Post your product, 1 ask and I'll do my best to provide feedback

Thank you for your feedback. It's really helpful for me, especially when I've just started my writing journey. I'm so excited!

Glad you liked it, and thank you so much for the feedback on the Get this page!
Next time you need a logo hit me up :D

Your feedback is much appreciated! Thanks

Thanks for the feedback @fire2030! I would agree with you on educating part. I moved up the FAQ in the main navigation after your comment. Also lot of content being generated under the blog section https://www.wisecharlie.com/blog. And, more to come.

Thanks for your opinions! I thought of a similar synonym idea before. But didn't find the API needed. Hopefully it doesn't require ai to get the data.

You're right. Besides domains, many makers will look for logos, email, website builder.

These are the services provided by domain companies. My next step will be trying to launch on hacker news

No problem, thank you for taking a look!

Can you elaborate a bit more on the "friction points" and how should they've been, with some explanation?

Thank you for the feedback! I appreciate your time and effort.

Great question, I will actually add that to our helpdesk articles as well :)

We never recommend to use leverage or "margin loans" to invest. Especially since different brokers have very different rules and hidden fees for these.

And indeed if you do happen to invest with loans or leverage just before a market crash, your broker will likely force exit your positions to cover their bottom line, and you will be left having sold your shares at the worst possible timing. Making the recovery time longer and more difficult.

In general no matter what strategy you use. Don't invest money that you can't live without for at least 2 years.

In the event a crash happens (and it will, we just don't know when), our recommendations like all other common stocks will lose value, and the average recovery time from these events has been around 8 months. That means 8 months where your portfolio would be worth less than the highest previous balance.

Hi @damopwr

Allocation is a tricky question!

Internally we have a portfolio management algorithm that optimizes allocation. But this is built for large AUM capital. So it will sometimes have 0.001% allocated to a single stock, which isn't feasible for most people's portfolios.

Weekly Stocktip is designed to be the simple so it works for any amount. The idea is that you just invest whatever you want to invest this week. Whether that be $100 or $5,000 doesn't matter. It doesn't have to be regular or the same amount.

For the backtest and performance, it doesn't get the benefit of a weekly inflow. It follows an account that started with a balance of $25,000 and the portfolio management algorithm allocated those funds over time. The only growth it receives are from dividends and returns when a stock is sold.

We have our full portfolio model available as well, but the pricing for that is a bit higher at $140,000 annually and requires a large portfolio to use efficiently.

This is the "usual" method for backtesting. If we gave it an "allowance" to invest $500 every week, it could never fail and the test would be positively biased and the performance would be significantly better. We generally prefer to always go for "worst case" and simplest scenario.

You can read more about how we've conducted our backtesting here: https://medium.com/@weeklystocktip/backtesting-bias-and-how-to-avoid-it-f10c764d9886

and yes the system will be invested in multiple stocks at the same time.

@DanielK_CZ The sell signals we send out in the newsletter is the same as what our subscribers get in the dashboard, the same published on our website's "latest sell signals" and the same actually trades we provide to our 3rd party auditor. If we sent out anything that's incorrect, not only would we open ourselves up to significant legal issues, but no one would stay subscribed, and there would be no point in offering this service at all.

Any current subscriber can confirm that they match what's in our dashboard. If it didn't we would get bombarded with reviews saying it's a scam immediately.

Weekly Stocktip is not a new service, We've been around for quite a while at this point.

