Stock Screeners

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
GuitarXM
Posts: 403
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 12:09 am

Stock Screeners

Post by GuitarXM » Fri Jul 29, 2016 4:17 pm

Was wondering what stock screeners do you guys use...

User avatar
Toons
Posts: 12931
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:20 am
Location: Hills of Tennessee

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by Toons » Fri Jul 29, 2016 4:18 pm

I don't use one.





8-)
"One does not accumulate but eliminate. It is not daily increase but daily decrease. The height of cultivation always runs to simplicity" –Bruce Lee

User avatar
RyeWhiskey
Posts: 864
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:04 pm

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by RyeWhiskey » Fri Jul 29, 2016 4:59 pm

I use a screener called VTWSX. It's pretty good at catching most stocks. :beer
This post was brought to you by Vanguard Total World Stock Index (VTWSX/VT).

User avatar
JoMoney
Posts: 5562
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:31 am

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by JoMoney » Fri Jul 29, 2016 5:20 pm

I don't invest in individual stocks... but I do like to follow what's going on in "the market" and sometimes play around with various things
When I've needed to "screen" for some particular attribute I've frequently used this one:
http://markets.ft.com/data/equities?exp ... eener=true
Or I'll find a mutual fund that follows a particular methodology/style and just look at what their holdings are. There are more mutual funds than there are stocks, it's usually not hard to find one that follows some particular style.
"To achieve satisfactory investment results is easier than most people realize; to achieve superior results is harder than it looks." - Benjamin Graham

User avatar
David Jay
Posts: 5468
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 5:54 am
Location: Michigan

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by David Jay » Fri Jul 29, 2016 5:51 pm

I hold some individual stock positions, but I do not use simple screening criteria (P/E, P/S, Div%, etc) because I figure that everyone else has access to all of the same screens.
Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future - Niels Bohr | To get the "risk premium", you really do have to take the risk - nisiprius

User avatar
blueblock
Posts: 863
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 6:06 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by blueblock » Fri Jul 29, 2016 6:01 pm

I don't use a stock screener either, because I don't own individual stocks.

The most granular I'll go is low-fee, sector ETFs, and then only in my taxable and Roth accounts.

User avatar
Tycoon
Posts: 1256
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:06 pm

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by Tycoon » Fri Jul 29, 2016 6:15 pm

Financial Visualizations http://finviz.com/
Appeal to Pity:When pity is envoked to support a statement | Appeal to Popular Sentiment:Appealing to unrelated prejudices and attitudes | Hasty Generalization:Too little evidence to support the conclusion

User avatar
arcticpineapplecorp.
Posts: 3131
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 9:22 pm

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by arcticpineapplecorp. » Fri Jul 29, 2016 7:48 pm

RyeWhiskey wrote:I use a screener called VTWSX. It's pretty good at catching most stocks. :beer
+1

I was going to say, "I screen out ALL individual stocks and instead own them all as a group".
"Invest we must." -- Jack Bogle | “The purpose of investing is not to simply optimise returns and make yourself rich. The purpose is not to die poor.” -- William Bernstein

GuitarXM
Posts: 403
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 12:09 am

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by GuitarXM » Fri Jul 29, 2016 9:56 pm

I'm going to run a demo account for 1 year of 30 stocks that I pick and see how hard it really is to beat the market...
I can't get around the idea that putting in hard work is useless and wont get you better results than average...

The worlds best hedge fund managers dont invest in the world stock market fund...they pick stocks....
After all, you aren't going to make more than say 10% a year investing in your sp500 index funds. What will 10% get you? By the time you make any money you will be ready to retire and your life will be coming to an end. I can agree that trading is a losers game, or at least in the long term it is...
There has to be a balance somewhere in between. If day trading is one extreme, an index fund is the other extreme.

That said,

then what is the point of this forum if all you have to do is invest in an index fund and forget about everything else?
Have you considered that maybe since everyone is investing in index funds maybe its that much easier to find undervalued stock since people are buying all stocks which are under and overvalued?

The academics have been proven wrong many times by people like graham, buffet, lynch...the list goes on..
People are irrational so it would make sense that stocks could be priced incorrectly.
As long as there are emotions involved, there must be a way to profit from them.

