Archive note · corrected
Trading-account red flags: a neutral claim-audit checklist
A dated correction withdrawing an unsupported account/post cohort and reframing red flags as questions to investigate, not labels for people.
Editorial correction: red flags are an audit checklist, not a cohort finding
Editorial correction · 9 September 2026. The original February 14 article said that it audited 55 high-visibility trading accounts and 940 public signal posts, then found different 90-day follower results for accounts with multiple red flags. It did not publish the account list, post register, timestamped captures, coding sheet, benchmark paths, outcome rows or calculation check. The public references provide general investor context, not those sample records.
We withdraw the 55-account/940-post cohort, the reported returns and predictive relationships, the account-level counts, and the numerical triggers as empirical findings. The original URL and publication date remain. A missing record is not proof that an individual or account is fraudulent, and this page does not label any person a “fake guru.”
Five neutral claim-audit questions
| Question | Evidence to preserve | Safe label when it is missing |
|---|---|---|
| Can the claim be found again? | Public URL, capture and retrieval time | Record not preserved |
| Was the call precise enough to test? | Instrument, direction, entry time/zone, invalidation and horizon | Not executable from the available post |
| Are wins and losses retained symmetrically? | Periodic snapshots and a deletion/edit log | Retention not assessed |
| Is performance compared fairly? | Matched benchmark, same window, costs and position convention | Comparison unavailable |
| Are risk controls visible? | Sizing, exit, leverage and loss-limit disclosures | Risk process not disclosed |
These are proposed audit questions, not a validated scoring model. Use neutral states such as evidence available, record incomplete and not assessed. Only a preserved register and a predeclared analysis can support a later performance result.
Minimum register for a replacement review
- Account handle, public profile URL, inclusion rule and the complete candidate universe, including inactive accounts.
- One row per post with URL, publication/edit time, retrieval time, text or capture hash, instrument, direction and stated horizon.
- Snapshot history for deleted or changed posts, with the observation method and an explicit unknown state when history cannot be recovered.
- Entry and exit conventions, price source, benchmark, fees, slippage, leverage, sizing and treatment of incomplete calls.
- Raw outcome rows, coding decisions, exclusion reasons, calculation code and independent review before any headline result.
Do not infer a deleted loser from a missing page, infer profitability from branding, or call a return “alpha” without a defined benchmark and risk model. The checklist helps decide what to investigate; it does not prove a bad actor or a future loss.
Source context and limits
The original references included FINRA Investor Insights, SEC Investor Alerts and Bulletins and Barber and Odean's Trading Is Hazardous to Your Wealth. These pages and the academic paper discuss investor risk or a different dataset; they do not contain the 55 accounts, 940 posts, coding decisions, follower paths or withdrawn predictive findings. They are context, not provenance for this article's cohort.
Change record
Original publication: 14 February 2026. The unsupported account/post cohort, returns and red-flag predictive findings were withdrawn and the title reframed as neutral claim-audit guidance: 9 September 2026. The original wording remains in version history and is not promoted as current research. AI-assisted editorial review; no independent human expert review.