Skip to main content

BACK-TESTING EP Y-6 LARGE CAP: I, S, C, R

I'm trying something different.

There are benefits to sorting by sectors and perhaps I'll come back to it, but now I'm sorting by the available analysis elements.  Without getting into a lot of detail, this model looks at several different fundamentals (a maximum of nine) which results in a score, the higher the score the better.  However, not every fundamental is present in every company.  This method of organizing splits out those companies that have all four of the inconsistent measures, or three, or two.  I don't expect there will be companies that only have one of the inconsistent measures, but we'll see.

I also want to state that there will be a difference between the methods used in testing and the method used in operations, if I can successfully prove out this model.  When this model is in operation, I will be looking for companies who have just released their financials and looking at their score for possible inclusion or removal from the investment portfolio.  I can run these companies against specific and well-thought out portfolios - portfolios of companies in the same or similar sectors, with a similar market cap and who share the same inconsistent fundamentals.

In this testing phase, I am searching for a "good-enough" grouping.  I need the portfolios to be large and I need the results to be a comparable as reasonably possible.  Let's see how it does.

One Year Return Two Year Return Three Year Return Four Year Return Five Year Return Six Year Return Year Two Return Year Three Return Year Four Return Year Five Return Year Six Return Observations:
There's a lot of inconsistency in the 8 group, which was the highest grouping and that is a little disheartening.  I notice that the 1 group performed consistently poorly, which is an outcome I'm looking for.
 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

11 Reasons Why INVRS is Better Than Excel Alone

If you work with your own investment models you likely use excel to build them, but excel isn’t ideal for many reasons and it costs you in other ways.
First, you need good data and it isn’t just lying around in an easy to import format.You’re either keying it in yourself or paying money for excel downloads.
When you need data from numerous sources – price information, data from different statements and across multiple years - you must merge it from multiple sheets.  It's an inefficient process which can lead to data corruption.
After all this data is collected and merged, models built and tested, the net result is one statistic for one company.A stand-alone number without context has limited use.To be meaningful, you need to compare it to similar companies. This is just a sample of the challenges.  You need software that overcomes these problems and is designed for investment model creation.
Surprise!  This software exists, it's INVRS.  You can get a free analysis report on …

NextEra - Good Dividend in the Renewable Energy Sector

NextEra had good results relative to a group of peers in a factor-based analysis.NextEra has an appealing profitability and income profile.Its price momentum looks decent, with a caveat.Its relatively small size (a small mid-cap) coupled with its industry (renewable energy) further weight the odds that this company could be a strong performer in the future.
The Analysis Overview
I created a portfolio of stocks in the alternative energy sector, looking specifically for companies with a market cap over $1B but less than $4B.  This is a sweet spot that offers strong potential for growth but is also substantial enough not to be too speculative.

It's my believe that alternative energy is on the ascendance, where as fossil fuels will inevitably decline (NextEra isn't a pure play in this regard however, natural gas assets are part of its portfolio).  If you share this belief and you want exposure to this market, NextEra looks like a good bet.

This is a factor-based analysis on seven …