# Interesting Ideas



## systematic (7 October 2012)

In this thread cash being greater than market cap (or cash per share greater than price) was mentioned.  I don't quite get the aim of that (I would deduct liabilities), but I need to get my post count up if I'm ever to enter the monthly tipping comp, lol, so I thought I'd have a look.

There were 135 that I found with cash greater than market cap.  Someone mentioned profits so I thought that might narrow it down, and it did, to 19 stocks.  Barely any of any size though.


----------



## burglar (7 October 2012)

systematic said:


> ... cash being greater than market cap ...




The only one on the list with which I am reasonably familiar is (AXE) Archer Exploration.
I hold some but cash is not the only reason I hold.

Nor is the abundant, high quality graphite.

They came to my notice when they discovered Manganese.
And they have other stuff too!


----------



## skc (7 October 2012)

systematic said:


> In this thread cash being greater than market cap (or cash per share greater than price) was mentioned.  I don't quite get the aim of that (I would deduct liabilities), but I need to get my post count up if I'm ever to enter the monthly tipping comp, lol, so I thought I'd have a look.
> 
> There were 135 that I found with cash greater than market cap.  Someone mentioned profits so I thought that might narrow it down, and it did, to 19 stocks.  Barely any of any size though.
> 
> View attachment 49235




Your data is out of date for at least some of these.  Mmx and dmg have sold assets and paid the capital return. Some Others have tones of redbank, centro and mqg are on that list. CKK is a complete basket case and directors are unlikely to give the money out. BEL is trading below NTA but it's a plaything of it's major holder. RIS is a stange one i looked at years ago but it has the liquidity of granite at room temperature.


----------



## systematic (8 October 2012)

skc said:


> Your data is out of date for at least some of these.  Mmx and dmg have sold assets and paid the capital return. Some Others have tones of redbank, centro and mqg are on that list. CKK is a complete basket case and directors are unlikely to give the money out. BEL is trading below NTA but it's a plaything of it's major holder. RIS is a stange one i looked at years ago but it has the liquidity of granite at room temperature.




Thanks skc. I think I used data from last annual reports and not latest interim reports, I'll re-check that - but that should be it I would think, because the data is good (but then, accidents do happen!).
Liquidity or quality (or anything else for that matter) was not considered, it was just a check of the idea in the thread mentioned.  

There are certainly a few companies I'm not familiar with!


----------



## systematic (8 October 2012)

Try again.  

Appreciate your input very much skc,  as I messed something up initially. 
Before making sure I was looking at latest data I thought I'd first just re-run what I originally did, and got a different result (e.g. no MMX to be seen).  So that table above (I'll go back and delete) was an error by the looks of it.  Apologies, and I'm glad it was picked up.

Anyway, hopefully this looks a bit better.  Cash greater than market cap, positive earnings.  

​

I was using cash and equivalent.  Just using cash, I got.....


​


What was the aim here?  As in, can you expand on the working capital comment mentioned in the thread etc.  Not something I usually look at (though I do look at NCAV for fun), so any help understanding what we're trying to get at here appreciated.



PS. just realised can't edit previous post.....


----------



## systematic (8 October 2012)

Ah, I did replicate what I had done before, and I was using recent data.  

I think the issue is _possibly _'cash' in relation to balance sheet cash whereas we might be talking cashflows?

So before I post another table (like I was about to!), help me define what we're looking for here.

Always interesting to learn stuff, so it's all good!


----------



## systematic (8 October 2012)

​
So I'm wondering if this is more along the lines of what we were getting at?  This is _Free cash flow_ greater than market cap (equivalent of saying free cash flow per share greater than current price), as opposed to balance sheet cash.  (BTW, Listed in order of free cash flow to market cap).

This is most recent reported...should I have used past trailing 12 months?  
Negative earnings aren't of interest here, because we're only wanting to look at cash - right?


----------



## burglar (8 October 2012)

systematic said:


> So I'm wondering if this is more along the lines of what we were getting at? ...




Are you seeking takeover targets?
Or pre-loved undervalued stock?


----------



## systematic (8 October 2012)

burglar said:


> Are you seeking takeover targets?
> Or pre-loved undervalued stock?




Personally, neither.  I'm wanting to understanding what others looking for these types of stocks are looking for......


----------



## burglar (8 October 2012)

systematic said:


> Personally, neither.  I'm wanting to understanding what others looking for these types of stocks are looking for......




