Does anybody really care about the 77th or 43rd percentile? I’d like to see a display with unequal buckets, with most detail at the top end. Default should be something like the following (bucket minimum shown):
99.9, 99.8, 99.5
99, 98, 97, 96, 95,
90, 80, 70, 60, 50, 40, 30, 20, 10, 5, 2, 1, 0
I agree this would be a help. Ideally users should be able to choose the current method of equal sized buckets or unequally sized ones. BTW, I voted for this idea some time ago, but it does not appear to have much interest from most users.
Jerrod
I really like your idea. One of the popular tests of a ranking system is to change the number of stocks in the sim and try it again. We want to know how it did with 3 stocks. With 5 stocks. Etc, etc…
A simpler way would be what I call “The All-Stars Chart”. It would show the Top 3, Top 5, Top 7, Top 15… stocks side by side in a simple bar chart. This would would be easier for us, and take less resources.
Is that what you had in mind?
Chip
Hi Chip:
I agree that the variable bucket sizes would be super.
Also, rank testing would be a lot better if there were a way to force the test to go to cash during bear markets. Right now I use the Sim module to test ranking systems so I can exclude bear market periods.
Regards,
Brian
Good idea, Chip. Anything that emphasizes the higher ranks would be ok in my book. I still cannot understand why anybody would care about the middle of the pack.
I think there is value in factors that show consistently higher returns across a broad range … but then I think we have had this discussion before. In looking at rankings I focus on the high end and agree that any additional tools to help with this would be useful.
Don