No. of Recommendations: 30
Here's the best I could do to find a PEG13 stand-in without Value Line Timeliness rankings.

Current EPS >= 0
PEG Ratio bottom 95
Total Return 13 Week

Top 5 monthly (86-98) is 47/41/0.89

The cut-off at 95 is pretty rough. Anything from 60-100 works well. 80 might be a good idea. Anyhow, the point is that if Timeliness went away, we could probably find replacements for our screens that are similar to the current ones. Note that the order is different (PEG before RS). The screen picks many of the same stocks as PEG13, as you might guess.

--Toast


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Nice screen! I would almost expect it to pick more stocks in common with RS13 than PEG13... but I guess it depends on how large the universe of stocks the low 95 PEG are taken out of.

If it does pick enough different stocks, it might be immediately be useful in overlaps or SOSs.

Can we get more info on this screen, such as return by position, etc?

-Yonik
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>>Nice screen! I would almost expect it to pick more stocks in common with RS13 than PEG13... but I guess it depends on how large the universe of stocks the low 95 PEG are taken out of.

The universe starts around 1700. The cut for PE>0 leaves a variable number.

>>If it does pick enough different stocks, it might be immediately be useful in overlaps or SOSs.

Well, it was really only an exercise in seeing what could be done with a common screen if Timeliness rankings were unavailable. It doesn't cover my worst case--that the whole VL 1700 disappears. Does anyone have an idea of how the 1700 is chosen? Is it marketcap or float or volume or some combination of factors? Or is it pure VL judgment call?

I think for now it's best to just use PEG13 as is and leave this one as a backup. I don't really believe in overlaps or SOS.

Basically, this screen is not ready for primetime. You'd want to see how it and its relatives do with quarterlies, semis, and annuals, see if other arrangements of the screen worked better, etc.

There are a lot of other new promising screens that should get the attention.

--Toast

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 32
Here is a table of returns (geometric means, monthly VL data Jan-86 through Dec-98) for the screen suggested by mrtoast:

Current EPS >=0
Sort by Low PEG....keep Top (i.e., lowest) 100 (sorry, I just couldn't bring myself to keep the lowest 95)
Sort by High RS-13:

Holding Period (months)
1 3 6 12 GSD
Top-1 59% 17% 21% 17% 74%
Top-3 60% 30% 24% 23% 55%
Top-5 47% 27% 23% 25% 31%
6--10 35% 21% 22% 22% 28%
11--25 17% 18% 15% 17% 22%
Top-10 42% 25% 24% 24% 25%
Top-25 27% 21% 19% 20% 21%
Top-50 21% 18% 17% 19% 20%

Great screen, mrtoast!!

Alan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
<<Well, it was really only an exercise in seeing what could be done with a common screen if Timeliness rankings were unavailable. It doesn't cover my worst case--that the whole VL 1700 disappears.>>
----------

The biggest problem would not be the selection of 1700 stocks, it would be the G in PEG. In my experience, using concensus growth estimates is dangerous to one's economic health. We would have to stick to known historical growth, quarter to quarter or trailing twelve months.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
Thanks for the fast backtest Alan!

Just for easy comparison for everyone, here is how it
stacks up against the two most relevant screens,
RS13 & PEG13 for 1mo hold, 86-98.  I left out GSD
since the backtester doesn't do GSD(M) yet.

        new    PEG13  RS13
Top-1	59     45     36
Top-3	60     68     40
Top-5	47     55     44 
6--10	35     15     20
11--25	17     N/A    24
Top-10	42     35     32
Top-25	27     N/A    28
Top-50	21     N/A    --

I don't think PEG13 should be changed, but I don't
think that this screen should be discarded either.
My hope is that it does pick some different stocks
as the return for the top 10 is excellent.  In fact,
it has the *highest* 10 stock return of all the basic
screens covered by Jamie's backtester!  EGRSW and
PEGRSW get honorable mentions with a 10 stock CAGR of
40.

