332 finance influencer calls, pinned on price charts
The internet remembers what market commentators said; it just makes the memory very hard to search. What a newsletter was bullish on five months ago, at what price, and what happened next — reconstructing that by hand takes an afternoon per source. So we pinned it: every dated, tickered, explicitly directional statement from the 4 sources named in our influencer audit — the 3 that passed its grading, plus one tracked as a graded standalone — placed on the week it was published, on the tickers each source discussed most. ▲ is a bullish statement, ▼ is bearish. The chart does the remembering.
SemiAnalysis
332 dated directional statements recorded in total. Audit verdict: entering on the first bullish statement and holding, 56% of 57 graded positions beat QQQ, median excess +9.3% — an in-sample historical measurement, detailed on the audit page.
Irrational Analysis
407 dated directional statements recorded in total. Audit verdict: entering on the first bullish statement and exiting on the first bearish flip, 59% of 54 graded positions beat QQQ, median excess +16% — an in-sample historical measurement, detailed on the audit page.
FundaAI
524 dated directional statements recorded in total. Audit verdict: entering on the fourth bullish statement and holding, 58% of 31 graded positions beat QQQ, median excess +12.3% — an in-sample historical measurement, detailed on the audit page.
Citrini Research
1,286 dated directional statements recorded in total. Audit verdict: 64% of 44 graded positions beat QQQ (median excess +21.6%) as a standalone record — with the important portfolio-level caveat documented on the audit page.
How the marks are made
Each source's complete posting history is ingested — full archives, never the recent feed. A statement earns a pin only if it names a ticker and commits to a direction on a date: “bullish NVDA” counts, “companies that could benefit include…” does not, and a post that walks through both sides ends up as whichever stance its conclusion actually commits to. The labeling pass runs with written discipline rules for exactly those two traps — conclusion reversals and beneficiary lists — because both produced wrong labels before the rules were written. Statements are then grouped by week and pinned to split-adjusted weekly bars. Marks sit at publication dates: they record what was said and when, not any position or trade.
What is deliberately missing
Two things. First, the other 75 sources in the audit: 25 were cut after grading and stay unnamed by policy — a pinned-call chart names its author by construction, and this site publishes failure numbers in aggregate only — while the rest are still under observation or mid-exam, with no verdict to chart yet. Second, links to the underlying posts: most of these sources publish behind paywalls or in private feeds, so the pins carry dates and directions rather than reproductions of paid content. The full extraction pipeline and grading method are documented on the audit page.
Questions this page answers
How can you check a finance influencer's track record?
Pull the full posting history, not the recent feed; extract every statement that names a ticker and commits to a direction on a date; then put those dates on a price chart and score them against a benchmark. This page shows the middle step for the 4 sources named in the full audit: 332 dated directional statements pinned to weekly charts of each source's most-discussed tickers. The scored results — win rates and benchmark-adjusted medians over full archives — live on the companion audit page.
What exactly does a pinned mark mean?
One mark is one dated public statement: on that week, that source published an explicitly bullish (▲) or bearish (▼) view on that ticker. Marks are placed at publication dates, not at any trade. A number under a mark means several statements landed the same week. Statements without an explicit ticker and direction — passing mentions, lists of possible beneficiaries, pure coverage — are deliberately excluded, which is why these counts are lower than raw post counts.
Why are only 4 sources shown, when the audit covers 79?
Deliberate policy, same as the audit page: sources are named only when their grades are a compliment — the 3 that passed, plus one graded standalone. Sources that failed are real people running small publications, and their failure statistics are published in aggregate without names; the rest of the 79 are still under observation or mid-exam and have no verdict to publish. A pinned-call chart is attribution by construction — every mark is a named claim — so only the named-eligible sources can appear here.
Do these charts prove the named sources are profitable to follow?
No, and they are not presented as proof. A dated call on a chart shows what was said and what prices did afterwards; it says nothing about position sizing, exits, or costs, and following statements mechanically is a modeling choice, not a trading system. The audit page reports the measured historical record — in-sample, largely one bull-market regime — and this page shows the underlying statements so the record can be inspected. Nothing here is investment advice.
How to cite this
the pinned statement counts and dates (332 statements across 12 charts, through 2026-08-09) Free to read, no key and no account — link straight to it. The figures are recomputed nightly, so include the date you read them.
Plain text
Quant Data. "Finance influencer calls pinned on price charts, 4 audited sources." quantdata.uk, figures as of 2026-08-09. https://quantdata.uk/research/finance-influencer-calls (accessed <date>).BibTeX
@misc{quantdata-influencer-calls,
author = {Quant Data},
title = {Finance influencer calls pinned on price charts, 4 audited sources},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://quantdata.uk/research/finance-influencer-calls}},
note = {Figures recomputed nightly; this snapshot 2026-08-09}
}Permanent link
https://quantdata.uk/research/finance-influencer-callsQuoting a figure from this page is fine without asking. If you want the underlying per-observation table for something we have not published, or you spot a number you think is wrong, mail quantdata@quantdata.uk — a corrected number is worth more to us than a cited one.