Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

JakilaTheHun (99.93)

Proposal to TMF: Alternative CAPS Rating System

Recs

53

December 28, 2010 – Comments (31)

Over the past few years, we've heard a lot of grumbling from several different CAPS players over the nature of the rating system here at CAPS.  The accuracy component skews the ratings in unrealistic ways and the leveraged short-biased funds have distorted the ratings to a nearly absurd level.  In fact, I could point out to you prominent people here in CAPS whose scores would go from +2500 to -2500 in a heartbeat without using the leveraged short-biased funds as a crutch.

While I do have a lot of respect for many of the CAPS players at the top, almost all of their scores are vastly inflated by these leveraged short-biased funds.  And in fact, I think the ones at the top only pick these funds, because they feel as if they have no choice to under the current system.  Many of them are good stock pickers, regardless, but we don't really see their picks any more, because their entire profiles consist of nothing other than red thumbs of short-biased funds. 

My proposal isn't to do away with the current system, however.  Implementing such a dramatic change (and changing the rules mid-game) could be problematic.  Rather, it's to create an "Alternative CAPS Rating system" that goes alongside the current system.  This way, people will be able to see how the top CAPS players have performed both with and without the distortive leveraged short-bias funds. 

The Alternative System

The new system is simple.  All that would be needed is to eliminate all picks from "Dedicated Short-Bias Funds" from the CAPS score and rating.  That's it.  So if a player has 200 picks, 100 from short-biased funds with a score of +5000 and accuracy of 95%, and another 100 from actual stocks with a score of +2000 and an accuracy rating of 60%; then their score under the alternatve system would be +2000 with 60% accuracy.  Under the current system, they would have a score of +7000 with an accuracy of 77.5%, so you can see how it would have a significant impact on the ratings and scores. 

The alternative system could be implemented in the same way that the "Top Outperform Players" has been implemented.  We merely add it to the "Top Tens" section of CAPS.  So, there would now be two more categories, "Top Alternative-Rated Players" and "Top Alternative-Rated Scoring Players" or something like this.  That way, we could all see how the dedicated short bias funds distort the ratings and scores. 

While I'd be very happy with this, I'd like to go even a step further, and for TMF to include the "Alternative Ratings", "Alternative Score", and "Alternative Accuracy %" on the "Quick Stats" page for each CAPS player.  The box would need to be enlarged to do this, but it would not be an overly dramatic change. 

Why TMF Should Do This

The simple reason why TMF should do this is because it's been well-known that the rating system has been mostly ineffective for a long-time.  This is the easiest way to respond to that criticism without radically overhauling the system. 

If I had my druthers, the entire ratings system would get a much more dramatic overhaul, but I believe that giving players the option of seeing the ratings and scores without the "Dedicated Short Bias Funds" would be a very good compromise.  Yeah, OK ... the rating system doesn't make sense, but at least we can see how things would be different with a more sensible alternative. 

One Final Idea

One common counter-response to the ineffectiveness of the CAPS rating system is that it was never meant to select the best stock pickers.  Rather, the entire system was designed to rate stocks.  However, I'd argue the flaw with that reasoning is that the 'system to rate stocks' is depedendent on the CAPS rating system.  All-Star members pull more weight in the star-ratings.  If these all-star members are obtaining their status merely by red thumbing short-biased funds, you're not getting very accurate stock ratings, either.  Even when you are getting accurate ratings, all-star members are being encouraged to ignore actual stock picks in favor of gaming the system via dedicated short biased funds. 

Therefore, while I think the CAPS rating system should stay in tact, the alternative rating system should be used for rating the stocks.  Honestly, I don't expect TMF to implement this suggestion and I'd be more than delighted if we even had the option to view (within the top ten lists) the top rated players and top scoring players once you eliminate the distortive impact of the "Dedicated Short-Bias Funds". 

 

So that's it.  That's my idea.  It would radically improve transparency and accountability here at CAPS, while being relatively simple to implement. 

 

31 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On December 28, 2010 at 1:00 PM, portefeuille (99.66) wrote:

or maybe those inverse leveraged ETF underperform suckers could get names that start with TMF. I think they have already started implementing that idea to some degree, hehe ...