Value investing does make sense but it may no longer work as well as it did back in the day.
If everyone is a value investor, undervalued stock could be thing of the past.
You can see that virutally no stocks trade less than their net worth - total liabilities. Graham's days are gone..
But there must be other value methods that we have no discovered yet? There must be a way..

lgs88
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:48 am

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by lgs88 » Fri Jul 29, 2016 10:20 pm

GuitarXM wrote:I'm going to run a demo account for 1 year of 30 stocks that I pick and see how hard it really is to beat the market...
I can't get around the idea that putting in hard work is useless and wont get you better results than average...

The worlds best hedge fund managers dont invest in the world stock market fund...they pick stocks....
After all, you aren't going to make more than say 10% a year investing in your sp500 index funds. What will 10% get you? By the time you make any money you will be ready to retire and your life will be coming to an end. I can agree that trading is a losers game, or at least in the long term it is...
There has to be a balance somewhere in between. If day trading is one extreme, an index fund is the other extreme.

That said,

then what is the point of this forum if all you have to do is invest in an index fund and forget about everything else?
Have you considered that maybe since everyone is investing in index funds maybe its that much easier to find undervalued stock since people are buying all stocks which are under and overvalued?

The academics have been proven wrong many times by people like graham, buffet, lynch...the list goes on..
People are irrational so it would make sense that stocks could be priced incorrectly.
As long as there are emotions involved, there must be a way to profit from them.

Value investing does make sense but it may no longer work as well as it did back in the day.
If everyone is a value investor, undervalued stock could be thing of the past.
You can see that virutally no stocks trade less than their net worth - total liabilities. Graham's days are gone..
But there must be other value methods that we have no discovered yet? There must be a way..
It sounds as if you are determined to learn by experience -- that is to say, the hard way. Best of luck with your investments; if you do happen upon a brilliant system, come back and tell us about it! But beware that you've got loads of competition out there trying to do the exact same thing you're doing. It hasn't been working out so well!

If you're genuinely interested in the impact of indexing on the markets, I highly recommend this site: http://www.philosophicaleconomics.com/2 ... iveactive/

It's heavy going, but it's a worthy read.
merely an interested amateur

GuitarXM
Posts: 403
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 12:09 am

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by GuitarXM » Fri Jul 29, 2016 10:27 pm

There are also lots of people out there that are using bogus techinical analysis and just gut feelings.
I agree with the article above on the macro level. The problem is that its hypothetical and in the real world people can invest in individual shares which throws that entire system out of balance and therefore in my opinion incorrect

expat
Posts: 738
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by expat » Fri Jul 29, 2016 11:12 pm

I don't screen any stocks but if I did.

https://www.google.com/finance/stockscreener

User avatar
arcticpineapplecorp.
Posts: 3131
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 9:22 pm

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by arcticpineapplecorp. » Sat Jul 30, 2016 11:13 am

GuitarXM wrote:I'm going to run a demo account for 1 year of 30 stocks that I pick and see how hard it really is to beat the market...
I can't get around the idea that putting in hard work is useless and wont get you better results than average...
Congratulations on realizing that. Now just index and put that "hard work" into something that will be more profitable/productive for you and yours.
GuitarXM wrote: The worlds best hedge fund managers dont invest in the world stock market fund...they pick stocks....
After all, you aren't going to make more than say 10% a year investing in your sp500 index funds. What will 10% get you? By the time you make any money you will be ready to retire and your life will be coming to an end. I can agree that trading is a losers game, or at least in the long term it is...
There has to be a balance somewhere in between. If day trading is one extreme, an index fund is the other extreme.
Sorry 10% annualized (good luck getting that even with stocks these days) isn't good enough for you. So you think you can get MORE than 10% per year with your own system? Good luck with that. The reason to invest is to beat inflation. If stocks get 10% like you suggest (YMMV) and inflation has been 3-4% historically, then your money grew faster than the cost of goods and services over the same time. That's the point of investing. The balance is between greed and fear. Those who are fearful don't invest. Those who are greedy try to beat the market. The "balance" is buying and holding the market and getting your fair share of the market's returns over your working lifetime.