The price is a bit of a moot point... If you could pay some one $29 and get $500 in return... Why wouldn't you??? This is the situation our service is in. The price is irrelevant as long as the returns for the signals ends up paying out more than the cost. In this case, the break-even cost of our signals thus far have been around $31 per week. How much value you get out of the product is directly related to how much you invest each week and the returns of those investments. If we can keep up our average return of +94% per signal. The exact same service would easily be worth $800 a week to some one who has a $1,000 extra to invest every week. A $29 fee +$50 investment a week is something most can afford, and if not, I'd argue budgeting and increasing your salary will be more helpful than seeking investment advice. (I'm not claiming that this makes sense to start on a minimum-wage job. But for most it will easily pay for itself in the long-run)

Also keep in mind that our data-costs for just running the system is around $50,000 a quarter. The data needed to analyze these companies in the depth we do, aren't cheap. The $29 fee doesn't even cover half of our operating costs. Our main source of income is and will always be private money management, from which we've had clients since 2011 who are still with us today. We don't provide access to Weekly Stocktip to make a profit, we provide it as a method to gain public interest, build a public verifiable track record and use it as proof to more skeptical high networth investors when we eventually get a hedgefund up and running.

As for the "only" 7-day money back guarantee being suspicious, how could we improve on that??? We specialize in long-term value investing. Whether we provide a 7-day or 30 day money back guarantee, you won't see a 90% win rate or a 100% return on new signals in such a short time-frame.

In fact, this is specifically why we provide a 24-months performance guarantee instead. (this is basically a long-term money back guarantee, saying if we don't beat the S&P500 you get a full refund for all payments). 24-months is a realistic timeframe to be able to judge the system.

However what you can do within 7 days are the following

• Review our monthly audited performance records.
• Review all previously sold signals
• Verify that what we've been publishing publicly matches what everyone else sees in the dashboard.

But most importantly, you can analyze all our signals for the past year. E.g. this week we recommended to buy SCS for $10.33 (it is now up around +10% at $11.33) What you can do with that information is to investigate SCS... Do the math, figure out what the real value of this stock is, and you will find that every signal recommended is a company matches the following criteria:

• Selling for much cheaper than it's intrinsic value (margin of safety)
• Consistent growth
• Profitable
• Low debt to equity ratio
• Adequately sized
• Sufficiently strong financial condition
• Usually pays dividends
• No earnings deficit in the past ten years (No loss)
• Ten year growth of at least one third in per-share earnings
• Price of stock no more than 1.5 times net asset value
• Price no more than 15 times average earnings of the past three years.

etc. etc. etc.

Our stock tips aren't based on speculation, they are based on sound principles that can all be verified. While finding the intrinsic value isn't an exact science, anyone can look up these companies and find out that they aren't speculative guesses, but businesses with very sound predictable results. The question isn't will this company drop 50% in value or double in value? The question becomes, will this company go up more than the S&P500?

Besides sitting on the side-lines for 2 years and just watching it. This is honestly the best way to verify our strategy.

If you want to really have a deep-dive into how we do things, I strongly recommend reading The intelligent investor by Benjamin Graham. Every algorithm we use is based on the core principles also found in this book.

____

All that aside, I would really like to know what we could improve. What needs to be done to make this a no-brainer? Do we need to provide an on-going 2 year money back guarantee? That to me seems more sketchy than a 7-day one, just because no one has ever done that before (to my knowledge). But it's not impossible. But wouldn't it make people more likely to quit impulsively at the first sight of a negative number? We want people to commit to using it. If they don't actually use the system, there will be no results and they would be better off keeping the $29 a week.

If we were in the game of scamming people, we would be doing day-trading like all the other so-called "gurus" out there. Acquiring customers and telling them they have to be patient for many months before they realize profits is 1,000X harder, than claiming short-term profits.

Thanks for the feedback @fire2030!

It's very interesting to see that you think $29/week is expensive. It's a bit of a unique situation because the trade isn't a product. The trade is returns.

We simply set the price at $29 because we wanted to make it accessible for anyone with low-to-median income and have more control over our market participation. But we could just as easily target a different demographic and the same product would easily be worth $100,000 to some one who has a million dollars to invest with the same returns.

Let's say you have $500 an invest in an average signal for a $29 fee. You later sell the stock for an average ~$1,000. I think most would happily pay $290 (10X our asking price) to get $500 back later. I realize not everyone has $500 to invest every week, but even at $100 it still makes financial sense to pay $29 and get $94 back. "You get out what you put in", we set the bar pretty low at a minimum sensible investment of $50 a week. Anything less than that and the returns aren't worth our fee. But it's not exactly an expensive as long as we can keep up achieving the same returns in the following year as we have in the last decade.