-Yonik
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Current EPS >= 0
PEG Ratio bottom 95
Total Return 13 Week

Well, it was really only an exercise in seeing what could be done with a common screen if Timeliness rankings were unavailable. It doesn't cover my worst case--that the whole VL 1700 disappears. Does anyone have an idea of how the 1700 is chosen? Is it marketcap or float or volume or some combination of factors? Or is it pure VL judgment call?


=======================================================

As I see it, the real problem with this screen as a VL replacement is the fact that the PEG step makes use of two unique VL pieces of information:

1) PE uses VL's "Current EPS" for the divisor, which IIRC VL defines using 2 previous quarters of earnings and two future quarters of earnings. The problem here is determining those future quarters of earnings, which leads us to problem 2:

2) Earnings Growth Estimates (G), which come from the VL analysts; presumably if VL or its Timeliness information went south, the analysts or their estimates would almost certainly go south as well. It's possible that other analysts' estimates could be used, but I certainly wouldn't trust such a technique without a backtest.

Unless someone catches a leprechaun that leads him or her to a golden pot of backtesting data that includes old non-VL analysts' growth estimates, I fear there simply is no way to duplicate any of the PEG screens with non-VL data.

Am I wrong?
B.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
GrandPoobah writes:

2) Earnings Growth Estimates (G), which come from the VL analysts; presumably if VL or its Timeliness information went south, the analysts or their estimates would almost certainly go south as well. It's possible that other analysts' estimates could be used, but I certainly wouldn't trust such a technique without a backtest.

Why not just replace the growth estimates with an relative strength of growth:

G13 = earnings growth, last 13 weeks
G26 = earnings growth, last 26 weeks
G52 = earnings growth, last 52 weeks

It may compare favorably to analyst estimates.

We don't need VL for the PE ratio.

- BlueAdept
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Hmm. Thanks for running all the numbers, Alan. I really hadn't looked at it in detail since I was just trying to prove a point to myself. Top 10 monthly is 42%. Holy moly! Nice screen for someone with a lot of money willing to make that many trades monthly.

--Toast
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It would be nice if we could try a PEG-like screen using most recent PE (instead of VL's "Current PE") and a past growth measurement (as Blue suggests).

I might be able to backtest such a thing over a shorter period of time. I'd have to check into which VL fields popped up when.

I'm still unsure about getting the a similar universe of about 1700 stocks that matches reasonably with VL's. Has anyone ever tried to do that?

--Toast
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Current EPS >= 0
PEG Ratio bottom 95
Total Return 13 Week


Did you try this screen with the PEG and RS steps reversed?

William

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
First of all, let me start by saying: This is a really great looking screen! It reinforces once again the power of price momentum & earnings growth.

I am in no way criticizing this screen, nor your efforts, but just pointing out the difficulty of trying to put together a non-VL screen using earnings. I personally am really attracted to the non-Timeliness screens, as I think they have a greater chance of surviving an overhaul of VL's methods than the Timeliness based screens.

=======================================================

It would be nice if we could try a PEG-like screen using most recent PE (instead of VL's "Current PE") and a past growth measurement (as Blue suggests).

I might be able to backtest such a thing over a shorter period of time. I'd have to check into which VL fields popped up when.


=======================================================

Before 97, the only field we've got in the older VL data is "Current P/E". There are a few "Est EPS Change" and "Projected EPS Growth fields" but what their value is, and more importantly what they would correspond to in non-VL sources, I have no idea.

=======================================================

I'm still unsure about getting the a similar universe of about 1700 stocks that matches reasonably with VL's. Has anyone ever tried to do that?

=======================================================

This is a tricky question. Many here probably remember late last year when CMGI & AMZN first appeared in VL's 1700 (I think it was in December just in time for me to pick up CMGI in one of my annuals and enjoy it's downward slide...)

The point being that CMGI & AMZN had both been high-fliers for a couple of years before finally appearing in the VL1700. At the time I theorized that the Timeliness calculation perhaps required some 24-month backlooking data, but the black box was too opaque to peer inside.

=======================================================

BlueAdept wrote:

We don't need VL for the PE ratio.