I think you assume retirement is old age. Maybe it used to be but I know plenty of people in their 70s and 80s who work part time (because they want to), volunteer, sit on boards, travel, etc. You shouldn't assume you'll be decrepit when you retire. That's a combo of how you take care of yourself between now and then, your genes, and luck/fate. If you want to retire earlier than traditional age I'd suggest you start investing earlier (not possible) and/or invest more or look at your asset allocation. But in trying to beat the market, you're likely to do worse and in that you will likely be retiring later, not sooner.
GuitarXM wrote: That said,

then what is the point of this forum if all you have to do is invest in an index fund and forget about everything else?
Actually that is the point of the form (as I see it). To educate others who don't know to do that or think they'll get better results doing something else. You are likely bombarded with countermessages numerous times a day encouraging you to trade, buy stocks, lever up, etc. because others will profit from convincing you to do such things. Bogelheads is the one lone voice (there are a few others of course) where you are likely to hear the truth because they're not trying to sell you anything and stand behind the research/academic evidence that shows that buying and holding an index that tracks the market, choosing your asset allocation, keeping costs low, etc. is the one thing that works.
GuitarXM wrote: Have you considered that maybe since everyone is investing in index funds maybe its that much easier to find undervalued stock since people are buying all stocks which are under and overvalued?

The academics have been proven wrong many times by people like graham, buffet, lynch...the list goes on..
People are irrational so it would make sense that stocks could be priced incorrectly.
As long as there are emotions involved, there must be a way to profit from them.

Value investing does make sense but it may no longer work as well as it did back in the day.
If everyone is a value investor, undervalued stock could be thing of the past.
You can see that virutally no stocks trade less than their net worth - total liabilities. Graham's days are gone..
But there must be other value methods that we have no discovered yet? There must be a way..
The efficient market hypothesis doesn't say that prices are always perfect all the time, but suggests that the market is so efficient in incorporating all known information by all participants that by the time you figure out something's mispriced, it will probably be too late for you to act on it and profit. Mispricings happen but they are arbitraged away very quickly. And a company is a value company because it's unloved. There are reasons for that. If you buy a value company and it recovers you will likely get a greater return than buying a growth stock at higher prices. But companies can and do go out of business so a value proposition can be just a value trap and you could lose money. Investors can't lose money investing in THE MARKET permanently (like they can with individual companies that go belly up) unless the entire market (meaning all the companies in it) go out of business all at the same time.

Good luck with your decisions. Tell us what you learn.
"Invest we must." -- Jack Bogle | “The purpose of investing is not to simply optimise returns and make yourself rich. The purpose is not to die poor.” -- William Bernstein

Northster
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 3:30 pm

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by Northster » Sat Jul 30, 2016 11:30 am

Don't be misled by the idea that all hedge funds earn stellar returns. As Larry Swedoe regularly shows, the average hedge fund, like the average investor, doesn't beat the index.

GuitarXM
Posts: 403
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 12:09 am

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by GuitarXM » Sat Jul 30, 2016 12:45 pm

"If you buy a value company and it recovers you will likely get a greater return than buying a growth stock at higher prices. But companies can and do go out of business so a value proposition can be just a value trap and you could lose money. Investors can't lose money investing in THE MARKET permanently (like they can with individual companies that go belly up) unless the entire market (meaning all the companies in it) go out of business all at the same time. "

This is exactly the reason why I believe hard work can produce better results.
If you buy a diverse list of these undervalued companies don't you think its possible to beat the index?

User avatar
RyeWhiskey
Posts: 864
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:04 pm

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by RyeWhiskey » Sat Jul 30, 2016 1:08 pm

GuitarXM wrote:"If you buy a value company and it recovers you will likely get a greater return than buying a growth stock at higher prices. But companies can and do go out of business so a value proposition can be just a value trap and you could lose money. Investors can't lose money investing in THE MARKET permanently (like they can with individual companies that go belly up) unless the entire market (meaning all the companies in it) go out of business all at the same time. "

This is exactly the reason why I believe hard work can produce better results.
If you buy a diverse list of these undervalued companies don't you think its possible to beat the index?
It's always possible to beat the index. That's not the point. The point is the fundamental difference between possibility and probability. Taylor should arrive soon with a laundry list of quotes stating how improbable it is that anyone can beat the index consistently over the course of time. The fact are in: it's highly improbable (but still possible). :beer
This post was brought to you by Vanguard Total World Stock Index (VTWSX/VT).

