Every now and then people ask me to "explain stuff" or to give reasons for my "recommendations".
People that write down their reasoning tend to be forced to participate in silly little internet battles and I have no interest in those.
My "investment decisions" are usually rather insignificant ones. I keep getting information on stocks and stock prices keep changing and I just try to adjust portfolio position sizes when I think new (to me) information or stock price changes suggest doing that. So maybe I read some press release, listen to some presentation or conference call, see someone mention something about some company or see the price of a stock change by "too much" or "too little" (for my taste, based on the reasons for the price movement I could find). And then I change the number of stocks held in my (or the fund's) portfolio of the company (or companies) involved by a little. No charts, no balance sheet forensics, just reacting to stuff (including share prices) I am reading/hearing/watching. The details are usually "out there" for everyone to use as their input, I am just trying to be a little more efficient at turning them into output ;)
If people take a few minutes to scroll through my "caps" game and "mostly virtual fund" investment decisions or just look at the "performance statistics" I post every now and then and can't see whether I am good or bad at this investing thing, they should probably just move on. There may really be nothing here to see ;)
Those that do think that I am good at this (mostly biopharma) investing thing should probably "follow" what I write. And the subset of those that work in the finance arena should cosider recommending me the next time someone is looking for someone that, as anchak put it a few years ago, for some reason is pretty good at biotech investing ;)
Some of my "qualifications" are given in my twitter profile.