Bio Stock Rating/Grading volume 1Many people on the main Bio/KSS threads think that maintaining a rating/grading system for Bio stock is a good idea. FWIW This thread aims to provide them with the space to indulge in such practices.
Long Gild and KSS.
This is a discussion topic or guest posting submitted by a Stock Gumshoe reader. The content has not been edited or reviewed by Stock Gumshoe, and any opinions expressed are those of the author alone.
GILD had a sell signal Nov 13, 2014 MA 10 crossed over MA 20 dowwwwwn. Was my assessment correct Allan?
If it went down……you must be right I guess…. Gild closed $107 on nov 13…..it hit $101 14th Nov. Nuff said?
Re: GILD
I hope I’m not being rude by interjecting. I use a 22- and 50-EMA. I did notice that on that date, both EMAs flattened indicating a possible lack of forward momentum. Furthermore, on 11/5, the fast MACD line crossed under the slow line and began to trend down. Additionally, on the same date, MACDH dipped below 0 and trended down. All signs (as I understand them) of an impeding lack of forward momentum. That day, there was a “wide” price range and the Close was very near the day’s low, another sign of weakness. The next day was a pivot point as the close was at the open and the range was much smaller than on 11/5 on almost as much volume.
Of course, it’s easy to read the “tape” from the right side and, for the record, even though I was monitoring this, I didn’t follow my own advice and held. For the record, also, the daily chart seems to indicate a continuing downtrend.
This is NOT a recommendation to BUY/SELL GILD. Full disclosure: Long GILD.
Rude??? Not at all ! People choose to subscribe here, so no one can can complain about TMI.
Why 22/50….what does persuades you to use the extra 2?
BTW There is no such thing as a recco on GS…..only one person decides to sign the check and thats after however much DD they bother to do from ALL the info to available. Th only thing with a crystal ball is a crystal statue.
Opps….Even I screwed up. This is the KSS bio grading thread…..I think these comments should be on the technicals thread. See ya there.
thats at http://www.stockgumshoe.com/2014/05/microblog-technical-analysis-classroom
All: If anyone wants to send a jinglebells greeting to KSS…heres the place http://www.stockgumshoe.com/2014/12/microblog-happy-christmas-dr-kss-from-all-us-gummies/
It seems the KSS rating system has reared its head again. Seems to me there is presently no consensus on what we want vs what can reasonably be expected/maintained. So, I throw these thoughts in the ring for your comment.
The ONLY assessment I (and most others ) are interested in is KSS’s. I truly dont think he has time for too much detailed price/risk analysis (but we can ask). Seems its far more likely that he will give an educated gut feeling about a stock ‘IF’ he owned it. Presently he has taken to saying ‘Long with a buy sentiment’. (or whatever is appropriate). Naturally it would be fab to have endlessly more analysis, but Im not sure we can reasonably expect more than this. However, there are two things I would love to know, and thats a risk assessment ratio and a binary event flag.
Risk: I think this means risk to your capital investment rather than scientific risk or whatever (though the end result will probably be much the same) One particularly dangerous thing is an investment in a ‘binary event’ stock coz its bound to end up in Heaven or Hell. I mean, if Glaxo invest in a bad drug youll probably lose 5%……wheras Regardo’s much fancied one an only drug was a 99% wipe out. So we get a ratio of say 95/100 for Glaxo and 5/100 for Regardo. (scuse my math coz Regardo might be seen as 1/100000 ratio… I leave that assessment to KSS !) Armed with this, at least we know the risk we are taking on in return for possible Nirvana……or as Dirty Harry would say ‘What you gotta ask yourself is, Do ya feel lucky punk?’.
I think we could add one thing to this. As time goes by and ‘news’ emerges, KSS may have a change of heart. How will we know what he said previously? I would suggest a simple +/=/- direction indicator. These will equate to a current sell/hold/buy rating and indicate movement from a previous feeling as impacted by latest events. So a rating of 50/50 – means that its medium risk (to your capital) but getting worse. Or 50/50+ means its even money but things are looking up in my (KSS’s) opinion. ETC.
One other thing is whether the stock is a buyout candidate ie Y/N.
These codes could easily be added to the spread sheet as a column.
Your thoughts guys? But do try to remember that someone (You????) needs to maintain the spread sheet.
Like, Like Like!!! and thanking you Alan.