GuitarXM
Posts: 403
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 12:09 am

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by GuitarXM » Sat Jul 30, 2016 1:40 pm

The thing is that you have to diversify the risk from picking value stocks.
So say you pick 30 large cap stock from the sp500.
Even if all the work you did to identify undervalued stocks proves to be wrong, isn't the result of those 30 stocks going to be very similar if not the same as the entire sp500 index. That index has all large cap stocks anyway. You don't think 30 stocks is a large enough sample to represent the entire index?

User avatar
LAlearning
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 12:26 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by LAlearning » Sat Jul 30, 2016 1:45 pm

go for it.

keep meticulous records for XIRR that you can post.
keep track of your expenses that you can post.
keep track of the time you put into this that you can post.

and we'll see.
I know nothing!

GuitarXM
Posts: 403
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 12:09 am

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by GuitarXM » Sat Jul 30, 2016 3:20 pm

Ill be using Robinhood so expenses will be 0

User avatar
Phineas J. Whoopee
Posts: 7392
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 6:18 pm

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by Phineas J. Whoopee » Sat Jul 30, 2016 4:29 pm

GuitarXM wrote:I'm going to run a demo account for 1 year of 30 stocks that I pick and see how hard it really is to beat the market...
I can't get around the idea that putting in hard work is useless and wont get you better results than average...
...
And that's precisely the lure the, as Bogle terms them, croupiers use to reel us in and take what otherwise would be our returns: the idea that hard work must produce better results. In many areas of life it does. In investing, the available rewards are strictly limited, and are so thoroughly competed over there's not much left for hard work to take advantage of.

I wrote an explanation, not a defense, of the Efficient Market Hypothesis which presumably is what you're objecting to. It includes a long section on market mechanics, which is critical for understanding the hypothesis. My post explicitly allows for people to disagree with the EMH - it's not demagoguery.

Feel free to read it if you like.

PJW

User avatar
JoMoney
Posts: 5562
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:31 am

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by JoMoney » Sat Jul 30, 2016 5:13 pm

GuitarXM wrote:The thing is that you have to diversify the risk from picking value stocks.
So say you pick 30 large cap stock from the sp500.
Even if all the work you did to identify undervalued stocks proves to be wrong, isn't the result of those 30 stocks going to be very similar if not the same as the entire sp500 index. That index has all large cap stocks anyway. You don't think 30 stocks is a large enough sample to represent the entire index?
If you pick 30 or so large/mega-cap stocks and are somewhat careful to try and diversify across different industry sectors, I would expect the result to be somewhat similar. Not precisely the same, but very similar. Over long periods of time, I would expect that the divergence for (better or worse) would average out about the same but the portfolio with fewer stocks would experience more volatility (for better or worse) and much more likely to test your resolve and putting you in situations where you feel compelled to make a choice as to "stay the course" or to make some change. If you moved down the spectrum to smaller sized stocks the situation gets amplified and holding only 30 stocks just may not be adequate diversification among small-caps.

There are "Growth & Value" indexes that divide the market (or the S&P500) in half, putting all the stocks that fit typical "Value" characteristics ( low price/book, lower P/E, higher yield) in one category, and typical "Growth" characteristics ( higher return on equity, higher earnings growth, momentum) in the other. Depending on which style you leaned towards I would expect your results would be similar to one of those. Maybe your screening process would be better than one of those, but if we divided the market along the lines of everyone picking one style or another, you'd fall somewhere on that spectrum.
Image

The other spectrum that the market typically gets divided on is on 'size' which seems to correlate a lot with 'market breadth'. How you weight your individual holdings and how frequently you trade or rebalance them will have different outcomes depending on which strategy prevails over the period, and whether the market sees more 'momentum' or 'mean reversion'.

If you have a preference or believe some particular strategy will be better than another over some period, you can use an index funds to very cheaply align your portfolio to follow a strategy somewhere along that spectrum. If on the other hand, you believe you know a lot about how to price a business and can find intrinsic value that the market is mis-pricing, then maybe you would be better off picking individual stocks... but there's an awful lot of professionals with a lot of resources behind them that can't seem to pull that off.

