Shouldn't the values in the first column always be higher than the values in the second?Dr. Pangloss would hope so, but in the real VL world the best performers from Bill's postings did not do as well as the screens at the bottom of the listClearly we are talking at cross purposes, and/or I'm being thick.What is this table?If the first column is the performance of the best 5 VL screens in a given period,and the second column is the performance of the worst 5 VL screens in the same period,doesn't the first column value in every row have to be bigger than the second column number in that same row?i.e., if the best 5 screens returned 31% in 2009, then how can the worst 5 have returned 49%?Wouldn't the worst five be, err, worse?You've ranked them on the 12 month performance, right?Or something else? Trailing 12 month performance?Clueless,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