Dear Ed,
Would you pick the same NAPS stocks today?
(So far not good)
RMcG
So I am asking would Ed pick the same stocks today, a month and a half later?
The answer is yes, if he went back in time, but no if it were picked today.
See https://www.stockopedia.com/co... for the underlying strategy and how thinking has evolved.
Hi Herbie,
I've got all 20. Bad paste by me!
I bought 19 just a few days into the new year, around the 3rd or 4th. (D4T4 was a few days later).
With HL I paid £5.99 for each transaction, plus spread and Stamp duty (not applicable for many), so most of the cost would not actually be affected by size of transaction (being a straight percentage).
I don't know what you mean by your statement "costs would be about 10%, so much lower". This would be really high. Did you mean 1%?
I'd be gutted if I had to pay anywhere near 10% costs. I did on one stock once, because I hadn't noticed the high spread.
I think Nick has hit the nail on the head.
Herbie,
The numbers you are looking at in my Portfolio are just today's numbers.
I have similar to you YTD.
Sorry I meant transaction costs would be about 10% of your transaction costs, as a % of the amount paid, ie £6 on £500 is 1.2%, £6 on £5,000 is only 0.12%.
A couple of fundamentals...
These guys are bright.
They don't do anything else.
They produce a huge range of variables and opinions to assist picking stocks that will increase in value.
They have no prejudice or incentive to be anything other than objective.
If FTSE100 is a reasonable benchmark, I don't suppose being over 6% adrift after 6 weeks is quite what was planned!
Why don't your figures tie up, did you buy all the shares on or soon after 2nd January? I have it up over 2%, the FTSE100 is weighted so not a very good benchmark, better to use the FTSEAllshare. Some of your difference will be the spread on buying and selling prices, this will not be shown on an index.
Dear Herbie47,
The HL spreadsheet is above. The purchase date was 16/1 .
If One uses the all share as you suggest the underperformance from benchmark is still more than 5%.
16/1 will explain it. You can't really do a NAPS selection and then 2 weeks later buy it. That is why you are getting different results. If you did a NAPS selection on 16/1 you will probably have about 50% different shares. As said Redrow (LON:RDW) was up 21% this morning, Mondi (LON:MNDI) was up 13%, if you had bought on 2/1/19. Less than 4 weeks is no time to judge, NAPS is set up for 1 year. NAPS have outperformed the benchmarks every year so far, of course that may not happen every year.
My point is this...if one invented the perfect system to select the most likely stocks to succeed one would invent Stockopedia, or something very similar. As it is, following their advice, one's investment would have been better off in Vanguard tracker.....so far. I take your point on time....lets hope you're right...the housekeeping depends upon it!!
There is no perfect system but there are systems that help people improve their performance, Stockopedia is not just about NAPS.
?? Surely all modern indices are market cap weighted, unless explicitly stated otherwise. Certainly the All Share is and there has to be a consistency between the 100, 250, 350 etc. I thought the only major price weighteds are the historic FT30 (does anyone use that now?) and the Dow.
I find it hard to believe that "the housekeeping depends upon" the performance of your NAPS investment, if you have £100,000 just lying around to plough into this.
It is comments like this which make me think I am out of my league on this site and the affordability of Stockopedia is something that I should not be expending my significantly more modest income on :-(
Yes most of them are weighted, but the FTSE100 is only the largest 100 UK companies and is heavily weighted towards certain oil companies and banks, so to use that as a benchmark when most of NAPS is outside the FTSE100, only 3 out of 20 and none of those are large oil companies or banks, I don't think it is a good benchmark to use. The AllShare I think is better. Yes it's unfortunate that there are no unweighted indexes readily available. The other problem with the FTSE100 is much of the revenue is in foreign currencies, so if the £ falls then those companies will benefit, which is what happened after Brexit vote.
Hi Andrea,
I;m sure investor27's "housekeeping" comment was intended to be tongue-in-cheek!
Stockopedia is intended to be for investors of all means (Mark Minervini started out with just $5K and look at him now).
£13/month is quite reasonable and could pay for itself helping with 1 good investment (or helping to prevent a bad one).
I've read your posts and you are definitely not out of your league.
My view is Stocko is for all investors who wish to improve at all levles (and starting capital does not equate to investing ability by any measure).
Then there is another explanation.....the brightest brains, the most sophisticated systems, access to the world's revered gurus....all distilled into a group of 20 stocks that surely must stand the best chance.....
simply doesn't work.
The measuring comparator, the yardstick, the benchmark,( whichever one chooses) has gone up... the chosen stocks intended to BEAT the benchmark , not match it , have lost value.......so far.....but not by a little...by a lot!
Hmmmm...one has to wonder....
The capital loss will be helpful I suppose to set against the gains made on the trackers... but was not what I had in mind!
I think Bernie Madhoff had an investment fund that always went up if that's what you're after, although it's no longer available.
Hi there investor27. Firstly, sorry - I don't check the boards every day, so I missed this question last week.
In answer to your question (which is easily misinterpreted)
So I am asking would Ed pick the same stocks today, a month and a half later? |
Obviously by definition no. A NAPS Portfolio (if selected today) would be very different - as the stocks that qualify today are not the stocks that qualified on December 31st.
Many stocks are still the same, but the (unvalidated) list comes through like this:
| Name | Cap | StockRank | Sector |
| EVRAZ | 7707 | 99 | Basic Materials |
| SCS | 92 | 99 | Consumer Cyclicals |
| Barratt Developments | 5716 | 99 | Consumer Cyclicals |
| Ocean Wilsons Holdings | 403 | 99 | Industrials |
| Elegant Hotels | 63 | 99 | Consumer Cyclicals |
| Solid State | 33 | 98 | Industrials |
| James Latham | 141 | 98 | Basic Materials |
| BT | 22941 | 98 | Telecoms |
| RM | 201 | 98 | Industrials |
| International Personal Finance | 447 | 98 | Financials |
| Watkin Jones | 589 | 97 | Financials |
| Carr's | 149 | 97 | Consumer Defensives |
| NWF | 78 | 97 | Energy |
| 3i | 9214 | 96 | Financials |
| OPG Power Ventures | 92 | 96 | Utilities |
| D4t4 Solutions | 80 | 93 | Technology |
| Pennon | 3160 | 92 | Utilities |
| Nichols | 551 | 89 | Consumer Defensives |
| Symphony International Holdings | 245 | 88 | Healthcare |
| Spirent Communications | 907 | 86 | Technology |
It's worth reiterating that I don't 'pick' the stocks. It's an entirely mechanical process.
But if we went back in time to December 31st - yes the NAPS would be exactly the same as published.
@investor27
The NAPS are lagging the market year to date - but are up about 3.6% versus about 7.5% for the FTSE All Share. They were ahead, or matching the index until PLUS had a drop.
But since inception the NAPS are up 97% versus 13% for the All Share. It's only mid February, so it's too early to judge the year.
The issue that you've got personally is that you bought a list generated at year end on the 16th January - at an interim high for the portfolio. So the NAPS shows a loss from the 16th, but a profit year to date. It's a matter of perspective.
As I've stated many times, the NAPS are an illustration of a method - they are not a buy list, and they are not recommendations. Equities have risk and we all must make our own decisions.
I'll be reviewing this in more detail at the half year mark.
Perhaps the term 'NAPS' needs to be revisited?
I know the acronym here is for No Admin Portfolio system but I think the choice (whether intentional or not) to make it the same as the betting term might mean someone could potentially see it in a different light.
