We subscribe to a Doctor’s health newsletter which has been informative and beneficial. Now the doctor is recommending stocks.

What’s wrong with this picture? Juxtaposition. It’s just wrong.

Granted, the health newsletter appears to be well written and the health recommendations come with some apparent basis in science. In other words, what the good doctor writes actually makes sense.

Better than just making sense, we’ve tried a number of his suggestions with good results, so the good doctor’s credibility has increased over time.

Until now.

Recently, the good doctor sent out an alert about a bargain stock that was sure to increase a gazillion fold, and soon, so the wise should buy what they could as soon as possible. We did not; partly because the source for the recommendation did not have credibility or background or even experience picking stocks, and partly because that’s just not how we buy stocks.

Do you expect to receive an award winning recipe for making sausage from the mechanic who works on your car? Probably not. That’s not to say the recipe could not be a good one. It’s possible, possibly even probable, but it just doesn’t seem right.

There’s a local financial guru with his own local television show in which he spouts off about how he picks stocks and manages portfolios for rich people who were not really rich until they allowed him to manage his money.

Think about it. If he was so good at picking stocks and making riches, why does he need a television show to get more clients? Wouldn’t it be better if he was simply his own client and worked full time to make himself rich by picking stocks so he wouldn’t have to serve others?

That makes sense to me. A health doctor with stock tips doesn’t make so much sense. Neither does a recipe wielding mechanic.