One spreadsheet, remove info which is no longer pertinent/suitable or is searchable via our trade platforms to make room. KISS, keep it simple stupid. Great brainstorming.
LONG KSS
Pleased to help if I can.
my .01 CDN
Hi Terry, Alan, Dan & all,
Please do not mind me extending this discussion further if this, in the process, could give us a good evaluation system.
I agree that this system should not be a burden on Dr KSS and team doing analysis and there should be an easy way of providing biotech indicators based on which a company is assessed.
Since this evaluation system is specific to biotech sector I would suggest biotech indicators that would be easy to assess, easy to update, most importantly intuitive and shouldn’t need extra work to be done.
Where there is no information available defaults can be taken. The defaults would be replaced with actuals when further information is available.
Biotech indicators could be derived from the articles or from the comments. It needn’t be realtime. Changes could be incorporated upon periodic reviews and suggestions provided thereupon
Spreadsheet would be based on biotech indicators suggested earlier and to clarify the positioning on a symbol, a “sentiments” column could be added:
Sentiments
Promising – companies with high growth, acquisition, merger
Growing – revenue generation
Hold – sustains
Speculative – has potential
Binary – indeterministic
Sell
If the group feels it is workable I will take a initial stab and it and send out spreadsheet for review.
Seeking…..Honestly, I can see you are v keen and thinking hard; its truly appreciated. But who is gonna make these assessments?…….how will I know theyre not just know-nuffing pumpers if they are not KSS? Does KSS have the time/ inclination for this level of analysis…..he’s probably quite busy saving lives. Perhaps we should ask him directly about what HE is prepared to do. Ive said what I would like….. maybe submit a wish list tick list to him and see what comes back.
Still, nice of you to volunteer to maintain whatever emerges from this debate. Personally, I still think it has to be KSS keeping it KISS.
Hi Alan,
Sure KISS is good .. just wanted to create a list of companies recently discussed
seeking_that, I would certainly like to see you take a first shot at this approach. Hopefully,
we can mold it into a working document that would be beneficial to the majority of those
of us interested in investing in biotech. The message as you are well aware of is to ensure
simplicity.
Regards,
Frank
Hi All,
Here is the list of stocks (listed in biotech dim sum) in the increasing order of risk. Please suggest if this format will be work and any changes to make it useful. I hope the information would be useful if corrected wherever there are deviations
Stock - cash - trials - Science - Perform - Mgt - Outside - Rating - Reward - Trailing - Sentiments Triggers Stop % (0-3) (0-4) (1-4) (0-4) (0-4) (0-3) TMO 3 3 3 3 3 3 18(E) Med 25 % Growing LLY 3 3 3 3 3 3 18(E) Lo 25 % Growing GILD 3 2.5 3 3 3 3 17.5(E) MedHi 25 % Growing CELG 3 2.5 3 3 3 3 17.5(E) Hi 25 % Growing NVS 3 2.5 3 3 3 3 17.5(E) MedHi 25 % Growing GWPH 3 2.5 3 3 3 3 17.5(E) Hi 25 % Growing BLUE 3 2.5 3 2 3 2 15.5(F) Med 20 % Promising KITE 2 2 4 2 3 2 15(G) MedHi 20 % Promising JUNO 2 2 3 2 4 2 15(G) MedHi 20 % Promising AGIO 1 2 3 2 3 2 13(F) Hi 20 % Promising BLCM 1 2 3 2 3 2 13(F) Hi 20 % Promising CTIX 2 1 3 2 3 2 13(F) MedHi 15 % Speculative BLRX 1 1.5 3 2 3 2 12.5(F) MedHi 15 % Speculative ESPR D 2 3 2 3 1 12(F) Med 15 % Speculative KPTI D 1 3 2 3 2 12(F) MedHi 15 % Speculative EPZM 2 1 3 2 2 2 12(F) Med 15 % Speculative ZFGN 2 1 3 1 3 2 12(F) Med 15 % Speculative TLOG D 1 4 1 4 0 11(F) Hi 15 % Speculative XENE 1 1 3 2 3 2 11(F) Hi 15 % Speculative ARWR D 1 3 2 3 1 11(F) MedHi 15 % Speculative AKAO D 2 4 D 3 D 10(Av) MedHi 15 % Binary TRVN 0 1 4 2 3 0 10(Av) Hi 15 % Binary BIOZF D 1 4 D 2 D 10(Av) Hi 15 % Speculative CLDN D 1 4 1 2 1 10(Av) MedHi 15 % Binary AKBA D 1 3 D 3 D 10(Av) MedHi 15 % Binary ATNM D 1 3 D 3 D 10(Av) MedHi 15 % Binary HALO D 2 4 D D D 10(Av) MedHi 15 % Speculative ALKS D 1 3 D 3 2 10(Av) MedHi 15 % Speculative TRIL 2 0 4 D 2 0 9(Av) Hi 15 % Speculative Benitec 1 1 4 1 1 1 9(L) Hi 15 % Binary ARTH 0 0 4 1 3 0 8(L) Hi 5 % Binary Legend: Cash: 0 - debt; 3 - no debt, sufficient cash flow Trials: 0 - pre, 1 - p1, 2 - p2, 3 - p3, 4 - approved (averaged out across product lines) Science: 0 - not fully understood, not fully convincing, 4 - fully understood and convincing Consistency: Market Performance; 0 - least; 4 - best Management: 0 - unreliable & unpredictable; 4 - totally reliable & predictable Triggers: 0 - no triggers or negative triggers; 3 - positive triggers or no negatives expected Rating: Risk E - Excellent ( >= 16) - Low G - Good (13 - 15) - Low-Medium F - Fair (11 - 13) - Medium Av - Average (9-10) - Medium-High L - Low (< 9) - High Trailing Stop Recommendations: Rating Suggestion Low 5 Average 10 Fair 15 Good 20 Excellent 25 Sentiments Promising - companies with high growth, acquisition, merger Growing - consistent revenue generation Speculative - has potential Binary - indeterministic Sell Defaults: = 1 for all fields since we are considering biotech startupOf I forgot to mention: A next ‘event’ timespan (ie not much will happen till july 2018) would be excellent.
If we are going to have an evaluation rating one factor needs to be an understanding of value:
Overvalued
Fairly Valued
Undervalued
Back up the truck!
Seeking-T: Im probably being very thick. Am I to understand that these ratings will be extrapolated/interpreted from KSS’s musings by someone or are you asking KSS to grade every stock mentioned on each item? Am I to understand that you are volunteering to transpose and maintain the data in a spread sheet and keep it updated changes occur ? If so, you deserve a medal.
Hi Alan,
Sure .. I can extrapolate info from Dr KSS’s articles and comments. But if anyone feels the points/rewards/events/value sentiments are incorrect and suggestions were provided, I would be happy to keep it uptodate.
Stunning!!!! Thanks is too smaller word.
seeking_that
Very good job on the table. May I offer a few comments? Starting from the left:
–Performance- What is meant, more precisely, by performance? What kinds of measures or data were used to determine score? It would be easier for the reader if the column heading and footnote matched. As written, the footnote includes “consistency”. Do you really mean this?
–Outside trigger- Perhaps the ‘outside’ could be removed, then it would match the footnote, and one need not be drawn to thinking about outside and inside triggers, just to triggers. Or, could one fractionate into outside and inside triggers? Also, you have a “4” listed for Juno, however, the scale in the footnote is from 0-3.
–Rating count- It took me a few seconds to understand the column heading. Perhaps this could read “Point total”.
–Rating category- Concerning the scale itself, the difference between “fair” and “average” is unclear and appears needlessly contentious. It would be more traditional for the scale (and I have done many of these in academia) to read “excellent- good- fair- poor” or to read “high- average (or medium)- low”, depending on your preference. The former could be expanded by changing “good” to “very good” and adding “average”. But personally I think that 5 is one too many categories, which your current scale has. And, the footnote might best match the column heading.
–Prospects- Concerning the scale, I wonder why this particular order. Why, for example, is “growing” not above “promising? And in the footnote for Promising, does “acquisition, merger” mean doing it or being done to? And I wonder if “Sustains” is the best term here as one could have sustained high performance. I would interpret from the footnote that “Sustains” means being neutral in terms of market performance (losses, gains). If so, how does this differ from the Performance column? And for Binary- what is meant by “indeterministic”? Do you mean determined by the outcome of one trial/event? And finally, I wonder about the term “Sell”. “Buy” is not found in the table and “Sell” seems a very specific recommendation. Perhaps “Sell” could be listed as “Limited” or “Weak” with the descriptor “avoid”. I am taken by Peter Tilton’s notation that some individuals will read literally and reflexively act- without careful consideration and further dd.