Regardless of what you do, it should be clear that whatever the market as an aggregate returns is what investors as a whole will share. If you manage to garner something above that, it means there is some other portfolio that earned something less. There's some innate desire to believe we're "above average", but most probably we fall into a bell-curve where most of us are indeed 'average'.
"To achieve satisfactory investment results is easier than most people realize; to achieve superior results is harder than it looks." - Benjamin Graham

GuitarXM
Posts: 403
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 12:09 am

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by GuitarXM » Sat Jul 30, 2016 6:51 pm

What about the fact that back testing Graham or piotroski f score shows consistently better results over the last 20 years?

User avatar
JoMoney
Posts: 5562
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:31 am

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by JoMoney » Sat Jul 30, 2016 7:21 pm

GuitarXM wrote:What about the fact that back testing Graham or piotroski f score shows consistently better results over the last 20 years?
Consistently better than what?
What about it was better? Owning mid-cap stocks, or equal-weighting the S&P500 would have had higher returns than the cap-weighted S&P500 as well over the past 20 years.
If you anchor around the late 1990's to 2000 as a starting point, owning just about anything other than the cap-weighted market likely outperformed. On a "risk adjusted" basis, using standard deviation as the proxy for risk, bonds were just about the best investment to be in over the last 20 years.
"To achieve satisfactory investment results is easier than most people realize; to achieve superior results is harder than it looks." - Benjamin Graham

User avatar
Phineas J. Whoopee
Posts: 7392
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 6:18 pm

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by Phineas J. Whoopee » Sat Jul 30, 2016 7:26 pm

GuitarXM wrote:What about the fact that back testing Graham or piotroski f score shows consistently better results over the last 20 years?
It's difficult not to notice, GuitarXM, that when your reasoning in favor of hard work leading to superior stock selection is refuted, rather than change your conclusion you switch to different reasoning.

Clearly you're committed to doing what you propose. Go ahead. You don't need to convince us, because you don't need our permission.

I sincerely hope you outperform all of us. I mean that.

PJW

User avatar
snowshoes
Posts: 348
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 12:33 pm

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by snowshoes » Sat Jul 30, 2016 7:44 pm

Do not discount researching a strategy thats centrally focused around a core indexed position, with a speculatatory tilt. I too need speculation, I choose value plays* or a singular play* recognizing its just that, pure speculation based on value (*equity) that cold go to zero at any time.

User avatar
JoMoney
Posts: 5562
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:31 am

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by JoMoney » Sat Jul 30, 2016 7:49 pm

I'm going to attempt to offer a question to see if I can adequately express my point:
Here's two charts (hyperlinked to the source at Morningstar.com) of the "Total Market" over two 20 year periods:
1984 - 2004
1996 - 2016
Image
Image

An individual who chose to be a "stock picker", is more likely to have been a loser relative to the cap weighted market over the first period. Somebody who was a "stock picker" over the second period is more likely to have out performed the cap-weighted market over the second period.
Can you imagine why?
Regardless of which period you look at, the participants in the market in aggregate will always get the total return of the market weighted index, and the people owning something different are likely to have assumed more risk (depending on how you measure risk), regardless of what the future outcome is over some particular period... but you should be very careful about evaluating a particular strategy in that some time periods may appear to have been more favorable to be doing something other than owning the broad market, even though as a group we can't all perform better than whatever the market did.
Last edited by JoMoney on Sat Jul 30, 2016 8:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"To achieve satisfactory investment results is easier than most people realize; to achieve superior results is harder than it looks." - Benjamin Graham

bawr
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 9:10 pm

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by bawr » Sat Jul 30, 2016 8:00 pm

I use the paid service at valuesignals.com as my initial screener and then perform additional analysis using the free services of gurufocus.com and morningstar.com.

I mainly invest in individual stocks, with an emphasis on smaller value stocks. Over the past 13 years, this approach has beaten a passive investment in the S&P 500 by a ridiculous margin.

Any reasonably intelligent person who is willing to invest the substantial time and effort needed to learn and then implement a disciplined investment program, while avoiding common psychological pitfalls, will reap substantial rewards.

GuitarXM
Posts: 403
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 12:09 am

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by GuitarXM » Sat Jul 30, 2016 8:34 pm

bawr wrote:I use the paid service at valuesignals.com as my initial screener and then perform additional analysis using the free services of gurufocus.com and morningstar.com.