Perhaps you seeking troubled companies, in the way that Warren Buffett does!

But then he is capable of swallowing them whole, and turning them around!


----------



## systematic (8 October 2012)

burglar said:


> Perhaps you seeking troubled companies, in the way that Warren Buffett does!
> 
> But then he is capable of swallowing them whole, and turning them around!





I don't think 'seeking troubled companies' really defines Buffet's strategy.....
No, I'm pretty much just exploring an idea taken from here as mentioned above.


----------



## skc (8 October 2012)

systematic said:


> View attachment 49262​
> So I'm wondering if this is more along the lines of what we were getting at?  This is _Free cash flow_ greater than market cap (equivalent of saying free cash flow per share greater than current price), as opposed to balance sheet cash.  (BTW, Listed in order of free cash flow to market cap).
> 
> This is most recent reported...should I have used past trailing 12 months?
> Negative earnings aren't of interest here, because we're only wanting to look at cash - right?




Lol. Hastie! 

If I make sure a scan and comes up with a company that's bankrupt, I will check my data and query very carefully.


----------



## burglar (8 October 2012)

systematic said:


> I don't think 'seeking troubled companies' really defines Buffet's strategy.....
> No, I'm pretty much just exploring an idea taken from here as mentioned above.




Can I assume that:


1. You are a Buffett fan?
2. You are a budding "Value Investor"?

For the record "I don't think 'seeking troubled companies' really defines Buffet's strategy....."
Its just something he has been known to do!

I am a fan of the man.


----------



## systematic (8 October 2012)

skc said:


> Lol. Hastie!
> 
> If I make sure a scan and comes up with a company that's bankrupt, I will check my data and query very carefully.





I will do.  I'm not really getting anywhere with clarifying the idea from the previous thread though!


----------



## systematic (8 October 2012)

skc said:


> Lol. Hastie!
> 
> If I make sure a scan and comes up with a company that's bankrupt, I will check my data and query very carefully.






systematic said:


> I will do.  I'm not really getting anywhere with clarifying the idea from the previous thread though!





...I'm back.  Phew!  No problems.


----------



## Ves (8 October 2012)

I looked at TTA Holdings (Code: TTA) which is on one of the lists above a few weeks ago.  They distribute TEAC branded products in Australia.

The cash on their balance sheet is not distributable.   They need it to meet the loan requirements that are falling due.

edit: spelling


----------



## systematic (8 October 2012)

Ves said:


> I looked at TTA Holdings (Code: TTA) which is on one of the lists above a few weeks ago.  They distribute TEAC branded products in Australia.
> 
> The cash on their balance sheet is not distributible.   They need it to meet the loan requirements that are falling due.




So, with this type of query, we're looking for a particular situation?

Again, this is not something I look at (free cashflow greater than market cap).  

So, we want cash that is distributable?  Why?


----------



## Ves (8 October 2012)

Try this Ben Graham inspired scan:



			
				Geoff Gannon said:
			
		

> Is a formulaic approach – investing by pure statistics in dozens of stocks at the same time – a viable value strategy?
> 
> Yes. In fact, it’s very simple to boil down the essence of Graham’s approach into a strategy any investor could profitably follow for years:
> 
> ...




source: http://www.gurufocus.com/news/170199/why-i-dont-diversify


I would be interested to see what the Top 20 are.


----------



## Ves (8 October 2012)

systematic said:


> So, we want cash that is distributable?  Why?



When I say distributable I mean cash that they are free to use as they please (ie. it is removable from the funding of the core operations).  Capital return, dividend, fuelling future growth - that sort of thing.

Look at the balance sheet of TTA.  Tell me what you see. How did their cash increase over the prior year figure?

If the cash is merely there to pay off a loan or it is required to meet working capital obligations then it is not removable.

In "net / net" type investing (and other forms of value investing, obviously) you want to get much more than for what you paid. That does not always mean cash, but cash is obviously more certain. Cash is liquid and you know immediately what it is worth.


----------



## So_Cynical (8 October 2012)

I don't think there is a rock solid formula for finding stocks that are on the turn around or the next big thing...some people simply feel more comfortable taking risks after they have fed a few numbers into a cruncher, people are getting rich selling systems to people who need systems to feel comfortable.

Its a strange world. :dunno:


----------



## systematic (8 October 2012)

Ves said:


> When I say distributable I mean cash that they are free to use as they please (ie. it is removable from the funding of the core operations).  Capital return, dividend, fuelling future growth - that sort of thing.
> 
> Look at the balance sheet of TTA.  Tell me what you see. How did their cash increase over the prior year figure?
> 
> ...