–Trailing stop- For the reason just noted, and because conditions change, and because our personal situations differ, a particular stop recommendation would appear to have little meaning. Personally, I think their inclusion to be unwise.
–The order of the footnotes might better follow the order of the columns.
Has Dr. KSS commented on the contents of the table? Again, good job and thank you for your efforts.
Terry
Hi Terry,
(Market) Performance means instilling confidence in investors and/or showing revenues and earnings consistently. Changed the name to ‘Consistency’
Now the values are not out of range
Removed ‘outside’ prefix
Changed Count to ‘Total Points’
Ratings:
Somehow I feel that while factoring risk it might give an additional level of comfort to have one extra level between ‘medium’ and ‘hi’.
risk: low, low-medium, medium, hi-medium, hi
Accordingly ratings could be: Excellent – Very Good – Good – Fair – Low
But I can change to 4 levels if you want
With 4 levels it would be Excellent – Good – Fair – Low. (Low, Low-Medium, Medium, Hi) Your thoughts ?
Changed ‘Low’ to ‘Poor’ in Ratings for clarity
Updated Prospects:
Promising means high returns and/or Could result in acquisition or merger
Growing consistent revenue generation, but may not be high returns
Speculative could grow big or be mediocre
Sustains no losses, no appreciable gains, i.e., consistent growth, but low returns
Binary prospects in-deterministic, is an extreme case of Speculative. Worst case could wipe out capital
Weak avoid or give up the position
Prospects gives an indication for an entry point. Sustains maybe ‘hold’, positions other than ‘sustains’ and ‘weak’ would be a ‘buy’ with associated risks
Difference between ‘Performance’ or ‘Consistency’ and Prospects is
Prospects give overall picture and may indicate what a position holds in future. Consistency is the performance in the present for rating system.
For now I am removing the trailing stops and if we deem it fit, we can add later. Personally I feel trailing stops might eliminate the need for constant monitoring and prompt action in case of any eventuality. It is possible that we are on vacation and internet connections could be spotty when a crash happens. Not sure how easy it would be to place orders over mobile apps. Salvaging something is better than losing everything. It is like an insurance. I am hoping that in a crash, a position doesn’t open up at rock bottom prices where nothing matters. Network issues and stock crash won’t happen simultaneously. Other than those scenarios trailing stops might help.
Instead of a number, perhaps a broad range would help.
Thanks for your valuable suggestions. I will keep updating as and when I get suggestions and feedback.
I think trailing stops (if ever resurrected) should be changed to Mental or Trailing Stop Review. That way people wont formally set them with their broker, so get stopped out by the inherent volatility of bio, but will be alerted to the need for further DD.
seeking_that Uploaded the spreadsheet to google spreadsheets. Please give your feedback
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ytG-tATco0L7nzmW5D0UIUhF5QqcQLbt9qxFhjCWajY/edit?usp=sharing
What is performance? JUNO is up 126% since IPO BLCM up 68% and gets a 2?
AKAO was described by Dr. KSS. as the ONE company that he is most excited about out of all equities discussed here on these threads. What is 2W in value sentiments?
We’re off to a great start IMHO. Best-Benjamin
Performance means evoking confidence that the company can grow for decades consistently without any risk of collapse showing revenues and earnings. Like Coke or Pepsi as cited in buffetology. Basically it is the level of confidence instilled in investors. If you have such confidence in JUNO and BLCM, then it is a 4.
Perhaps TMO, GILD, CELG, NVS or LLY might be the candidates for that.
Price change is one aspect of it and that would be factored into rewards.
2W – second week. Changed that to 2WJan15 for clarity
Seeking_that might you consider adding the companies that are on the list here:
http://www.stockgumshoe.com/2014/11/first-steps-and-favorite-tools-for-new-investors/#comment-3774970 and adding a column for KSS sentiment?
Also please add revision date and time for the table.
Any thoughts on getting our core members to add the percent of their portfolio on eache equity while remaining anonymous? Do you plan to attend the JPM conference, Biotech conference or both?
Also please feel free to add your favorite tools on the above thread.
Many thanks chief. Best to ALL!-Benjamin
Hi Ben,
I will add those list that you pointed out as well. If you would like to have core members edit it, I would be delighted because that will give accuracy to the predictions. I have opened the file for editing so anyone can edit it.