Report this comment
#2) On December 28, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Valyooo (99.40) wrote:

hahaha @ port

 

the only problem is that, in real life i like to short these inversed etfs, so why not here?  plus, in real life if half my port is a silver etf, and i pick it in caps, its only gonna be 1/200th of my port.  since theres no money management aspect.  so i pick 100 other short shorts and long leveraged to make up for it

Report this comment
#3) On December 28, 2010 at 1:27 PM, JakilaTheHun (99.93) wrote:

As an addenum, sector category, "Speciality/Miscellaneous Funds" should be excluded, as well.  This category includes a ton of leveraged short-biased funds, too.

Report this comment
#4) On December 28, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Option1307 (30.03) wrote:

The accuracy component skews the ratings in unrealistic ways and the leveraged short-biased funds have distorted the ratings to a nearly absurd level.

Agreed.

I certainly know there are a lot of Fools in the upper rankings that have lots of short biased funds and I asssme there are others out there; however, I've never really looked into it. That leads us to the question, "how much are the short biased funds actually sckewing the players scores/ratings?"

Meaning, is this solely just a phenomenon for the top Fools or is it more widespread? I would be really curious to know more details about that.

The Caps system is definitely flawed in terms of finding the "best" stock pickers, currently you are required to sort through the garbage players that are highly rated in order to find the true gems out there.

I'm awfully lazy so this is so much work! ;)

Report this comment
#5) On December 28, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Melaschasm (57.60) wrote:

I like this proposal.  Particularly by reducing the impact of short bias funds on the CAPS stock rating system.

 

Report this comment
#6) On December 28, 2010 at 1:50 PM, anchak (99.86) wrote:

I wish things were that simple!

This is a right step - yet Jakila - that's what you want out of it. Everyones - utility function is different - CAPS is purely driven by what MF wants - and I think now - they have a good thing going in terms of ad revenue etc.....not sure they would like to change it.

I have said this n many times - and I think these thoughts which are my thoughts - but not necessarily from my personal perspective

(1) CAPS need to have multi league concepts and players can choose which leagues they want to play/participate.Over all picks still limited to 200 say

 

(2) Ratings will be influenced by a few main components in unique combinatios ( details later)

(a) Total Points

(b) Accuracy: This thing neeeds to be adapted following an exponential decay -for someone who has made 3000 picks - its much more difficult to move accuracy - than with someone with 200 picks. Currently the system has a 100 cut-off only.

(c) Avg Score Lifetime ( Weighted the same way)

(d) Trailing 12/6 months Avg Score (Weighted similarly)

(2) There should be a clean stock only trait  with clear Avg Vol over 3 months cut-off. Current rules will apply there alongwith

(3) Large-Cap/Dividend/Index ETFs : I say these - because today - there's no incentive in CAPS for low volatility plays. In fact if your portfolio is low beta- you have very little chance of moving up the ranks in CAPS.

This may not be important for Gardner brothers - but is extremely important for a players pyshce - there aren't too many Binve's out there - who keep at it - and have fun at their own expense.

 Modifications

(a) Lower alpha cutoff - say 2

(b) Higher weightage to Accuracy lower to Score

(4) Trader/Timer/Swing/Position Pool:

Rules

(a) 1 day hold requirement

(b) ZERO weight on accuracy - so no cutoff or anything

(c) Highest weight on Avg Return 6/12 m trailing

(d) Focus on Points

Today again CAPS is not a place for someone - who wants to trade and move in and out of positions

(5) Micro/BB/PK League

(a) High Volatility: Higher Alpha say 10

(b) Rest the same as general stocks

 

BRINGING it ALL TOGETHER

=============================

 (1)  2 way Ranking system

(a) Players will have assigned ranks in their respective leagues

(b) All amassed points count to Final CAPS rating ie they are simply additive - it will incentivize participation - buts thats good IMHO - however the 200 pick limit will remain which manages this a bit

(c) Individual league rankings are simply arithmetic averaged - and ties broken thru points ( hopefully)

(d) Final rating is simply 2/3 points and 1/3 pooled rank - similar to what they have.

 

Again - I have little hope of anyone listening to it.

 

What the heck!

 

 

 

Report this comment
#7) On December 28, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Mary953 (78.45) wrote:

Alternately, we could just note the CAPS score as one of many variables and look at the knowledge base that the people are adding to find out who to listen to -- and then do our own due diligence.