I mainly invest in individual stocks, with an emphasis on smaller value stocks. Over the past 13 years, this approach has beaten a passive investment in the S&P 500 by a ridiculous margin.

Any reasonably intelligent person who is willing to invest the substantial time and effort needed to learn and then implement a disciplined investment program, while avoiding common psychological pitfalls, will reap substantial rewards.
What does valuesignals offer that you can get for free elsewhere?

User avatar
Phineas J. Whoopee
Posts: 7392
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 6:18 pm

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by Phineas J. Whoopee » Sat Jul 30, 2016 8:56 pm

bawr wrote:...
I mainly invest in individual stocks, with an emphasis on smaller value stocks. Over the past 13 years, this approach has beaten a passive investment in the S&P 500 by a ridiculous margin.
...
If I may, by way of being an out-of-touch totally ancient idiot causing-all-of-our-problems get off my lawn!, the word ridiculous today means what insane meant twenty years ago, and awesome meant fifteen years before that.

Out of sight!

Groovy!

Gone, man, real gone!

Kilroy was here.

PJW

P.S.: Good borking! -P

P.P.S: bawr's reported ridiculous outperformance is stated without reference to the increased risk that comes with small value stocks. Didn't some old fuddy-duddy recently post about such a deficiency in high-performance-claiming boasts? --P
Last edited by Phineas J. Whoopee on Sat Jul 30, 2016 9:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
JoMoney
Posts: 5562
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:31 am

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by JoMoney » Sat Jul 30, 2016 9:05 pm

^ Yes. Outside of context, I have no idea if I should detest or delight in the idea of someone saying "Let's Get Ridiculous"
"To achieve satisfactory investment results is easier than most people realize; to achieve superior results is harder than it looks." - Benjamin Graham

User avatar
LAlearning
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 12:26 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by LAlearning » Sat Jul 30, 2016 11:51 pm

bawr wrote:I use the paid service at valuesignals.com as my initial screener and then perform additional analysis using the free services of gurufocus.com and morningstar.com.

I mainly invest in individual stocks, with an emphasis on smaller value stocks. Over the past 13 years, this approach has beaten a passive investment in the S&P 500 by a ridiculous margin.

Any reasonably intelligent person who is willing to invest the substantial time and effort needed to learn and then implement a disciplined investment program, while avoiding common psychological pitfalls, will reap substantial rewards.
Do you have proof?
I know nothing!

bawr
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 9:10 pm

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by bawr » Sun Jul 31, 2016 1:37 am

GuitarXM wrote:What does valuesignals offer that you can get for free elsewhere?
It has global coverage, and comes pre-configured with filters such as the Beneish M-score, the Piotroski F-score, the Altman Z-score, etc. GuruFocus has similar features, but is much more expensive. I don't know of any free service with these capabilities.

GuitarXM
Posts: 403
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 12:09 am

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by GuitarXM » Sun Jul 31, 2016 1:44 am

Interesting....Never heard of Beneish M-score

bawr
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 9:10 pm

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by bawr » Sun Jul 31, 2016 1:54 am

LAlearning wrote: Do you have proof?
"Proof" is relevant in the fields of mathematics and alcoholic beverages. For everything else, there is "evidence".

There is much academic research that shows the outperformance of value (and momentum) strategies. See alphaarchitect.com for references.

GuitarXM
Posts: 403
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 12:09 am

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by GuitarXM » Sun Jul 31, 2016 2:42 am

bawr wrote:
GuitarXM wrote:What does valuesignals offer that you can get for free elsewhere?
It has global coverage, and comes pre-configured with filters such as the Beneish M-score, the Piotroski F-score, the Altman Z-score, etc. GuruFocus has similar features, but is much more expensive. I don't know of any free service with these capabilities.
Check this out...It has all the filters you mentioned for free...Not sure how accurate or good this site is yet...Look at it and tell me if its accurate and compared to your paid service site.

http://www.unclestock.com/

minimalistmarc
Posts: 256
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 4:38 pm

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by minimalistmarc » Sun Jul 31, 2016 3:14 am

This thread reassures me that index investing is the way forward in the long term because there will always be a significant majority who refuse to believe they can't outperform the market.