Thanks Vespuria.
So free cash flow does _not_ solve the problem?  Cash from operations minus dividend payments and capex, from the cash flow statement?

This whole thread thus far has been based on what was being talked about in a couple of posts on page 8 of the thread I mentioned above.
I might have misunderstood what was meant, and that's what I've been exploring here.  The idea was a learning experiment, as I couldn't understand why we were looking for just "cash" to be greater than market cap, without requiring anything else.
Seem that, like me - no one else in _this_ thread can either!

Think I'll put "free cash flow" to bed for now!


I look at Graham's NCAV and obviously the net-net is similar - both subtract the total liabilities.  But that wasn't mentioned in the other thread I've been referring to, or at least in the posts I'm referring to.  As I said above, when I asked why we were looking at just cash: "I would subtract liabilities".


Just had a skim of the guru article.  The P/B, P/E stuff is far more in line with my approach.  I was wondering what made it "Graham-esque", but of course it's the tangible equity to total liabilities that makes it that.  I don't really like incorporating dividends into the research, but I might take a look at that one. 

Thanks for the constructive help Vespuria.


----------



## systematic (8 October 2012)

burglar said:


> Can I assume that:
> 
> 
> 1. You are a Buffett fan?
> ...





Hey burglar,

1. I respect Buffett (don't we all!), but no I don't try and emulate his methods.  Read some stuff about him / his approach years ago (haven't we all) but don't consider his approach at all.  I know some people are totally into that, which is great.

2. Quantitative (value and momentum) for me.  And always learning.

I'm glad you've found his approach helpful or inspiring.  Do you have a favourite book or anything?


----------



## systematic (8 October 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> I don't think there is a rock solid formula for finding stocks that are on the turn around or the next big thing...some people simply feel more comfortable taking risks after they have fed a few numbers into a cruncher, people are getting rich selling systems to people who need systems to feel comfortable.
> 
> Its a strange world. :dunno:





I have no idea what that comment has to do with this thread?

(a) 







So_Cynical said:


> I don't think there is a rock solid formula for finding stocks that are on the turn around or the next big thing



I don't think anyone would think that?

(b) 







So_Cynical said:


> ....some people simply feel more comfortable taking risks after they have fed a few numbers into a cruncher



....I'm definitely one of them; aren't you?


----------



## systematic (8 October 2012)

Ves said:


> Try this Ben Graham inspired scan:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Is this worth taking to another thread?  Or leave it here?  

With an "all cap" rule, you're going to get a fairly big bias to very small caps.  What about the all ords or something?  The guy in the article seems to infer that it'll work okay with the larger caps (not that all ords is considered large cap by global standards!).
Or do you see a need to go all cap?

We know that PB and PE work (median is very generous)...so I guess the key is in the ranking via tangible equity to total liabilities.


----------



## Ves (8 October 2012)

systematic said:


> Thanks Vespuria.
> So free cash flow does _not_ solve the problem?  Cash from operations minus dividend payments and capex, from the cash flow statement?
> 
> This whole thread thus far has been based on what was being talked about in a couple of posts on page 8 of the thread I mentioned above.
> ...



Free cash flow is a different concept (I think you know this).   My approach is similar to Buffett in the sense that I look for high quality businesses that can generate high amounts of free cash flow and use this cash flow to a) pay me dividends b) re-invest at high rates of incremental returns.

Your description of  free cash flow  / market cap  (rather than a price earnings multiple or earnings yield ratio) can be a good place to start when looking at this kind of thing.  But remember what is reported on the operating statement needs to be assessed (ie. you need to normalise the figures over as many years as possible).  Sustainability is important and so is low cash flow volatility.  No point looking at one year if the company won't have any free cash flow in the next year because they need to buy a new plant or update equipment etc.

I think flexibility is the key concept when looking at cash flow or even cash on the balance sheet.

If you can find a business as I have described that is trading at less than it's cash backing then you are on a winner, my friend. But they are like blue moons.

In essence the first scan you mentioned cash > market cap is looking to buy something for less than what it is worth. Why cash? Because you can instantly assess what it is worth. $1 of cash on the balance sheet has a book value of $1.   

