We've raised the limits for the "Rating" command

We used to have a limit of three Rating commands that could be used in one screen or simulation. We have now raised that limit to ten.

This is especially useful if you want to use different ranking systems for stocks in different sectors. Or if you want to screen out stocks that rank low on a number of our Core ranking systems. But there are a number of other use cases.

At some point we will also be adding a new parameter to the Rating command that will allow you to specify a different universe for each rating.

In case you haven’t used the Rating command, it returns the rank for the named ranking system. For example, you could screen out expensive stocks with the command Rating (“Core: Value”) < 20 and also screen out volatile stocks with Rating (“Core: Low Volatility”) < 30. Or you could only buy stocks that ranked in the top 100 of five different ranking systems by using RatingPos (“NameOfRankingSystem”) <= 100 five times. Or if you were to design different ranking systems for each sector, you could use nested Eval commands: Eval (GICS = 10, Rating (“Energy”), Eval (GICS = 15, Rating (“Materials”), . . . ))

While we are talking about ranking systems I want to thank P123 for the Core systems.
The only other stock ranking systems I found useful are:
All Stars: Greenblatt
Yuval’s large-cap system (this should also be in the lineup as “All Stars: Yuval”.)

For ETFs only one seems to work reasonably well:
ETF Rotation - Conservative

How come “All-Stars: Yuval” doesn’t show up in my available rankings list?

Great news, Yuval. Thank you

Could you also enable the use of rating() in a custom universe?

thank you,

jerome

You have to ask Marc.

I share the same with positive experience with All Stars: Greenblatt

I also found the new Core: Low Volatility pretty good if you are trying to reduce volatility

I remember seeing a post some time ago with Yuval’s proposed large cap system (possibly even with a link to a screen). I quickly looked at it at the time but cannot find it anymore now. Can sb please post it again?

Thank you,

Jerome

Jerome, the fastest way to find it on this forum is to google: Yuval’s large-cap system.

It is amazing how well the Google search engine works. This is what comes up:
https://www.portfolio123.com/mvnforum/viewthread_thread,11740_offset,40

Just search the ranking systems directly; https://www.portfolio123.com/app/opener/RNK/search

Thank you both guys.

@Georg → yes when I look for somebody on linkedin, Google is much better than … LinkedIn itself!

Jerome

This is excellent news and something that will help a lot right away. Thank you P123 team.

No. The Rating() command has to apply to a specific universe. If you enabled it IN a universe it would end up in an endless loop.

sorry Yuval, i do not understand…

Custom universes have to start from a “starting universe” (drop-down on top)
So rating() can be applied to this starting universe e.g. in the first line: rating(“name of ranking system”) > 50

At the moment, i am replicating ranking systems line-by-line with setvar() in custom universes. Using rating() would achieve the same result but be a time saver.

jerome

Great, thank you!

It would be awesome if you could implement RatingPosPrev(“RankName”,WeeksAgo[, sort, universe]) and RankPosPrev(“RankName”,WeeksAgo[,sort, universe]),
So it would be easier to make sell rules (deteriorate by 10 positions for the last 2 weeks for example or since start holding)

Ohad

^ +1

^ +2. In addition to that a RankPrev for percentage as well. Looking at ranking changes rather than absolutes might provide a different perspective.

Thank you!!!