Viral finance posts attach their receipt: the table or chart carrying the underlying numbers. Read it before believing the text — the headline stat is routinely rounded up (“8 of 9” becomes “Every. Single. Time.”) or shifted (a claim about two weeks that only holds at three). The image often says more than the text, and sometimes contradicts it.
Concrete case: the Hindenburg Omen cluster post of 07/2026 — text claimed 100% negative after two weeks; its own table showed 12.5% positive at two weeks, with the 100% only at the three-week mark. Cleaner still: Barchart’s 08/2026 “most expensive market in history” post, whose own chart carried an adjusted line saying otherwise — see Buffett Indicator.
Also check: sample size (n=9 is a story, not a statistic), thresholds picked after seeing the data, and whether the “trigger dates” were selected to fit.
Related
cited by
- note"Priced in gold" claims
- noteA lone tenor gapping is liquidity, not information
- noteBasel III made gold a "Tier 1 asset" — what it actually did
- noteBofA Bull & Bear Indicator
- noteBuffett Indicator
- noteCurve steepener (2s/30s)
- noteDual-axis divergence charts
- noteFiscal dominance
- noteFX intervention has a half-life of days
- noteHindenburg Omen
- noteMost-shorted baskets outperform
- noteNow show Japan
- notePaper losses are real when you need cash
- noter minus g — debt dynamics
- noteRatio charts
- noteRecords in a growing series
- noteReference-class shopping
- noteSeptember effect
- noteShannon's demon — rebalancing turns volatility into return
- noteStock vs flow repricing
- noteThe US–Europe prosperity gap survives the median
- noteTreasury buybacks are not debt reduction
- noteUnderwriter research conflict
- noteUS share of world equity
- analysisThe hedge stopped hedging: the SF Fed calls the stock-bond flip a regime
- pageTopics