Why a Public Research History Changes Everything
Most newsletters hide their misses. We track everything publicly, the good and the bad. Here is why that matters.
The trust problem
Think about the last market newsletter you read. Did they mention their misses? Probably not. Most financial content creators cherry-pick their hits and conveniently forget the misses. You have no way to evaluate whether their analysis actually identifies real patterns.
That is broken. And it is exactly what we set out to expose.
How our public research history works
Every single research subject we track is recorded with:
The trust problem
Think about the last market newsletter you read. Did they mention their misses? Probably not. Most financial content creators cherry-pick their hits and conveniently forget the misses. You have no way to evaluate whether their analysis actually identifies real patterns.
That is broken. And it is exactly what we set out to expose.
How our public research history works
Every single research subject we track is recorded with:
You can see all of this on our research history page. Nothing is hidden. If the agent had a terrible month, you will know about it.
Why this matters
When you can study someone's full research history, you can form your own judgement about whether the analysis is useful. A 60% hit rate with an average observed delta of 8% tells you something concrete. "Trust me, I am an expert" tells you nothing.
The accountability effect
Here is something interesting: knowing the history is public actually makes the research better. When you know every hypothesis will be judged, you think twice before making speculative ones. You do more research. You are more honest about uncertainty.
That pressure is a feature, not a bug.
Research output, not investment advice. The material above is observational and educational. Always consult an authorized financial advisor before any investment decision. Past observed outcomes do not predict future results.