=======================================================

Certainly there are plenty of other sources of data called "Price-Earnings Ratio" but the question is whether they are a close proxy for the field VL calls "Current P/E". Remember, VL calculates the "E" different than anyone else. To use a recent example, here is LMS from last week (8/30):

Price EPS P/E
VL 20.75 1.6 12.97
Yahoo 20.75 1.9 10.92
Quicken 20.75 1.4 14.82

So when replacing VL, should we use Yahoo or Quicken, and more importantly: "Why?"
and even more importantly: "Can we trust that reason without a backtest?"
and most important of all: "Where can we get the corresponding historical earnings information for a backtest?"

I'm just saying that any screen that uses "Earnings" is going to be very difficult to disentangle from VL, much moreso than the momentum screens.

It would be intersting to see what the same screen run through Q–Investor returns.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
In my experience, using concensus growth estimates is dangerous to one's economic health.

Has anyone (including VL) tracked VL's accuracy for earnings estimates? Do we know that their estimates are more accurate than concensus estimates?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
GrandPoobah,

Remember, VL calculates the "E" different than anyone else. To use a recent example, here is LMS from last week (8/30):

Price EPS P/E
VL

20.75 1.6 12.97Yahoo 20.75 1.9 10.92Quicken 20.75 1.4 14.82



One possible
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
GrandPoobah,

Remember, VL calculates the "E" different than anyone else. To use a recent example, here is LMS from last week (8/30):

Price EPS P/E
VL 20.75 1.6 12.97
Yahoo 20.75 1.9 10.92
Quicken 20.75 1.4 14.82

One possible method for attaining a VL PE simulacrum, that would obviously need to be checked against a wide variety of stocks, could be the following:

Average Quicken and Yahoo's P/E ratios, viz:

(10.92 + 14.82) / 2 = 12.87

Maybe close enough, maybe (probably) just a fluke...

Thoughts? Comments?

Oily
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
De-lurking just to say this:

A Value Line timeliness 1 ranking could in and of itself introduce a bias, IOW stocks might perform just a little better simply by dint of having a T1 ranking. Unfortunately there is no real way to test this theory.

CMGI & AMZN had both been high-fliers for a couple of years before finally appearing in the VL1700.

... two opportunities missed because the stocks did not appear on the Value Line scope.

How about using the IBD EPS rankings as an earnings filter?

Nice work mrtoast!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>>How about using the IBD EPS rankings as an earnings filter?

That sounds like a good idea. But the idea of collecting EPS rankings for all 1700 stocks for a backtest sounds 17 times harder than what Sux's group did.

>>A Value Line timeliness 1 ranking could in and of itself introduce a bias, IOW stocks might perform just a little better simply by dint of having a T1 ranking. Unfortunately there is no real way to test this theory.

I like the idea of going without Timeliness. It's too complicated a black box for me. I like the screens to be as simple as possible.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
CMGI & AMZN had both been high-fliers for a couple of years before finally appearing in the VL1700.

... two opportunities missed because the stocks did not appear on the Value Line scope.


Yes, this is certainly one potential problem that occurs when using the VL database for stock picking.

2 years ago, jjackel, JeanDavid and myself were working on developing a stock screen that utilized the 5 Smart-Select Rankings from IBD.

It very often chose a number of new, rather small companies. We found that only about 1/3 of them were listed in the VL-1700 files.....and only 2/3 of them in the VL-5000 files!

Yet, we also noticed that after a few months, they would start being covered by VL. Clearly, VL lags in picking up some of the new companies....and often lags even more in giving them a Timeliness Rank.

I guess a company has to "prove" itself before it is promoted by VL....perhaps to the detriment of our screens (but, then who knows....that supposition ain't backtestable).

Alan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
2 years ago, jjackel, JeanDavid and myself were working on developing a stock screen that utilized the 5 Smart-Select Rankings from IBD.


Alan, how did that work out? I can't find anything when searching for "smart-select."

-Jim
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
....how did that work out? I can't find anything when searching for "smart-select."


Well....er.....at first, it worked our great! We actually invested in this unproven screen and made some phenomenal returns. Then, by mid-99, it all fell apart, and we ended up at ground zero.