Just planning to attend biotech conference.
Favourite tool:
I would suggest http://freestockcharts.com because there are tons of technical indicators with separate list of indexes, provision to create personal portfolio, alerts, personal screens and lots of features. Of course some of them are not free, but most of them are.
Most of indicators for trending, strength, directional indicators are available for free. A quick help and a link to detailed help of indicators are available.
Very nice and powerful.
SeekingT/HiPox: Re static headings…..brilliant!…Now I know what the rating means pdq. Thanx mega
Hi, seeking_that
The spreadsheet is looking good! Perhaps a few more comments to consider:
–Cash and Trials- headings might be capitalized for consistency. Picky, I know.
–Consistency- Ok. If this is based on revenue/earnings, then perhaps “Earnings consistency” would be more descriptive.
–Triggers- I am wondering what they are, more exactly, and how they relate to the column entitled “Events”. Could an “event” be a “trigger”? At first I was wanting to move “Event” next to “Triggers” but I can see the advantage of keeping all of the point columns together.
–Rating points- This is pretty clear. Yet, I might consider adding risk (3 pts low, 2 pts medium, 1 pt high) and reward (3pts high, 2pts medium, 1 pt low) into the total. If this seems useful or reasonable to you, then numbers would be listed in the two columns, rather than words. It depends on what you want the rating scale to reflect. For me, it might be helpful to have one grand or overall number, then look to see how it is arrived at. I would then consider moving “Rating Category” and “Rating Total Points” columns to second and third positions, respectively, just after “Therapy”. Just thoughts to ponder.
–Rating category- This is clearer now. If you are comfortable with a five point/designation scale, then that’s fine.
–Risk- As the footnote adds nothing beyond what is in the column, it is not necessary, unless you wish to elaborate on how this is determined. But I assume you are reflecting Dr. KSS’s sentiments, so I would just remove it. And, no footnote was needed or added for “Reward”.
–Prospects- I toyed with the idea of suggesting that these be quantified and added to the point total. But am not so sure this is easily quantifiable. Anyway, Footnote for “Growing”- “growing” and “consistency” probably are not the same thing. It would seem that to be so designated, a company would have reasonable prospects of growth. And, I’m not sure how as stated “Growing” is clearly different from “Sustains”, as it seems there could be low returns in both. Perhaps the descriptor for “Sustains” could read “no anticipated losses or gains”. And finally, you seem to want to work in lower case in the footnotes. If so, then I’d do so throughout and use semicolons to separate ideas within a line. And when I printed this off, two lines appeared that seem unnecessary; they start with “Stock” and “Name”. Picky things, I know. But a thing of beauty is a joy forever.
Value sentiments- Ok, I was wrong earlier. “Buy” is found, here. Perhaps this column might be moved just before the “Prospects” column.
Alan, I think, mentioned coordinating the earlier spreadsheet with yours. This is an excellent idea, as there could be overlap and that should, in my opinion, be avoided. I think both can grow successfully, if tended with each other in mind.
Good work and thank you, again. (In case it is not clear, seeking_that, I do enjoy editing.)
Terry
Hi Terry,
Consistency also means that a pre-clinic is following the trials diligently. During pre-clinic or trial stages there is no revenue/earnings. But still if the science is good and the management is aggressively following up trial procedures, still their consistency is HIGH
Triggers:
Important to make an entry. It is a measure of positive or negative sentiments.
An analyst or a big investor can influence investment sentiments heavily on money flow.
It also gives assurance to hold on to a position.
For ex. analysts on SA, Fierc
Triggers: contd …
Positive or negative sentiments on SA, FierceBiotech, Zacks, bioscience, etc. and big investors can sway investment sentiments that we need to be sensitive too. Acknowledgement of the science, trials going positive or negative and the market reaction to it.
Basically Consistency is performance, triggers is perception – both should be factored into risk analysis
Rating points:
Perhaps instead of having Hi, Medium, Low etc. we could have colors indicating the risk levels. That way risk level also is derived from the point calculations. But in such case the calculations should be accurate. In the ‘conditional formatting’ there seems to be a way to color the background
Please check if the color coding derivative from the ‘Total Points’ is intuitive enough that a separate column for “Risk” is made redundant.
I didn’t understand the need for rewards being added to the total points. Can you please explain ?
Lets have 5 risk categories for those who want to be a bit cautious.
