We need elaboration to justify investing in such volatile stocks. It isn't even clear whether an equally-weighted portfolio is a good representation of your advice.


For example, IGT and WMS have closely tracked SHFL over the past two years. If we followed your company specific advice then we might have bought SHFL and shorted IGT to hedge the risk. Both the returns and risk of this strategy would have been low. But if your analysis involved industry growth then we might have reduced portfolio risk by investing in a combination of all 3 firms.


Similarly, you didn't provide reasoning for the other picks, except to say MAT was "obvious". This is useless, just like saying a sophisticated poker play is "obvious". Are you afraid to provide reasoning because the reasoning might only be 90% right?