Q: Peter and team: I want to sincerely thank you (!!) for your service--from a long time BNN viewer, avid reader of Peter's published articles, and very, very enriched long time 5i subscriber.
It is difficult to think of how 5i could be meaningfully improved. The responses to subscriber's questions in particular have terrific value when The questions are short and focus on one or a couple stocks, and I read the incredibly well thought out responses with keen interest, and have acted on these responses many many times over the years, profiting handsomely as a result.
I have one small suggestion to some subscribers. My wish would be for those offering criticism of 5i--David's recent remarks on Peter's endorsement of high flying TTD is top of mind-- to refrain from criticism of 5i's picks. If you are unaware, Mr Hodson is one of the very, very best in his field in Canada, full stop. He has made serious money from momentum plays. Your idea that TTD is too expensive is your perception and if Peter is endorsing it currently odds are you will likely be proved wrong, not Peter.
For a very modest annual sum we, the subscribers, have access to his thoughts on securities and the market. If you act accordingly on his recommendations, you will be rewarded over time.
To those who occasionally use the Q&A feature to be critical of research offered by Peter, on behalf of (Im sure) many subscribers, please, we don't want to have to filter through criticism, we want instead, ideally, just short, pointed questions on Peter's opinion regading say, one or two stocks at most.
Finally, those who ask long winded questions, or questions involving a dozen or more stocks, or those subscribers who occasionally angrily vent that a stock that was recommended lost altitude (that is part of the game folks) please consider the hundreds ? thousands? Of us who read these questions daily and are craving quality questions to elicit meaningful responses from Peter along our financial journey. Let's continue to give Peter reasons to continue operating this amazing service and continue personally responding to many of our questions by being reasonable subscribers as many, many of us are.
It is difficult to think of how 5i could be meaningfully improved. The responses to subscriber's questions in particular have terrific value when The questions are short and focus on one or a couple stocks, and I read the incredibly well thought out responses with keen interest, and have acted on these responses many many times over the years, profiting handsomely as a result.
I have one small suggestion to some subscribers. My wish would be for those offering criticism of 5i--David's recent remarks on Peter's endorsement of high flying TTD is top of mind-- to refrain from criticism of 5i's picks. If you are unaware, Mr Hodson is one of the very, very best in his field in Canada, full stop. He has made serious money from momentum plays. Your idea that TTD is too expensive is your perception and if Peter is endorsing it currently odds are you will likely be proved wrong, not Peter.
For a very modest annual sum we, the subscribers, have access to his thoughts on securities and the market. If you act accordingly on his recommendations, you will be rewarded over time.
To those who occasionally use the Q&A feature to be critical of research offered by Peter, on behalf of (Im sure) many subscribers, please, we don't want to have to filter through criticism, we want instead, ideally, just short, pointed questions on Peter's opinion regading say, one or two stocks at most.
Finally, those who ask long winded questions, or questions involving a dozen or more stocks, or those subscribers who occasionally angrily vent that a stock that was recommended lost altitude (that is part of the game folks) please consider the hundreds ? thousands? Of us who read these questions daily and are craving quality questions to elicit meaningful responses from Peter along our financial journey. Let's continue to give Peter reasons to continue operating this amazing service and continue personally responding to many of our questions by being reasonable subscribers as many, many of us are.
