Bravada International Ltd (BRAV)

[Jammin1]

I go by evidence, data, facts, reasoning, and thinking about what the most likely explanation is for things. It helps in investing, and understanding politics.

That article has very little data, and what data is presented leaves out important context, like the timeframe in which certain numbers were gathered, how percentages were calculated, or in the case of absolute numbers, how that translates to percentages and compares to other time frames or "normal" rates.

Red flag: Articles which seem to intentionally avoid contextual data.
Other red flags:
black-and-white thinking (if not all good, then it's all bad)
A few rare coincidences = causation.
A lack of perfect correlation = no causation
Claims that a failed prediction by an opponent = a deceitful lie

These are all signs that the author has little to no solid data to back up the conclusions they want you to believe. That article is full of red flags.

The same analysis can be used when reading statements by CEOs trying to paint too rosy a picture of their company's health. How much is solid, well-contextualized data vs red flag spin? There will always be some spin in focusing on the best parts, but how convincingly is it supported by numbers, and how much of the big picture are they leaving out?