Prospects:
The difference between ‘Growing’ and ‘Sustains’ is
An order entry can be made in ‘Growing’
An order entry in ‘Sustains’ is overvalued, so it is only ok for holding, not for an entry
As per your suggestion, I moved the total points next to Therapy. I moved the “Value Sentiments” and “Prospects” also next to Rate points. This way when we look at the table we can look at the symbols and know what the prospects are ?
I was thinking about “Complete biotech portfolio”
Base segment portfolio: Positions which will never fail is placed here – GILD, TMO, CELG
Growth segment portfolio: Revenue generation positions – KITE, JUNO, etc. which are intermediary
Accelerated Segment portfolio: Fortune building positions: speculative and binary positions
This are based on risk analysis, but properly highlighted to make decisions easier, i.e., have a grouping of symbols in that category.
Hmmm … it is getting interesting. Thanks so much.
Hi Alan,
I will be willing to work with Opposable T and it would be nice to merge the two spreadsheets for better. I found the Gummie Biotech to be very useful. I guess that is maintained by Opposable T. That is a good one which can be used for quick reference on Dr KSS’s opinions and sentiments.
My approach here would be to focus on “Current Trading Biotech Stocks” and categorize them as guaranteed stocks, growth stocks and accelerated stocks.
Accelerated stocks is the one with very high risks and high rewards and need to be well understood. The 2-minute video on TRIL posted by Dr KSS was very impressive. I would like to focus on summarizing the life-changing and ground breaking technologies of the drugs so I can appreciate the science behind it and the impact on the lives of people.
As you mentioned before, marketcap and volume also is important which indicates the market presence of the company.
As I perceive Gummie biotech shows market presence and references the science. I would like to see if it is possible to summarize the science and indicate the market presence. That way we can gauge the risk vs rewards better.
The summarization of the science is what I find to be most challenging. But that is what is going to bring value to the spreadsheet I believe. It would be nice to have it in the ‘Therapy’ column.
I would like to hear from others as well as to what they want to see in the spreadsheet as we move towards merger of the spreadsheets.
My personal preference would be to have a common url for all three sheets, Opps, seeking, & Hi’s as each has value in its own right and perspective. As with any website you could then quickly check on a particular stock quickly or compare all three for more in depth use. Then if in time work is being duplicated for no purpose, adjustments could be made.
Perhaps we could have a permanent link under Bio research on GS home page for that??
My thanks and gratitude to all for their great work and suggestions.
frank
Hi, seeking_that
It would be most valuable to have better coverage of the nature of the science, as your last entry suggested. And interacting with OT is a great idea. If all can be done in one sheet, wonderful. For the moment I will continue to give feedback on your sheet, which is coming along very nicely.
— The Rating Category column runs as Excellent- Very Good- Good- Fair- Poor, and this is an easily understood scale. Yet the footnote has no “very good” and but does maintain the “average” category.
— The Rating Total Points column- I like the use of color but am not sure about the apparently arbitrary designation to a category. For example, your “Good” category (which the column says is “Very Good”) encompasses 3 pts (13-15) while the “Average” category (which is “Fair” on the sheet) encompasses only 2. Categories are more traditionally equal in some manner, so keeping with this numerical scheme, you could have the “Fair” category run from 8-10. Another option, and I think a more logical and better one, uses percentages. “Excellent” could encompass the stocks with the upper 20 % of point totals, “Very Good” the next 20%, “Good” the next 20%, “Fair” the next and “Poor” the lowest 20%.
–It would then seem most parsimonious to remove the Rating Category column and simply present the Rating Total Points column in color, with colors determined by the above percentage rating system. Color meanings would be listed in the footnotes. This would save space by reducing by one column and the reader will immediately be able to see a meaningful overall ranking.
–“Risk” and “Reward”. One need not include them in the point totals, but it seems logical to do so, if the goal is to organize a scale that is based on all information available. At any rate, consider moving the risk column just before the reward column as most readers tend to link the two when thinking about these aspects of a stock.
–I liked the “Value Sentiments” and Prospects” listed after the Cash-Triggers columns, so that the point columns immediately follow the Rating Total Point column.
–Market cap. I wonder if this belongs here or on OP’s sheet. Anyway, what do the numbers mean? A presentation in millions and billions would be more traditional.
