VLPerf = 1 or VLPerf = 2 + some well known ranking Systems (Olikea stuff) give some nice results.
Do not underestimate this stuff, I thought otherwise too, but the more I Play with it, the better I like it!
Here an interesting docu about valuline: http://www.valueline.com/uploadedFiles/Valueline/Tools/Guides/The-Value-Line-Ranking-System.pdf
Even though I’ve dismissed it the past, I’ll take another look because of your encouragement.
I would love to try the classic Value Line Investment Survey instead of the Small & Mid-Cap Survey. But that would probably be much more expensive.
I had also dismissed the Value Line data, as my initial testing was not encouraging. Has anyone else found this information to be useful, net of implementation costs?
mgerstein said “we often heard from subscribers about successes they experienced, not so much by focusing only on the stocks ranked 1, but on stocks that rise in rank, from 2 to 1, from 3 to 2, etc.”
Marc, in the early 80s I had a great Masters level professor (Bruce Feilitz) who taught “reality”, ie not just efficient mkt theory but “anomalies”. When we discussed VL rankings, I asked him that exact question, ie “What about changes in VL rankings?”. He knew of no academic studies and really wanted me to do the study, but this was pre-PC and he wanted me to go through his “paper” copies (given that I was studying for CFA, working full-time AND going to graduate school, “yea, right”).
A few yrs later, he sent me an academic study “proving” relevance. I don’t have this info anymore (check SSRN.com) but VL changes are relevant and have “academic backing”.
Miles
[quote]
Marc, I may have missed it, but there is no definition on P123 of what 1W, 2W, 3W and 4W means.
In the index the Value Line formulas all have the same description: “ValueLine xxxx Rank - Smallcap universe only. Ranks are 1-5 with 1 being best.”