If the "index" returns from a random sample are generally mediocre, then does it not follow that most of the screen definitions and development were overtuned, mediocre and/or meaningless?Which would lead to the question, why are we still carrying around a pile of overtuned, mediocre and/or meaningless/torpedoed screen definitions?For the exact reason that you state:So we know that most of the screens are overtuned dross.It allows the possibility of saying what the "average" MI screen hasdone post discovery, which we could not do if the list were pruned.And it's an ideal inoculation against hubris or false optimism on screens, new or not.It's not like carrying around the bad ones is a lot of work for anybody;the process is a bit of work, but no more work for 100 screens than 50.Thus, I strongly believe the list should not be pruned.However, I wouldn't object to a fresh consensus ranking them all gold/silver/bronze/iron/arsenic,so newcomers can tell which end of the farm tends to have the best crops.Jim
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra