Maximus wrote:It is an advertisement however their argument and analysis is backed up with a list of sources (the article).
The problem is with their 'extrapolations' from correct figures, as the example I highlight clearly shows.
Maximus wrote:They also open the article highlighting their past correct calls.
But they do not mention their 'bad calls' , how many there were etc - and they must have made some. This is the problem with an advertisement pretending to be an analysis at least for me.
Maximus wrote:The risk disclaimer is standard, they have to put that there to protect themselves.
They are 'selling' information to protect yourself from financial disaster, but have to disclaim that this advise is of any actual use and should not be relied upon to 'protect' themselves. I would stick with a real , regulated financial adviser, if I had any actual money to worry about, that at least has some legal duty of care for the advise they give, unlike these people who claim to 'more right than anyone else' yet operate in a manner where they have to 'protect' themselves from any liability for those that follow their advise.