Australian Small-Cap Investigator

Overall Rating

Rating: 3.0/5. From 13 votes.
Please wait...
3.2
Rating from 51 votes
If you’ve subscribed to Australian Small-Cap Investigator, please click the stars below to indicate your rating for this newsletter, and please share any other feedback about your experience using the comment box below.

Investment Performance

Rating from 15 votes
Rating: 3.2/5. From 15 votes.
Please wait...
Your vote
  • 5 Stars 1 Votes
  • 4 Stars 6 Votes
  • 3 Stars 5 Votes
  • 2 Stars 1 Votes
  • 1 Stars 2 Votes

Quality Of Writing/Analysis

Rating from 12 votes
Rating: 3.5/5. From 12 votes.
Please wait...
Your vote
  • 5 Stars 2 Votes
  • 4 Stars 5 Votes
  • 3 Stars 3 Votes
  • 2 Stars 1 Votes
  • 1 Stars 1 Votes

Value For Price

Rating from 11 votes
Rating: 3.0/5. From 11 votes.
Please wait...
Your vote
  • 5 Stars 1 Votes
  • 4 Stars 4 Votes
  • 3 Stars 2 Votes
  • 2 Stars 2 Votes
  • 1 Stars 2 Votes

Customer Service

Rating from 13 votes
Rating: 3.0/5. From 13 votes.
Please wait...
Your vote
  • 5 Stars 1 Votes
  • 4 Stars 5 Votes
  • 3 Stars 3 Votes
  • 2 Stars 1 Votes
  • 1 Stars 3 Votes
guest

12345

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

20 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Chris O
Guest
Chris O
February 21, 2009 4:49 am

Since I live in Perth AND am a subscriber to this newsletter I can’t resist contributing my most humble opinion.
Overall I like the service (I also subscribe to their other publication called Diggers and Drillers). I was attracted because I can ‘test’ their stories a little better on Australian companies than I can with the stories I get from Stansberrys about US and international companies. Or so I thought.
I am holding a few very small spec positions on some of the tiny would be’s from their portfolio. Mainly in new energy – fuel cells, biofuels, geothermal and some biotechs. I will have to be patient given current environment and of course, about 3 of the pics are flat-lined – life support notwithstanding – (or should be sent mercifully to their creator) due to lack of access to finance to keep them afloat. There is still some quality in the mix for the very patient – in ‘normal’ times one would be aghast at such poor performance but in the current environment the unrealised losses on some of these tiny speculative positions I hold is relatively “ho-hum”.

Add a Topic
200
Wary
Guest
Wary
July 1, 2009 10:52 pm

I bought the newsletter before the crash and most shares i bought slumped badly. This was not particulary their fault but on reflection the shares are more suitable for trading than holding or longer term speculation. Because of a glitch in my subscription i have not followed it for some time e.g. 18 months or so. There is a place for a newsletter like this but there are risks if you are not trading.

McDougall
Guest
McDougall
November 30, 2009 3:40 am

I subscribed to take a look at minor explorers and developers, to round out my own intererst in the field and get others research and simply find out about unfamiliar companys.

I read it for that reason still, but it is marred by rabid monetarist views. I am an economist by training, have spent years running my own business etc. Their economic theories are WRONG. Worse, they are (in the GFC circumstances) dangerous. The idea that all all debt is bad, is a nonsense. The idea that all government is bad is DANGEROUS. In a GFC ONLY government will keep the world economy aflaot until world stock run down and confidence returns. If this lot ran the world the global economy would spiral down into another Great Depression, with all the massive unemployment it entails.

Hence my low rating.

Add a Topic
5971
Add a Topic
5155
Add a Topic
6168
rob
Guest
rob
October 22, 2017 12:11 am
Reply to  McDougall

I agree to a point, but govt IS bad to a big degree when they interfere in economies. GFC occurred in part due to their interference, by keeping interest rates artificially low it sent wrong investment signals to the market & thus misallocation of capital occurred. Govts are incompetent at best & do not have an all seeing eye to be able to make informed decisions.

Lim
Guest
Lim
January 29, 2010 6:39 am