we insure that genius data is correct but not virtual portfolios. as i have told you many times we dedicate the vast majority of our resources to our new business. we fix problems related to virtual portfolios on a best efforts basis because we do not expect any of the virtual portfolio users to become geniuses. there are minor glitches that affect a tiny % of the virtual portfolios.

Note the part where he says that kaChing doesn’t expect any more virtual portfolio users to become “geniuses.” Contradicting, isn’t it?

By the way, I caution anyone from using kaChing extensively. It’s best to just “follow” and not “mirror”. The simple reason for my recommendation is that there are severe conflicts of interest inherent in the system. For example, Daniel Carroll’s research posts are ALWAYS rated 5 stars. Now isn’t there huge room for manipulation? He’s the founder, but he’s ALSO a “genius”. I’ve seen research posts very similar to his with much lower ratings (2 or 3 stars). That screenshot of daniel’s portfolio is obviously manipulated. It’s 5 stars, not a modest 4 like he suggests.

Don’t believe me? Surf around the website! He is deliberately manipulating his statistics and will, unfortunately, never be able to “dramatically change” the industry.

This is 5/5:
http://apps.facebook.com/kaching/research/5692
Fair enough, but if this is a 5/5,

why is:
http://apps.facebook.com/kaching/research/1553
Also 5/5? Shouldn’t it be 4? or 4.5 AT BEST?

AND this:
http://apps.facebook.com/kaching/research/5984
is just 3/5.

You get my drift. Leave kaching to the wannabes. Their “assets under management” is increasing every single day, and that worries me.