And, since it is unbacktestable, we merely abandoned it.

The most interesting thing, though, was that it invariably found some interesting stocks that seldom appeared on our MI screens. Perhaps its best use is as a preliminary filter for those then wishing to perform the "usual" fundamental analysis for "emotional" picks.

The Smart-Select Ranks are merely IBD's RS, EPS, SMR, etc., printed daily in their paper....and on-line at http://www.dailygraphs.com

Alan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I just ran the pegnt screen with this week's Value Line. I was wrong when I said it would pick a lot of the same stocks as peg13. It doesn't. I picks a bunch of low cap, low price thingies with timeliness rankings all over the place. These are stocks we aren't seeing in any other screen. Pretty nifty. But if you have worries about MI investors piling into stocks, this screen will give you lots of extra worrying.

Can someone verify these? I could easily have made a mistake.

huf gnl hcr cmx ktcc petm amtd fa iric ccc

I assume that peg is simply defined as the VL field Price divided by the VL field Proj EPS (the field used by Moe's EG screen). Correct?

--Toast
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
mrtoast writes:

I just ran the pegnt screen with this week's Value Line. I was wrong when I said it would pick a lot of the same stocks as peg13. It doesn't. I picks a bunch of low cap, low price thingies with timeliness rankings all over the place. These are stocks we aren't seeing in any other screen. Pretty nifty. But if you have worries about MI investors piling into stocks, this screen will give you lots of extra worrying.

Have you tried either a market cap or volume filter with pegnt?

- BlueAdept
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
A Value Line timeliness 1 ranking could in and of itself introduce a bias, IOW stocks might perform just a little better simply by dint of having a T1 ranking. Unfortunately there is no real way to test this theory.

A T1 ranking may have a similar influence to a "strong buy" from some analyst. I think the influence is short lived. VL's Timeliness rankings don't even grab any media attention, so their influence may be smaller yet.

CMGI & AMZN had both been high-fliers for a couple of years before finally appearing in the VL1700.

... two opportunities missed because the stocks did not appear on the Value Line scope.


Mercifully. I'm grateful to VL for not rushing to include all the dot com wonders last year. The losses we saw in the recent unpleasantness are chickenfeed compared to what might have been.


As you can tell I'm pretty content with VL's rankings, and unconcerned about the risk of their sudden disappearance. Value Line has been ranking stocks consistently for 35 years. There aren't many such stable institutions in the stock market.

There are some good reasons to seek non-VL screens. They would broaden the pool of stocks from which to choose. I don't think the imminent demise of VL is a good reason.

Elan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I just ran the pegnt screen with this week's Value Line. I was wrong when I said it would pick a lot of the same stocks as peg13. It doesn't. I picks a bunch of low cap, low price thingies with timeliness rankings all over the place. These are stocks we aren't seeing
in any other screen. Pretty nifty. But if you have worries about MI investors piling into stocks, this screen will give you lots of extra worrying.

Can someone verify these? I could easily have made a mistake.

huf gnl hcr cmx ktcc petm amtd fa iric ccc

I assume that peg is simply defined as the VL field Price divided by the VL field Proj EPS (the field used by Moe's EG screen). Correct?


Nope. Since you are the inventor of the screen, then you should answer whether your current list is consistent with what you tested.

I think your definition of PEG is wrong, and I come up with a different stock list.

PEG = Current PE ratio / Proj EPS Growth Rate

The current list -
LMS (wouldn't you know)
HUF
HCR
PHM
KBH
HOC
NVR
CKR
ABFS
SFP

I must say, the Timeliness rankings on some of these stocks are pretty scary. Also, the screen as defined is letting through some companies with negative Projected EPS Growth rate and negative PEG ratios, which isn't right.

Elan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Thanks for the feedback Elan. I'll try to reformulate the screen to make sure the growth rate and PEG are positive. A negative PEG isn't the same as a small PEG.