–I’m still a little confused about “Consistency”. In your message yesterday, you suggested this was about clinical trials. I think that’s critically important information but the column heading might be more descriptive. “Consistency” is vague in that it can mean many things. As you ponder how expand on the science, which is laudable, you might consider doing this in one or two descriptively named columns. These would seem to belong near the “Events” column.
–“Prospects”. I wonder about the concept of “entry point”. To me, this conjures up the need for some chart reading while the gist of the “Prospect” idea appears useful in deciding whether to enter, not when. In the footnote, might the “Growing” category descriptor better read “Consistent revenue generation, perhaps with high returns”? Is this not what growth would suggest? This would also help differentiate from the “Sustains” category. As to “Sustains”, how could there be no gains but consistent growth? Perhaps “performance” is better than “growth”. And maybe the descriptor could read “…..but low returns likely”. As to “Binary”- “wipe out” seems a bit informal; perhaps “dramatically reduce” is a bit more formal. Picky, I know.
Again, great work. And I look forward to what you and OT work out. Your efforts are very much appreciated.
Terry
Hi Terry
Fixed the footnotes in the Rating Category
Rating Points:
I find the percentage a little tricky because
1. All the six factors are to be equally divided
2. The conditional formatting for risk overload would become complex. Would have to go with a complex formula.
For the point system, rating criteria is decided as follows:
Excellent: criteria average: 3; total average = 3 * 6 = 18; category criteria >= 17
V Good: criteria average: 2.5; total average = 2.5 * 6 = 15; category 14 <= criteria < 17 Good: criteria average: 2; total average = 2 * 6 = 12; category 11 <= criteria < 14 Fair: criteria average: 1.5; total average = 1.5 * 6 = 9; category 8 <= criteria < 11 Poor criteria < 8Rewards: It is overloaded on "Prospects". A "white" color text indicates low or low-medium rewards and a "black" color text indicates medium and above. The background color from darker shades to lighter shades indicate an ascending order of rewards. This was easier than overloading the Ratings "Total Points" system to avoid the complexity of "format conditions" formula. Left the rewards column as well just in case.Marketcap was added to indicate risk factor to compare between symbols in the same category, but may be skipped to make it purely qualitative.Moved "Consistency" closer to events, if the intention is to keep the risk factors in an order. But if it is related to naming, I can't think of a better word than "Consistency" or "Performance" Prospects: Sounds logical, made the suggested changesThanks for being meticulous as it would definitely improve clarity [ Working with a sensitive touchpad is a bit frustrating, as it erases often all the typed info before posting 🙂 ]
As I see it. The dungeons spreadsheet is still a worth while endeavor. Good stocks to short, buy puts or sell naked calls. The new ratings sheet should only have stocks on the hold, watch or buy list. But I see all the spreadsheets being maintained by one person and shared with all. Against merging but I think linking or an indicator from the comments sheet to the others might work. Such as a row that say affiliate spreadsheet “D” for dungeon ‘R’ for rating. A thread could also be established that contains the links to the spreadsheets all in one place. Finally, the two newer spreadsheets by their nature boil down the work Dr. KSS and other Gummies have performed and then provide it to the world for free. The present spreadsheet only provides Gummies that can link to the articles the ability to get to the comment.
Hmm .. interesting. I wonder if there is a discussion thread on shorting stocks.
Another thought is to create a workbook which groups these different spreadsheets named appropriately. So people can switch between worksheets easily.
Hi, seeking_that
I’m somewhat occupied for a few hours but will take a careful look later today. But the first thing I noticed is that you appear to want to remove the Risk column, and instead note risk level through the colors on the Rating Total Points column. Is this correct? If so, I think this will cause confusion. For example, Dr. KSS just recently noted, in response to you, that CTIX might be considered High Risk and Medium Reward. However, as placed on the sheet now, CTIX would appear to be in the Medium/Low risk category (color yellow). I would think it wise to maintain the RIsk column, just as in the previous version, and record Dr. KSS’s assessment (low, medium, high) there. I like the idea of the Rating Total Points referring to just what your quantified. Got to run. Will get back later.
Terry
Risk level LowMedium to Poor (High)
That would remove points from trigger, management, consistency. Moved CTIX down to above Benitec.
If the Points alone is confusing, we can add Risk Category there. The risk category values are derived from the points system.
Changed the risk values to “Low” …. “High” so that it won’t be confusing.