All you need is somebody, as above, to post how ridiculously they can outperform the market and hey presto everybody must be able to do it. It's not luck, it's skill!

I guess most people do need to learn the hard way, as I did, before turning to indexing. The ones who get lucky and have continuously favourable coinflips will of course continue to exist, but to say it is due to hard work and research is laughable. Just ask a large group of monkeys to pick stocks and then tell me the ones that outperform are great stockpickers.

bawr
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 9:10 pm

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by bawr » Sun Jul 31, 2016 3:52 am

minimalistmarc wrote:This thread reassures me that index investing is the way forward in the long term because there will always be a significant majority who refuse to believe they can't outperform the market.

All you need is somebody, as above, to post how ridiculously they can outperform the market and hey presto everybody must be able to do it. It's not luck, it's skill!

I guess most people do need to learn the hard way, as I did, before turning to indexing. The ones who get lucky and have continuously favourable coinflips will of course continue to exist, but to say it is due to hard work and research is laughable. Just ask a large group of monkeys to pick stocks and then tell me the ones that outperform are great stockpickers.
It seems I have been misunderstood. I believe the vast majority of humans lack the temperament necessary to beat the market, and should not attempt it.

bawr
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 9:10 pm

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by bawr » Sun Jul 31, 2016 4:16 am

GuitarXM wrote: Check this out...It has all the filters you mentioned for free...Not sure how accurate or good this site is yet...Look at it and tell me if its accurate and compared to your paid service site.

http://www.unclestock.com/
I have tried the Uncle Stock site in the past and found it to be buggy and its data unreliable. Just now, I tried to register on the site, but never received the promised confirmation email.

Another reasonably priced site with global coverage is screener.co. A pretty cheap screener with US-only coverage and a value investing bias is magicdiligence.com. stockrover.com has free, basic, US-only screening, with additional features if you choose the paid option. portfolio123.com has lots of features, including backtesting, but has become progressively more expensive over time.

mega317
Posts: 2554
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:55 am

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by mega317 » Sun Jul 31, 2016 5:46 am

[quote="bawr"]

I mainly invest in individual stocks, with an emphasis on smaller value stocks. Over the past 13 years, this approach has beaten a passive investment in the S&P 500 by a ridiculous margin.[/quote]

I think LAlearning meant do you have proof that you did it. Evidence that you did it would work.

bawr
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 9:10 pm

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by bawr » Sun Jul 31, 2016 9:37 am

mega317 wrote:
bawr wrote: I think LAlearning meant do you have proof that you did it. Evidence that you did it would work.
My record isn't long enough, and doesn't contain enough trades, to be statistically significant on its own. Interested parties would find it more beneficial to study the track records of successful long term value investors and the recent academic literature available on the subject.

This nice article by Warren Buffett might encourage some to engage in further research:

The Superinvestors of Graham-and-Doddsville

http://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/rtfiles/cb ... tt1984.pdf

User avatar
LAlearning
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 12:26 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by LAlearning » Sun Jul 31, 2016 11:13 am

bawr wrote:
mega317 wrote:
bawr wrote: I think LAlearning meant do you have proof that you did it. Evidence that you did it would work.
My record isn't long enough, and doesn't contain enough trades, to be statistically significant on its own. Interested parties would find it more beneficial to study the track records of successful long term value investors and the recent academic literature available on the subject.

This nice article by Warren Buffett might encourage some to engage in further research:

The Superinvestors of Graham-and-Doddsville

http://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/rtfiles/cb ... tt1984.pdf
so no proof.
I know nothing!

mega317
Posts: 2554
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:55 am

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by mega317 » Sun Jul 31, 2016 11:16 am

So if individually picking small value stocks beats the S&P by a ridiculous margin, but your results aren't statistically significant (I assume you mean a statistically significant difference from the index), then why are you spending "substantial time and effort"?

GuitarXM
Posts: 403
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 12:09 am

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by GuitarXM » Sun Jul 31, 2016 1:14 pm

bawr wrote:
GuitarXM wrote: Check this out...It has all the filters you mentioned for free...Not sure how accurate or good this site is yet...Look at it and tell me if its accurate and compared to your paid service site.

http://www.unclestock.com/
I have tried the Uncle Stock site in the past and found it to be buggy and its data unreliable. Just now, I tried to register on the site, but never received the promised confirmation email.

