Secondary website to be launched which will roll back some of the recent changes


We released a fix to the “alt” website around 1PM because we forgot to change the definitions of periods (ex: the alt site was using 261 for 1Y return instead of 251). But I noticed you re-run the simulation around 4PM, so you were already using the latest “alt” version

There’s nothing else I can see in your system that would be affected from recent changes. Perhaps it’s due to prior changes? When was the last time you re-ran your system? The one that generated 41% ARR ?

Specifically, did you re-run after we released the new universes on Feb 1 2022 ? The universes are now computed on the fly, instead of using snapshots which is not a robust method (errors cannot be fixed for example) . The announcement is here,13201 . This caused minor changes to most universes.

Let me know, thanks


Thank you for looking at this. I am not looking to sign up for CompuStat/CapitalIQ right away so your looking at this is enough for now. It is not important to me that we end up agreeing today.

But I have been paper trading a port that I will be funding when my prescription renews. If it continues to do well I will consider using Compustat then. I guess time will tell. But I can justify the expense of Compustat based on how much I am likely to be investing (in a port that is performing well out-of-sample).

As I said, it is not as clear to me with CapitalIQ data as it was with FactSet data but it was actually Marco that first pointed out a problem with CapitalIQ that made me aware of issues with FactSet data. For sure we finally agreed with regard to the FactSet data. Marco’s post was maybe around eight years ago. Maybe before you came on board P123.

I won’t try to look for those old posts for a lot of good reasons, including not wanting to (possibly) take what Marco said out of context and more importantly, things easily could have changed with CapitalIQ. Maybe I do not remember the details correctly or missed an important detail at the time.

But my recollection is that Marco pointed out EXACTLY the same problems then (for CapitalIQ) that we finally agreed upon for FactSet.

Namely, (at least in the past) the time-stamps were for when the analyst changed her earnings estimates NOT when the earnings estimates were put into the database and made available for a live port.

Or just basically the exact same thing that prompted the lag in FactSet data. While we finally agreed to change the FactSet data, it is my belief that it was a known problem before then. I have posted concerns multiple times over the years. I am sure I can find some of my quotes from the past that are not out of context. That is where the eight years to resolve the issue comes from.

I hope I did not overstate anything here. Maybe I misunderstood what Marco originally said. Even if I understood correctly I would not be surprised if CaptialIQ remedied any issues without informing me directly (actually I am pretty sure they would not have emailed me). That is why I hope I framed this mostly as a question.

But also my concerns about FactSet were not entirely of base. I would not be entirely surprised if CapitalIQ did have the same issues. Truth is I don’t really know for sure.

Anyway. Thank you for looking into this and I do not need a definitive answer today or even in the near future. But I will have a definitive answer before I spend $12,000 a year on a something that could actually be inferior to FactSet for backtests on analysts data.

To be sure I get the point that CompuStat has a superior method for time-stamping fundamental data. CapitalIQ and earnings estimates may (or may not) be in different category. Truly a question at this point.

Thank you again for addressing this question.



Hey feldy, I can not run the comparison anymore with the old logic.
But I can assure you that the above model had around 43% from 2004-today in a backtest.
Thank you!!!

Hey Marco,

Thank you!!

I am using the following strategies in a single book that I trade.

Furthermore, I have one designer model that is used by a sub.

All those strategies where hit after the recent change.

I can know that because when the old version of the site was still on, I tested with the beta version and then I saw the differences. I am not sure which change causes this effect.

Since I do not have the old version I can not “prove” / test that and I also do not have a chance to find out what caused it.

Strategies that are not hit are strategies that do not use industry momentum (but I can not be sure if that causes it) in the ranking / a real simple (but effective) ranking by Olikea.
E.g. the following strategy (not matter if I run it with 10, 20, or 50 Stocks, it is not affected):


Thank you P123 for your quick turnaround, the “alt” site works for me so far. Most of my strategies also impacted by the new changes according to my limited testing. I’ll do more testing to see.

Looks the new is down. Any idea when it will be available?

Adding my 2 cents: I am at a loss as to know whether to use the corrected functions (on or the original (on Which one is “right” (I know, the definition of “right” is subjective and may depend upon what functions are used)? But with Marco’s recent post explaining that there are issues with the corrections (on, I’m leaning to using the alt site…

One further question though - what’s the expect duration to update the main site and fix the issue flagged?


We have decommissioned the alt site to avoid confusion . Please see latest announcement

I’ve tried to follow all the posts regarding the addition of European data, but I have to say it has become very confusing.

It would seem to me that the obvious path is to leave the current P123 site intact, as it was before this effort.

Create a sub site that is devoted to the introduction of new global data. This way there is no immediate need to integrate the two.

I suspect that your greater number of subscribers have no need for alternate data. Perhaps the subscription fee for global data can be set at a price point to cover the cost of additional servers required to provide that service.

Integrating the two into one website appears very difficult.

Everything about the multi region release is here,13281

It’s impossible to have two sites since the database is shared. I think we came up with the right solutions.

I’ll lock the two long threads with conflicting info including this one.