Corrections
When we get something wrong, we fix it in public. This page records every correction we have issued, and explains how we handle them.
How to report an error
Email hello@assetwhisper.com with the article title and the specific claim you think is wrong. If you can point to a source, include it. We read every message and reply to the ones that identify a genuine error.
We would rather hear about a mistake from a reader than leave it standing.
What we do about it
Factual errors
A wrong figure, a misattributed source, a miscalculation or a misstated fact is corrected in the article itself, and a dated note is added at the foot of that article saying what changed. The correction is also listed on this page. We do not quietly edit a fact and leave the article looking as though it always said the new thing.
Errors that change the conclusion
If the mistake changes what the article argues, the note goes at the top, not the bottom, and the headline is amended if it is no longer accurate. If the piece cannot be salvaged, we withdraw it and say why.
Updates that are not corrections
New data, a changed rate, a policy that has since been announced: these are updates, not corrections. They are marked with a revision date on the article and do not appear on this page. The distinction matters, so we keep it: a correction means we were wrong, an update means the world moved.
Typos and broken links
Fixed without a note. They do not change what an article says.
What we will not do
We do not remove an article because someone dislikes its conclusion, and we do not amend one because a company, a fund or an issuer would prefer a different wording. We correct errors of fact. Disagreement about interpretation is not an error, and we are happy to publish the disagreement instead.
Corrections issued
10 September 2026 — Which Algorithmic Trading Strategies Are Actually Profitable?
Previously titled “Profitable Algorithmic Trading Strategies in 2026: A Guide for Beginners and Intermediates”. The article stated an annual return range, a Sharpe ratio range, a maximum drawdown and a win rate for each of five strategies (for example “18–24% annual return, Sharpe 1.2–1.5” for mean reversion) with no market, period, cost assumption or data source behind them; they were not measurements and have been removed. A Python function for the Kelly criterion computed the correct fraction multiplied by the average loss, understating position size roughly a hundredfold with fractional inputs; it has been replaced with the correct formula. The FAQ said “most students see positive results within 60–90 days”; we have no such data and the sentence has been removed. Four technical details were out of date: Interactive Brokers was said to require a $10,000 minimum (there is none), Alpaca to offer US stocks only (it also offers options and crypto), the archived ib_insync library was recommended, and Python 3.9, which reached end of life in October 2025, was specified. Because the removed figures were the article’s central claim, the headline was changed and the correction notice placed at the top. The replacement includes a reproducible backtest with its full methodology.
This log is maintained by the AssetWhisper editorial desk and covers everything published on this site. Our full editorial standards, including how we choose sources, are set out in our editorial policy.