Feedback from an anonymous user on the report:
- The report contains repeated information, such Elon Musk's bio, the place(s) that the offerings are promoted and marketed.
- I think this has been fixed now.
- The description of the target audience seems inaccurate.
- I think this has been fixed now.
- The report is wordy.
- I think this has been fixed now.
- The report is too dumb-downed. For example, no need to describe what a car is.
- I think this has been fixed now.
- A suggestion is to remove the sub-headings.
- I think this has been fixed now.
- One of the table includes one or more silly categories. For example, "is the car safe?"
- I think this has been fixed now.
- The report is different to other reports.
- Different can be good, so nothing to fix here.
- Check that the minimum investment amount is indeed £10.
- I think this has been fixed now.
- The valuation of the investment is unclear and complex; make it clearer and simpler. See a high-quality research report for an example.
- The report seems robotic.
- I think this has been fixed now.
- I'd rate the quality of the report 2 out of 10.
- I think this has been fixed now.
- Add to the report recent news.
- I think this has been fixed now.
- Add to the report information about Tesla's quarterly earnings.
- I think this has been fixed now.
- Change the format of the report to the following headings: summary, company background, strategy, recent trading, recent updates, etc.
- I think this has been fixed now.
- Change in the report the word "lifespan" to "time horizon".
- I think unless more people provide the same feedback, then it's best to keep the word how it is.
- The time horizon of 60 years questionable.
- An explanation about the reason behind using 60 years is provided. Without knowing why the person thinks 60 years is questionable, it's almost impossible to fix. That said, a later version of the Stockhub platform will enable users to amend the underlying assumptions of the financial model.