53 years, who doesn't fully appreciate the worth of your insights. Thanks for what you have been providing for these many years. I never looked at it as for profit venture for you.
When you go behind a paywall, will you be able to give recommendations? If so, your $40 seems reasonable. The content is great even without recommendations, but there are so many excellent publications (Doomberg, Grant Williams, Dan Ferris) and I can't subscribe to all of them. Retail investors need good information, but we are small investors for a reason--not enough money to be big investors.
Several thoughts and suggestions. First, congratulations on a solid year! The team is doing a great service,and one that’s subtly different from a lot of fee-for-service newsletters out there. (For context, I’ve subscribed to several research- and model-portfolio-oriented services over the years, and am not an Evergreen client.) Having the insights from someone in David’s business, coupled with someone who’s not shy about being clear when he’s “eating his own cooking” or too early/late on a call is an important differentiator from other newsletters. The weekly updates on likes/dislikes/neutral, coupled with rationals for changes are very valuable. These are things of value, things I’d willing pay for.
That said, I agree with other comments that $40/$400 is a tad high *if* the SEC-compliance embargo must remain in place behind a paywall. (I too spent a lot of time weighing whether or not to sign up for Doomberg.) The rapid recent explosion of paywalled newsletters and blogs is...well, inflationary, and I’ve reached the point where any new subscription needs to be balanced by letting something else go, as much for my time/attention-span as budget.
I’m happy to get into more detail on newsletter price points if y’all want for market research purposes.
All the best,
Mike
If you are being forced to add a pay wall by SEC, why not set it up as a two tier subscription: $40/year for us not wealthy amateur who really enjoyed your free newsletter, and $40/month for those that can afford more.
The primary value of the publication for me was the specific investment recommendations, and the ongoing tracking of those investments. Now that those are not available due to SEC compliance, the generalized information is much less interesting to me. I surely would not be interested in paying $40/mo for the publication in its current form.
Sorry but $400 seems very steep compared to some of the other offerings out there. $149 or perhaps $199 would be a price level I'd consider if I wasn't already subscribed to a couple of other services.