Whenever the risk value changes, the points are to be adjusted and the position moved accordingly to ensure that they are in the ascending order of risk level.
trigger to 0 which will increase the risk level to Medium
s_t
I’m not sure I understand what you are saying about removing points from trigger, management and consistency. Are you saying that in your scheme you factor risk into the determination of points for the trigger, management and consistency columns? You are determining entries in the risk and reward columns from a consideration of those three (t,m,c) columns and it appears not from Dr. KSS’s suggestions. Anshuman and ectopicbrain have listed very simply Dr. KSS’s recent risk, reward, sentiment (hold, buy) designations. Some of their notations differ from those in your sheet and this seems confusing. Their list(s) could be used for your risk and reward columns, if they don’t wish to maintain their own sheet(s); if they wish to pursue their own sheet(s), you could have a separate (but likely confusing) take on risk/reward based upon the point sources (cash, trials, science, mgt and triggers being the clearest in my mind); or you could drop or de-emphasize the risk/reward issue. Other than the simple presentation of A and E, the treatment of risk and reward seems complicated. You might consider focusing on what you said was a main interest, the science, that is, therapy, value sentiments, drugs, and events, in addition to the five point sources noted above, but particularly the science column. If you forgot or de-emphasized the risk/reward issue, other than Dr. KSS’s thoughts, you could consider those five point sources in relation to their individual and (to the extent possible) separate merits. This would be useful information to have. A final comment- the meaning of the shading in the Prospects column and the “Rewards value overloads prospects”notation in the footnote is unclear. At any rate, it would seem that continued coordination between the keepers and potential keepers will lead to an overall, integrated plan.
Terry
Hi Terry,
The overload concept may be confusing so having explicit information may be useful here I guess.
Dr KSS usually gives the following information.
risk/reward/buy-hold criteria/value sentiments – these are the end results and I would like to reflect these values in the table into the point system. When Dr KSS expresses the end results, it is the combination of multiple factors which lead to end results.
In the CTIX case, Dr KSS expressed concern because of the delay in Kevetron trials – 1 year away (and maybe he wants to validate SAE info) and so reduced the immediate rewards, increased immediate risks. Set the Prospects to ‘hold’ i.e., ‘Sustains’.
The trigger point is the announcement which is negative. The trigger changed the state of ‘Consistency’ – investment sentiment (confidence buildup).
The delay of Kevetron trials by 1 year – reflects the efficiency of management in handling the product trials.
When the sentiments come from Dr KSS, multiple factors may change simultaneously, but when the factors are external, it may usually be the only factor. For ex. ATNM shares reduced by 5 % is a negative trigger, but it is a small one. Dr KSS’s sentiments didn’t change. But the overall points slightly reduced to reflect market sentiments ( triggers down by 0.5).
The table heavily relies on Dr KSS’s sentiments, but it may be a good idea to incorporate external factors as well.
I am trying to maintain the table in the ascending order of risk from low to high.
I was trying to figure out a way to make the “Risk category” a derivative of the “Total Points” so I didn’t make the change to the ‘Prospects’ i.e. the hold sentiments immediately. That is the deviation that you noticed. Sorry about that ..
Do you still see any deviation from Dr KSS’ suggestions ?
Thanks,
s_t
Thank you for all your efforts. IMHO, colors may cause some problem when printing out with a black-and-white printer.
Hi Yen,
The color contrast issue which might be a problem.
I have changed the text color to white of the cells having green, orange and red colors as background. Could you check if this color contrast works ?
If you still see this issue could you let me know which color background you are having problem with ?
Thanks,
s_t
Hi s_t,
Sorry for being late to reply.
One of the reasons of being late is that the SG site is like a maze to me. Sometimes I do not know how to get the information I want.
Now, I cannot find the table you referred to.
If not for Dr. KSS’ info, I may give up coming here. I consider this SG site is the most difficult site to use. Sigh!
BiolineRx p1/p2 completed successfully for BL-7010
no known issues reported
will initiate CE mark registration by mid-2015 and complete within six months
BLRX to initiate AML study for BL-8040 sometime soon in 2015 and expect to complete by 2015 end
Webcast link is http://edge.media-server.com/m/p/x6wg9vr9
The dungeon spreadsheet has been combined with Anshuman Chandra’s Risk/Reward list and moved to http://tinyurl.com/WELOVEKSS.
Hi Thanks to you both,,,,I will find much use for this. Well done mates.