Another reasonably priced site with global coverage is screener.co. A pretty cheap screener with US-only coverage and a value investing bias is magicdiligence.com. stockrover.com has free, basic, US-only screening, with additional features if you choose the paid option. portfolio123.com has lots of features, including backtesting, but has become progressively more expensive over time.
Which data you found unreliable on unclestock.com?
I am currently comparing it to morningstar and it seems to be dead on

bawr
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 9:10 pm

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by bawr » Sun Jul 31, 2016 8:03 pm

mega317 wrote:So if individually picking small value stocks beats the S&P by a ridiculous margin, but your results aren't statistically significant (I assume you mean a statistically significant difference from the index), then why are you spending "substantial time and effort"?
The difference from the index has been substantial, butI have too few trades over too short a period for them to constitute a statistically significant result on their own, and for others to accept my results as "proof". I believe in the soundness of value investing's underlying principles, and am encouraged to continue because other investors have also done well using such methods, and their results ARE statistically significant. Those interested can study the literature.

I am not trying to prove anything or convince anyone. The less competition I have out there, the better!

GuitarXM
Posts: 403
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 12:09 am

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by GuitarXM » Sun Jul 31, 2016 10:32 pm

Do you use any site for back testing?

mega317
Posts: 2554
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:55 am

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by mega317 » Sun Jul 31, 2016 10:33 pm

Fair enough I can understand that. It would be interesting for you to update this thread periodically with your trades.

Also not to be snarky but if all it takes to beat the s&p is any reasonably intelligent person, why do almost all professional fund managers fail to do it?

bawr
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 9:10 pm

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by bawr » Sun Jul 31, 2016 11:12 pm

mega317 wrote:Fair enough I can understand that. It would be interesting for you to update this thread periodically with your trades.
I have had only two trades so far this year. I bought Fuji Heavy Industries (-8% return, so far) and Scripps Networks Interactive (+23%) in January. My next trade will most likely be the sale of Shenandoah Telecom (+380%), which I bought in July 2013, when it was reasonably priced. It has since become a momentum stock and is now overvalued. My screens are producing fewer attractive opportunities than they did a few months ago, possibly indicating that the market is a bit overvalued.
Also not to be snarky but if all it takes to beat the s&p is any reasonably intelligent person, why do almost all professional fund managers fail to do it?
I think it is because money managers are chosen for their ability to get hired by financial institutions and raise money from investors, not for their ability to invest. Similarly, politicians succeed for their ability to get elected, not for their talent to govern.

Another issue facing professional money managers is that they are judged by their ability to perform on a quarterly or even monthly basis. This turns many of them into closet indexers. If you are an indexer and charging a hefty fee for your services, you are bound to underperform. A truly competent money manager like, say, Warren Buffett, would have gotten fired several times over by a traditional money management firm for his lengthy periods of apparent underperformance.

Park
Posts: 525
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 4:56 pm

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by Park » Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:17 am

bawr wrote:I mainly invest in individual stocks, with an emphasis on smaller value stocks.
Bawr has a small cap value tilt with a DIY approach. Other than the approach, how is this significantly different from the many tilting to small cap value on this board?

minesweep
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:17 pm
Location: PA

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by minesweep » Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:45 am

I don't put much stock in those screeners. :happy

mega317
Posts: 2554
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:55 am

Re: Stock Screeners

Post by mega317 » Mon Aug 01, 2016 9:10 am

Park wrote:
bawr wrote:I mainly invest in individual stocks, with an emphasis on smaller value stocks.
Bawr has a small cap value tilt with a DIY approach. Other than the approach, how is this significantly different from the many tilting to small cap value on this board?
Yeah I mean the approach IS the significant difference. But you have pointed out that we're kind of talking about two different things. Bawr is saying small value beats S&P, and yes lots of people tilt with that in mind. (Not sure how tilted s/he is. Are small value stocks 10%? 50%?) But most don't do it with individual stocks. Maybe we should be comparing his/her performance to a tilted portfolio of index funds rather than straight S&P. Or maybe I have too much time on my hands this week and this thread his run its course. Either way thanks for the discussion.

Post Reply