But it is only a starting point.  As others have pointed out:  there is more to the story.  Is the cash still there?  It may have already been paid out.  If it is still there, for how long will it be there?  What is it for? It may be required to be held to fund operations (ie. pay out due liabilities or fund loss-making core operations). How did it get there in the first place?  The company may be unwinding some or all of its operations.  

In some cases you still may make an assessment that the other assets on the balance sheet are worth considerably more than what the market is saying they are worth too. Even when taking into account liabilities.

Read some of the other articles by the author that I linked in my previous post.  There are lots about net / net investing.

There is no secret or right answer in any of this. These ratios are just answers to simple questions that you are asking.  Price to book.  How much do I need to pay on the market for every $1 of assets?   Free cash flow per share / market price per share. How much will the free cash flow per share cost me? 

Investing is all about asking the right questions and being able to best answer these questions with the information at hand.  The grey areas or uncertainties that you come across (or even asking the wrong questions) is the risk.


----------



## Ves (8 October 2012)

systematic said:


> Is this worth taking to another thread?  Or leave it here?



Here is fine mate.



> With an "all cap" rule, you're going to get a fairly big bias to very small caps.  What about the all ords or something?  The guy in the article seems to infer that it'll work okay with the larger caps (not that all ords is considered large cap by global standards!).
> Or do you see a need to go all cap?



You could limit it to the All Ords / ASX 200 or 300.   I do not see why it could not work for those.




> We know that PB and PE work (median is very generous)...so I guess the key is in the ranking via tangible equity to total liabilities.



Why not go one step further as he suggests and do a secondary sort by _total dividends paid_?  This would slant biases towards some of the bigger caps for an added twist.


----------



## burglar (8 October 2012)

systematic said:


> ... I need to get my post count up if I'm ever to enter the monthly tipping comp, lol, so I thought I'd have a look. ...




Just here to help you get your post count up so you can join in the monthly tipping comp, lol

Warren Buffett is someone who inpires me because:

I could write a paragraph but let me just say this:

Despite his enormous wealth, he has his feet firmly on the ground.
He is at times humble and sometimes humourous!

No! I am not an investor.


----------



## systematic (8 October 2012)

That was a fantastic post Vespuria!  Appreciate the thoughts, and I'm now a lot clearer on the cash/market starting point...for further investigation and assessment.  Whereas I just consider the ratio, "whadda-we-do-with-that?".

I've only considered net-net, NCAV etc again from a "numbers" point of view (and don't currently use it), so I'm interested in how other investors such as yourself who _do_ use it apply it.  Good stuff and I'll check out some other threads where you guys have gotten into it.

In other words, I'm more into "relative value by the numbers", but have great respect for those who approach value more from the intrinsic value point of view.  

Hadn't been on gurufocus in ages, good site.  David Dreman was one of my earliest influences (has a recent new/updated book for any others who like his stuff).


----------



## systematic (8 October 2012)

burglar said:


> Just here to help you get your post count up so you can join in the monthly tipping comp, lol
> 
> Warren Buffett is someone who inpires me because:
> 
> ...




Nice.  Yeah, he's always struck me as that.  Enjoying life, doing something meaningful and having a laugh - that's a good combination.

Cool signature by the way, I like that.

Ha, ha - yep, I am truly on my way to joining the comp!


----------



## systematic (8 October 2012)

Ves said:


> Why not go one step further as he suggests and do a secondary sort by _total dividends paid_?  This would slant biases towards some of the bigger caps for an added twist.




Cool.  Question I always answer first when doing this sort of query:  do I want to determine my cutoff points based on the single factor, or cull the universe first to only those with _all_ the factors?

i.e. Would you prefer to first determine only companies _with_ a PE ratio _and_ a PB ratio _and_ pay dividends.....and _then_ work out your median points.......
......or.......first work out median points for each single factor, and _then_ combine.
Either way can serve a purpose and I use both, depending on what I'm doing.......


----------



## burglar (8 October 2012)

systematic said:


> Cool.  Question I always answer first when doing this sort of query:  do I want to determine my cutoff points based on the single factor, or cull the universe first to only those with _all_ the factors?
> 
> i.e. Would you prefer to first determine only companies _with_ a PE ratio _and_ a PB ratio _and_ pay dividends.....and _then_ work out your median points.......
> ......or.......first work out median points for each single factor, and _then_ combine.
> Either way can serve a purpose and I use both, depending on what I'm doing.......




Sorry! Your search yielded 0 results!!