--Toast
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
OK. I just went back and checked my peg ratio for my
backtest, and of course it was defined as Elan said.
Current PE ratio/Proj EPS Growth Rate. I'm always a bit
dazed by the number of parameters in current VL
editions compared to the smaller amount of fields that
I backtest with. Thank goodness for the eagle eye of
Elan.

Here are the picks with their Timeliness rankings:

Company Name	Ticker  Industry	Timeliness  Rank
Lamson&Sessions	LMS	ELECEQ	        1
Huffy Corp.	HUF	RECREATE	3
Manor Care	HCR	MEDSERV	        4
Pulte Corp.	PHM	HOMEBILD	3
Kaufman&Broad	KBH	HOMEBILD	2
Holly Corp.	HOC	OILINTEG	3
NVR  Inc.	NVR	HOMEBILD	2
CKE Restaurants	CKR	RESTRNT	        4
Arkansas Best	ABFS	TRUCKING	2
Salton  Inc.	SFP	HOUSEPRD	2

HCR and CKR have negative PEGs as a result of negative
Projected EPSs.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I guess a company has to "prove" itself before it is promoted by VL....perhaps to the detriment of our screens

... which brings up another point: according to what I've read, the Value Line ranking method does involve human judgement, making it not totally mechanical.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'm grateful to VL for not rushing to include all the dot com wonders last year. The losses we saw in the recent unpleasantness are chickenfeed compared to what might have been.

Some of the earnings-less dot-coms may not have garnered T1 rankings.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Hi,
As I see it, we do use mechanical methods. It's just that the database we choose to start this mechanical process from does involve some human judgment. For my two cents, I'm glad that VL does use some judgement; the main difference I see with VL's judgement compared to a stock brokerage is that VL is non biased unlike brokerage firms who often won't say bad things about their potential customers.
Elliot
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
OK. The good news is that the backtest already excludes stocks with negative PEGS because the PEG parameter Alan and I use already screens out negative pegs. I'm glad Elan brought this up, because I had forgotten all about it (it came up once before, I believe).

The PEG values that Alan and I used to do the backtest only exist for non-negative Projected EPS Growth stocks. In other words, there is an implicit check in there.

A better definition of the screen spells it out explicitly:

Current EPS>=0
Proj EPS Growth>=0
PEG ratio bottom 95 (or so--Alan tested 100)
Total Return 13 week

This week:

Lamson & Sessions LMS
Huffy Corp. HUF
Caremark RX CMX
Pulte Corp. PHM
Kaufman & Broad Home KBH
Beazer Homes USA BZH
Holly Corp. HOC
NVR Inc. NVR
Arkansas Best ABFS
Salton Inc. SFP

Not so scary. These are all T1-3.

Thanks again, Elan. It's crucial to make sure we're picking the stocks the same way they were backtested.

Whew!

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
fwiw, Value Line now has a field called Performance Rankings. These are intended to be used much the same way as Timeliness rankings. T rankings are only done for VL 1700 stocks. They do the Performance ranking on all 6000 stocks in their larger database. Value Line says that Perfomance rankings are 100% mechanical with no human judgment involved.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
They do the Performance ranking on all 6000 stocks in their larger database.

When did the performance ranking come into existence?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Mmmm, tasty! Just what I wanted to see... a number of different stocks than the normal PEG & RS screens! The stocks look smaller overall than the normal PEG or RS screens, and I guess that would account for the higher GSD.

-Yonik
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
mrtoast:
Before I purchased VL for windows,I was getting the standard and expanded editions of the paper VL.Standard had the timliness rankings.The expanded edition used Performance ratings instead of Timeliness.Do you know if this Performance rating used for the expanded edition back then is the same one you are looking at now?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

..I think this concept has excellent potential..

..however, I have a hard time buying stocks that are under $10 and sometimes I even prefer them to be at least $15 ..

..is there any way to add a $$$ amount to the filter and then backtest it to see if eliminating some of this cheaper stocks would improve the results????

..regards..

Marjory
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
This is a tricky question. Many here probably remember late last year when CMGI & AMZN first appeared in VL's 1700 (I think it was in December just in time for me to pick up CMGI in one of my annuals and enjoy it's downward slide...)

