The following appeared in a newsletter offering advice to inverstors :Techno corporation is our top pick for the investment this term. We urge all our clients to invest in this new company. For the first time in ten years, a company that has developed a s

The statement above gives an advice to investors of the company postulating that all the client shall immediately invest in Techcorporation company as this is such a rare opportunity. The author of the note gives several reasons why its such a good investment: The company is approved by FTA and in the survey conducted last year over eighty percent of respondents were dissatisfied with the current provider and would like to switch if the industry were not a monopoly. The author concludes that based on those two pieces of evidence the company will be highly profitable and desirable investment. However, many questions need to be answered before the argument will prove to be cogent and warranted. First, the question needs to be answers - does the approval by FTA guarantee that the company can perform the work well and have all the necessary equipment and licenses. Second, what are the reasons why responded were not satisfied with the current satellite TV provider. Third one, what is the period of time that the company conducted the survey.

First and foremost, the author of the passage needs to give a clear picture what approval by FTA means for future investors and does it guarantee in any way that new company has enough coverage, licenses, equipment and qualified employees to be successful. It might be possible that Techcorporation is a very novice company in this business and didn't acquire enough experience and professionalism to perform the job well. The author needs to provide an in-depth analysis to show that company is viable and that FTA approval really means that company could be afloat for a long time.

Secondly, the survey was conducted last year, but the author of the note gives no explanation on question that were asked and why a hefty amount of respondents were dissatisfied with the provider. Quite likely, the reason for disappointment is not a service itself, but some other factor, such as expensive fee or lack of customer support. This question needs to be examined before presenting it to investors.

Thirdly and also very importantly, the author presented no time frame in regards to the length of the survey. May be the survey was conducted last year, but this year respondents are absolutely satisfied with the service and the provider and have no complains. In case this is true, investors will waste their money as the customers would not be willing to switch to a new dubious company with no guarantee that the service will be better or cheaper.

To conclude, the author needs to present answers to many questions before investors will be convinced and will trust this new company. The argument as it stands now has many flaws and do not provide sufficient information to potential investors, besides from unsubstantiated urging and bombastic claims.