----------



## systematic (9 October 2012)

Ves said:


> Why not go one step further as he suggests and do a secondary sort by _total dividends paid_?  This would slant biases towards some of the bigger caps for an added twist.




Looking at the article where he talks about that, he seems to be saying: sort by payout ratio - do you concur, or have another suggestion?


----------



## Ves (9 October 2012)

systematic said:


> Looking at the article where he talks about that, he seems to be saying: sort by payout ratio - do you concur, or have another suggestion?



I am reading it as total dividends paid (in dollar amounts), which would mean it would pick up the biggest companies with those prior metrics.

I don't have the ability (or software) to do this kind of scan unfortunately.


----------



## Ves (9 October 2012)

systematic said:


> Cool.  Question I always answer first when doing this sort of query:  do I want to determine my cutoff points based on the single factor, or cull the universe first to only those with _all_ the factors?
> 
> i.e. Would you prefer to first determine only companies _with_ a PE ratio _and_ a PB ratio _and_ pay dividends.....and _then_ work out your median points.......
> ......or.......first work out median points for each single factor, and _then_ combine.
> Either way can serve a purpose and I use both, depending on what I'm doing.......




From a personal perspective I would go for all of the filters if necessary and if there are none or too few I would customise it from there. You might find that there are lots of borderline cases that do not quite meet all of the criteria.


----------



## systematic (9 October 2012)

Here 'tis.
I went all ords.  
Stocks had to have data for all ratios first, _then_ median points determined (i.e. the stocks had to be a dividend payer, have earnings etc. first, before 'value points' were determined).
Sorted by dividends paid as suggested.

Share your thoughts if you do any analysis etc...


​


----------



## Ves (9 October 2012)

Thanks - I actually own PMV and TGA.

Interesting mix - but a lot of the companies seem to be heavily capital intensive and / or highly cyclical.  I am not surprised as a lot of mining companies and property related companies have been hammered. If you were going to systematically invest in this kind of thing you would need to buy the top 20 and re-balance every six or twelve months I believe.

A lot of these may turn out to be losers, so you are relying on a few big winners to get you over the line.

Is it easy to set up a model portfolio based on this list that we could re-balance every 6 months do you think?  I think the results might be interesting.  Dividend return is going to be very important over the long-run, you would imagine.

I am not a systems based investor - so any input on position sizing and how the re-balacing process may work in practice would be fantastic!


----------



## RandR (9 October 2012)

hey systematic,

Ves has already answered alot of your questions (more eloquantly then I could have aswell)

But in toying with the thought of looking for companies trading at prices lower then there cash flow. As a fundamental investor I obviously have no interest in those that are not actually generating free (excess) cash flow above there normal operating (and sometimes abnormal) costs.

The value of the cash in these companies that do not is zero. (imo) and I dont want to pay money for things that I think are worth zero.

Specifically for me this opens up the possibility of being happy with purchasing a company that might generate returns at a smaller rate that I would ordinarily ignore. (im going to assume those business that generate high rates of return would never come close to trading at there holding cash value)

I see your looking at scanning a number of ratios. I find ive been paying less and less attention to these (pe and ps/dvyield etc) as my investing has progressed.

 I like to focus on comparing the 'value' of a business assets in respect of the cash it/they generates. I think this makes it a lot easier to compare different investment options because there is largely a clear comparison.

Which in reality simply means me doing a Discounted Cash Flow on business that I like (long history of positive operating cashflow at a good rate. low or minimal debt and a strong justifiable business 'moat')


----------



## systematic (10 October 2012)

RandR said:


> But in toying with the thought of looking for companies trading at prices lower then there cash flow. As a fundamental investor I obviously have no interest in those that are not actually generating free (excess) cash flow above there normal operating (and sometimes abnormal) costs.
> 
> The value of the cash in these companies that do not is zero. (imo) and I dont want to pay money for things that I think are worth zero.
> 
> Specifically for me this opens up the possibility of being happy with purchasing a company that might generate returns at a smaller rate that I would ordinarily ignore. (im going to assume those business that generate high rates of return would never come close to trading at there holding cash value)




.....Thanks for your thoughts RandR.  It was your (and someone elses) posts that got me looking at the cash to market cap (and then free cash flow to market cap).  As I said, I do look at Graham's NCAV ratio, but that's deducting total liabilities from current assets (of course you can just use cash instead of current assets).

I see a bit more what perspective you're coming from....with accepting a lower rate of return if there's a compelling reason to do so on other factors.