But again it becomes an issue of trust, not of pricing. Whether #1 our results are real, and #2 if we can keep achieving the same results in the future as we have in the past.

It sounds like we definitely should make a returns calculator of some sort, to make this more obvious that you really don't need to put a lot of money in, for the tiny $29 fee to pay for itself.

Money back guarantee vs free trial is probably the #1 thing we've discussed the most, and one day when we have time we'll probably A/B test it.

The reason we structured it as a money back guarantee is that we're not a day-trading system. It's a longterm value investing strategy. In term of a single week there's about a 48% chance on average that the stock tip we picked will be in the "negative" vs the "positive". We don't want to be judged on the performance of 1 stock over a single week, but the performance of many stock picks over a period of months. The best way to judge us, is to look at our audited month-by-month performance, our sell signals, or by doing your own analysis on our stock picks. (you will find that all our picks was bought with a high margin of safety, much lower than their intrinsic value)

I feel if we provide a Weekly Trial with not credit card requirements. People will be less committed and base their judgement more on how the performance is the first week of whatever signal and you probably won't actually invest anything during your trial.

On the other hand if you've done your research and believe the system will work, and paid $29 for it, I "think" you are more likely to actually invest something to get your $29 worth, and then more likely to stick with it, rather than just dismissing it as "oh the signal dropped 0.3% this week, it doesn't work".

We don't speculate on what happens with a single stock tomorrow, or next week. We attempt to accurately measure its intrinsic worth, buy stocks that are selling for much cheaper than they should be and wait for it to increase to that range. A lot of users simply can't be convinced this works ahead of time, but those same users wouldn't be convinced with a short trial anyway. For the skeptics we provide a newsletter where we post all our sell signals on a monthly basis so they can follow a long for however long they want.

The guarantee / trial mostly exists for the purpose of letting people sign up, and if it's not what they thought it would be, they can get their money back. There is no strategy on earth that can consistently double your money within a week with a +90% win ratio. It's a long-game and it just can't truly be judged within a week or a month.

The 2-year performance guarantee is also largely to let people know what to expect. We can't make any claims on what happens tomorrow or next week. But we've consistently outperformed the S&P500 almost every single year both since our launch and in backtests, and always beaten it by a long-shot in any 2-year period. It's an expectation setting, and it's very unlikely that we will ever underperform S&P500 in a 24-months period.

Those calculations you mention brought me to an idea of implementing a simple calculator where people would enter how much money they would invest and it should calculate it together with $29 lost per week. I understand it wouldn't be 100% accurate, but it gives at least some basic projection.

@DanielK_CZ We "kind of" already are.

The numbers we show on the website are calculated from our entire backtest from 1970 to 2020. These are the most accurate results as they include several market crashes.

Our real results from 2009 to 2020, have been much better, our win ratio has been higher than 93% and our average annual return has been almost 10% higher than our claims. (this is of course not expected to continue forever. When we eventually do hit another financial crisis, we expect our numbers to drop down to the more realistic ones we show on our website).

But whether they seem "too good" or not. We can't fudge with the numbers. The numbers absolutely have to match what's in our audits and what our users are seeing in the platform. We can't claim on the website we sold a stock for less (or more) than we did, since our subscribers all see those same numbers and it wouldn't match up to real-world results.

Showing incorrect numbers is not an option. We do some expectation setting by focusing on the realistic numbers, rather than our above-average 2009 to 2020 performance, although information from both periods are of course available.

Even if we could show "lower" numbers it removes our selling point. ANYONE can get a 7.9% average annual return risk-free by investing in broad index funds like the S&P500. If our results aren't significantly better than that, it makes no sense for customers to pay us a fee if we don't outperform the guaranteed free alternative returns.

Thanks for your feedback. At the moment, I'm validating the approach. It may work, it may not.