Sorry Fastnet,
binned the lot a week ago during a clearout. Articles continue to look quite good, but they seem determined to present articles from advertisers - from personal experience I know they email past article writers and advertisers soliciting copy, and I think some of what they publish is unduly uncritical. Didn't Clem Chambers write that it was all random walk, and TA ought not work, quite recently? This time round he's promoting spread betting - damned if I can see how to trade that on Fundamentals. (Random walk, by the way, has been poo pooed by the academics who found it to be valid... seems they spotted that their tests were only valid in trending markets.... oops, TA works then, what a surprise!)
The dividing line between advertiser and article writer is not sufficiently defined, nor spelled out - I think it's quite reprehensible that an article should appear from someone with a vested interest in what they are reviewing. Some sections of the mag are regularly filled by advertisers in that field who just happen to sell the item the review focuses on... a trader with some experience will recognise these dodgy items, but I pity anyone coming to this mag from newbieville who thinks they are reading unbiased content.
This is a pity, as some of the content is pretty good, many articles are interesting - but it can be the absolute devil to decide which bits have a commercial bias to them!
What a surprise, traders need to watch what they pay for as all is not what it seems....
Dave
LOL