Are you able to "define" the type of company that would meet your criteria?  What would you calculate from the cashflow statement, or balance sheet etc to give you that type of company?  





RandR said:


> I see your looking at scanning a number of ratios. I find ive been paying less and less attention to these (pe and ps/dvyield etc) as my investing has progressed.
> 
> I like to focus on comparing the 'value' of a business assets in respect of the cash it/they generates. I think this makes it a lot easier to compare different investment options because there is largely a clear comparison.
> 
> Which in reality simply means me doing a Discounted Cash Flow on business that I like (long history of positive operating cashflow at a good rate. low or minimal debt and a strong justifiable business 'moat')




....See where you're coming from.  I like the approach (anything that 'works' is good!).  I'm the exact opposite: as my investing has progressed the more defined in criteria I've become.  That we're all different is what makes it interesting.


----------



## systematic (10 October 2012)

Ves said:


> Thanks - I actually own PMV and TGA.




...Ha, you already use the approach, lol - hopefully PMV and TGA become ten-baggers for you!




Ves said:


> Interesting mix - but a lot of the companies seem to be heavily capital intensive and / or highly cyclical.  I am not surprised as a lot of mining companies and property related companies have been hammered. If you were going to systematically invest in this kind of thing you would need to buy the top 20 and re-balance every six or twelve months I believe.




.....Spot on, as in - that's not the only way to do it of course, but it's a common theme.  Mind you, the guy in the article said, just take the top 5!



Ves said:


> A lot of these may turn out to be losers, so you are relying on a few big winners to get you over the line..




.....Yeah, agreed - but then, that's how I see it panning out that way anyway.  Even the market pans out that way (the market return being driven by "a few big winners").



Ves said:


> Is it easy to set up a model portfolio based on this list that we could re-balance every 6 months do you think?  I think the results might be interesting.  Dividend return is going to be very important over the long-run, you would imagine.




......Yeah if you like we can do that (as long as that fits in with not being seen to be giving 'advice').  I've more than once read that dividend return is often more important to total return than a lot of (growth) investors give credit.  But yeah, as dividends are a big part of this approach, you'd think even more so - I agree.



Ves said:


> I am not a systems based investor - so any input on position sizing and how the re-balancing process may work in practice would be fantastic!




.....Pretty much like you said is a good way to do it.  You can (and I personally do), do it differently (i.e. have a separate sell process altogether).  

Examples are: 
- You could say "when a stock falls off the list it is replaced".  
- Or you could take one (or all) of the factors and replace when dropped below a certain rank.  
- Or, given that the total dividends paid is like the final rank in his method (remember he said take the top five), if you were going to go the rank replacement method, I'd tend to go with that.  
e.g. We can see from the all ords that we've got 22....so perhaps we can typically expect 15-30 stocks on the list (that's a wild guess).  So, if you wanted to follow the authors suggestions exactly, you would want to take the top 5.  So you could say something like: "buy the top 5, hold....replace when drops below rank 10 (replacing with highest rank un-owned stock)".   
- Of course you could have a separate sell process altogether, but that's outside the scope of this discussion.

But for testing the actual method itself, a simple "rinse and repeat", rebalancing every 'x' time period is simpler, extremely transparent etc.  So from the exercise point of view I'd go with that, simply being aware that other possibilities in practice exist.

If doing the rebalance, for a test I'd go for a one year period.  Again simple and transparent, easy to implement, anyone can follow it, and possibly improve on it.  And you can be confident that real world brokerage is going to be insignificant, as well as being a positive from a real-world capital gains tax point of view.  If you were testing the method, you might want to set up a portfolio of your 5 stocks _every month_ (or every 3 months or whatever).....with the one year hold period.  In other words, (let's say 3 months).....you would have 4 rolling portfolios.  Which (a) gives you more tests (obviously monthly would given you even more: 12 rolling portfolios).......and (b) three monthly could actually be real world implemented.  In the sense that you could actually run 4 portfolios of 5 stocks, with 5% allocated to each position (and if a stock turns up in all of them, a max of 20% in one stock).


----------



## burglar (10 October 2012)

You have lost AXE Archer Exploration, probably coz they pay no dividends.


----------



## systematic (10 October 2012)

burglar said:


> You have lost AXE Archer Exploration, probably coz they pay no dividends.




Different query burglar  
Check out the article linked to by Vespuria to see what's going on here.


----------

