# VL Timeliness™ counts

Can somebody who has access to VL tell me how many stocks have a Timeliness™ rank, T1-T5?

I want to see if my procedure got it right, with the crippled VL that my library has.
I get 1424.

The VL screener stock count shows as 5,488.

Thanks.

Even in the “Plus” edition I see only 1398 with T1-5 in the Analyzer. (data a week or two old, haven’t updated)

Jim

1 Like

Even in the “Plus” edition I see only 1398 with T1-5 in the Analyzer. (data a week or two old, haven’t updated)

I get 1398 in this coming Monday’s database. It doesn’t change much from one week to the next.

Elan

Thanks.

I re-did my procedure – and this time I wrote down the steps as I went instead of winging it – and got 1385.

Because I have to do a bunch of things manually, I first set the price range from 10 to 1000, which gives me 3086 stocks to examine.
(FYI: The entire price range of 1 to 13800 ----> Cumulative matches: 4,830)

I can only get 500 at a time, so it takes 7 chunks which I then have to combine together and then pick out the ones with timeliness.
1385 vs. 1398 — that’s good enough for me. It looks like my procedure works.

Because I have to do a bunch of things manually, I first set the price range from 10 to 1000, which gives me 3086 stocks to examine.

I dunno about that. Among the 1398 stocks with Timeliness there are 61 with a price less than 10. There are 14 with price less than 5. The lowest price is 2.19. And there are 7 with price above 1000. The price of NVR is 4552.

Elan

The VL screener stock count shows as 5,488.

The big question is, why are you getting this count?
Does it actually produce a list of stocks that big with positive Timeliness ranks?
I would be shocked if it could/did.

Jim

Does it actually produce a list of stocks that big with positive Timeliness ranks?

No, that’s almost the number of stocks that VL covers. It won’t show you anything until you set one filter criteria. Weird. And it has to be a stock-related criteria, not a VL rating.

No, I am limited by whatever VL the library has, and what I can do from home via the library. What I have to do is set some (any) filter criteria and then it will tell me how many there are. From that I can grab the stocks in chunks of 500 at a time and then isolate the ones with a timeliness rating. Cumbersome, yes. But cheaper than \$600 a year. Would be easier if it could let me filter by timeliness, but it doesn’t.

The challenge is to come up with a filter criteria that results in the largest number with timeliness in the set of stocks it shows me. Also, that’s the set of stocks which is the universe for the subsequent filters (ROE, 5-yr-rev-growth, etc.) So it doesn’t matter if it misses some timeliness stocks that won’t pass those other filters anyway. Limiting by price seems reasonable. Perhaps something like ROE > 0 or 5-yr-growth > 0 would work as well, or even better.

It doesn’t need to be perfect, only needs to be Good Enough.

Maybe it would work okay if I fed the entire Russell 3000 + S&P 1500 into the screen and see what is the range of ROE or growth or whatever, and then use that as the VL filter criteria. The various screens that Jim has mentioned usually top out at 30 to 50 stocks that pass all the filters, so a lot of the ~1398 stocks get bypassed anyway.

2 Likes

Does it actually produce a list of stocks that big with positive Timeliness ranks?

No, that’s almost the number of stocks that VL covers. It won’t show you anything until you set one filter criteria. Weird. And it has to be a stock-related criteria, not a VL rating.

Well, if you search for price > 2 you know you won’t miss any stocks with Timeliness, and you can go from there.

Elan

1 Like

“Because I have to do a bunch of things manually…”

Ray -

On my library’s free VL online version, I was able to find timeliness filters under the Ranks & Ratings criteria. Clicking on that brought me to a page with five timeliness buttons at the top. I clicked on each one to select it, and voila! It wasn’t immediately intuitive to me to click each button - they did not appear to be in an “non-activated” state, if you will.

Maybe give that a try.
Cathy

5 Likes