The point being that CMGI & AMZN had both been high-fliers for a couple of years before finally appearing in the VL1700. At the time I theorized that the Timeliness calculation perhaps required some 24-month backlooking data, but the black box was too opaque to peer inside.


I ran into a similar problem when I tried to screen for Gorilla Game candidates. A large percentage of candidates wouldn't have Timeliness rankings.
If you look at the ValueLine FAQs page at http://www.valueline.com/sup_faqs_rc_vlis.html, they have a response regarding why stocks don't have a Timeliness rank.

From ValueLine:
Why do some stocks not have a Timeliness rank?


Our computer-generated Timeliness ranks require at
least two years of income statement and stock price
history. If a stock has been trading for less than two
years, possibly because a company is relatively new or
because there was a major spinoff or acquisition, we
are unable to assign a rank to it.

If a screen depends on having a Timeliness ranking, it will exclude companies that have less than two years of public income statement and stock price data by default.

Brad
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>>Before I purchased VL for windows,I was getting the standard and expanded editions of the paper VL.Standard had the timliness rankings.The expanded edition used Performance ratings instead of Timeliness.Do you know if this Performance rating used for the expanded edition back then is the same one you are looking at now?

I believe that's the case.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>>..is there any way to add a $$$ amount to the filter and then backtest it to see if eliminating some of this cheaper stocks would improve the results????

No problem. Choose the dollar amount and I'll test.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>>..is there any way to add a $$$ amount to the filter and then backtest it to see if eliminating some of this cheaper stocks would
improve the results????

No problem. Choose the dollar amount and I'll test.


Watch out for bias in such a test. The percentage of stocks trading under $10 in 1986 may have been twice as large as it is today.

Elan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

..I agree that there may be a bias because everything was cheaper fourteen years ago, but I still am curious as to what would be picked with a filter of greater than $10 .. and whether the backtesting results change...

.It would be interesting to see if there are periods of time where no stocks are picked due to the dollar limitation ... I guess that would establish the bias....

..thanks for looking into this...

Marjory..
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>>Watch out for bias in such a test. The percentage of stocks trading under $10 in 1986 may have been twice as large as it is today.

True. Instead of an absolute cutoff, I can just go with the top 90 percentile in price or something similar.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>>It would be interesting to see if there are periods of time where no stocks are picked due to the dollar limitation ... I guess that would establish the bias....

There could be a bias even if this doesn't happen.

I'll just try it both ways (with an absolute cutoff and with a relative cutoff) and report back. You can make of it what you will.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
OK. I tried it with a $10 cutoff. Cagr went down to 43, but the gsd went down a little and the sharpe stayed the same.

A relative cutoff worked better. After the PEG Bottom Ratio 100, I did a Share Price High 75 (cutting out the 25 lowest priced stocks out of the 100). This didn't affect the screen at all. I'm not sure that this always results in stocks above $10, though. But it probably usually pulls out the lowest price ones. (It would take extra work to find out.)

In an unrelated issue (sort of), this weekend I found versions of PEG26, Keystone, and RSCAP that start from VL ALL (1700), work great for annual holds, and don't require Timeliness. Some of them actually outperform the screens they are basd on. They use either Current EPS>=0 or Current P/E>=0 as a replacement for the Timeliness screen.

--Toast

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
In an unrelated issue (sort of), this weekend I found versions of PEG26, Keystone, and RSCAP that start from VL ALL (1700), work great for annual holds, and don't require Timeliness. Some of them actually outperform the screens they are basd on. They use either Current EPS>=0 or Current P/E>=0 as a replacement for the Timeliness screen.


mrtoast,

These sound enticing. I'm hoping you'll post some more details?

Thanks,
Todd
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>>These sound enticing. I'm hoping you'll post some more details?

I'm still running through a lot of data. It'll take me awhile to get all my notes together.

--Toast
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
A while back someone mentioned Rabbitt Analytics as an alternative to Value Line. Fortuitously for us, his methodology is disclosed on line:

http://www.rabbittanalytics.com/methodology.htm

Check it out.
Print the post Back To Top