The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Investors' Roundtable / Rule Maker Companies


Subject:  Re: Coke vs Pepsi -- 1994 Date:  4/14/1999  9:37 PM
Author:  TMFVerve Number:  2299 of 8329

I preferred the previous style of crunching as many numbers as possible and then going with a yes/no. The scoring system seems a little rigid to me.


If that's the route you want to go, that's perfectly fine. Four times out of five, you'll reach a similar conclusion as a user of the Ranker. In fact, I'm in the process of updating the Rule Maker steps, and our new criteria step incorporates a little more of the Rule Book's thinking, while retaining the simple structure. Hopefully, I'll have that complete in the very near future. (So much to do, so little time!)

The advantage of the Ranker is that it's much more rigorous. There are many shades of gray when evaluating criteria as "yes/no," and the Ranker helps to quantify those shades. As for it being too rigid, I'd say it all depends on how you use the rankings. As stated in the spreadsheet, the scores are only meant to be a guideline to help begin the thinking process. Not all scores of 42 are created equally. As I stated in my last post, Coke's 1998 results scored a 42 against Pepsi. But 1998 was a very tough year in overseas markets, so we know that Coke's 42 represents a temporarily lower number than can be expected again in the future. OTOH, another company's 42 (no examples off the top of my head) could be either the best it can expect to achieve, or maybe a score that's heading towards Tier III in future quarters. So, as you can see, we would be quite foolish to use these scores (or any single metric for that matter) too rigidly. A dynamic business simply cannot be bottled up in a single number, try as we might!

I hope this helps.

Fool on,
Copyright 1996-2022 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us