The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
CAPS / CAPS Feedback
|Subject: Re: CAPS is not meant to be a mirror of performa||Date: 2/14/2007 5:32 PM|
|Author: TMFEldrehad||Number: 4910 of 8881|
Your reasoning on WMFI was sound, but who else knew?
Everyone who read my pitch. :-)
You are right about rationale not being automated, and I think it's a great idea. I think it'd be helpful to somehow flag picks by type. Things like 'valuation', 'growth', 'speculative', etc., would add information and help the system be smarter.
"Yeah, XYZ is 5 stars, but almost all of the red thumbs have the 'valuation' tag attached to their picks - perhaps I should take a second look at those financials."
And of course, ultimately down the road it would be sortable and screenable, so we could query the system. "I'm looking for short list of growth stocks to do more research on in the hopes of finding one to add to the high-risk / high-reward portion of my portfolio. I wonder which among the 5-star stocks are the favorites of those citing 'growth' as their chief reason?"
It could go many, many steps further.
Maybe we'd discover that, as a group, the value investors among us are trouncing the growth-oriented investors, or vice versa.
It wouldn't suprise me one whit if this kind of added information were incorporated into CAPS at some future date - and again, I, personally, really like the idea.
But going back to the original point here, even if I hadn't written a pitch for WFMI, the system would still have known that I was thumbs-down on the stock (via the stock rating). The system would also have known, again via the stock rating, when I ended my pick. I completely agree that knowing the why adds a great deal more to the community intelligence than the pick does by it's lonesome, but I still think the pick, by itself, adds something.
I agree with many here that it's *way* too early to tell whether CAPS stock ratings have any meaningful predictive value. In the meantime, I will continue to write pitches for most of my CAPS picks and try to help the system become smarter that way - but again, on the surface I really like your idea here.
|Copyright 1996-2016 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|