Jakila, I would listen to you or to any of the "porte" family even if you had no picks at all.  You have demonstrated a knowledge that is of extreme depth.  Many of my favorites are sporting beanies because they just ignore that facet of the site.  Does that mean I will be dropping them?  Not on your life!  They are some of the most informative of all my favorites.

Option, outoffocus, shareplanner, and many others are on my list of "always read" bloggers.  After all, my posts are usually more questions than answers - and I need lots of good answers! 

Report this comment
#8) On December 28, 2010 at 1:55 PM, anchak (99.86) wrote:

This way people who want to red thumb Ultra - can happily do it ( hey its a valid strategy) .....without getting the bump from accuracy.

From a point perspective  - I wouldn't begrudge what these people have amassed - it takes some doing

The reason its unfair is because the accuracy certainty and bump - it penalizes a player - who could position the trade and get the better score but lower accuracy

Report this comment
#9) On December 28, 2010 at 1:58 PM, anchak (99.86) wrote:

I think I forgot to mention that Ultras will only be allowed in the League # 4 ie trading one

Report this comment
#10) On December 28, 2010 at 2:25 PM, rfaramir (29.31) wrote:

This idea should be listened to, at least by those running CAPS. Getting a higher rating through these picks increases the value of their (our) stock picks, perhaps without merit. Motley Fool newsletter subscribers should have a way to filter out the effects of these picks, even if it doesn't leak out to the general public.

At the very least, I'd like to see my own score with the alternate scoring. I know that I'm doing quite well guessing where the whole economy is leaning, due to my readings in Austrian Business Cycle Theory, so my ETF picks are lifting my score. But I don't have a good idea of how I'm doing as a *stock* picker, where I still feel like quite the novice.

Report this comment
#11) On December 28, 2010 at 3:04 PM, TMFBabo (100.00) wrote:

I usually don't respond on these types of "anti inverse ETF" threads because I've used them big-time in the past and still use them to a somewhat lesser extent - therefore I am looked at with hostility by those that hate that these have factored into CAPS ratings. 

I generally don't feel like entering into blog posts where the author despises me and looks at me as an unskilled, pathetic moron who couldn't pick an outperforming stock if his life depended on it.

However, this is one of few blogs that approaches the subject without hostility and actually offers some ideas that I think are pretty reasonable.  You've kept the star rating system in mind, which is the bedrock of CAPS. 

The one positive from having these in the CAPS game is that everyone in CAPS knows these things are junk and wouldn't hold them in their personal portfolios long-term. 

The rest of the points are negative:

They're easy sources of points and accuracy if not picked at a local maximum.

Now that I've de-emphasized them somewhat ("only" 20 or so of them in active picks), I'm waiting for someone who uses more inverse ETFs than I do to overtake me in points and accuracy in a rising market.  I do feel that it's only a matter of time before someone who uses them more than I do will overtake me as long as the market doesn't crash. 

They do skew the star ratings somewhat, since for every person that misuses them and gets several thousand negative points, there is another that uses them correctly to boost his score by thousands of points and many accuracy boosts.  The ones that got the thousands of points for "free" don't deserve to have their stock ratings carry more weight in the star rating system.

ANYWAY...

I'm only commenting as a fellow CAPS user, not as someone who actually makes the decisions on the future direction of CAPS.  I do think some further (internal) discussion is warranted on this topic and how much impact it has on the integrity of the star rating system.  I think there is impact myself, but I don't have access to the data that some others do.

Report this comment
#12) On December 28, 2010 at 3:06 PM, TMFBabo (100.00) wrote:

or maybe those inverse leveraged ETF underperform suckers could get names that start with TMF. I think they have already started implementing that idea to some degree, hehe ...

I can't speak for Eldrehad or UltraLong (the other two I can think of that you are talking about), but I can speak for myself.  I prepared like hell for my interview in order to outshine the other interviewees - and I did.  I know you're joking, but you're dead wrong with your comment.

Report this comment
#13) On December 28, 2010 at 4:49 PM, llgrout (29.88) wrote:

Maybe I am too simple minded for this blog and for CAPS, but so long as everyone is playing by the same rules...?

Report this comment
#14) On December 28, 2010 at 5:11 PM, truthisntstupid (92.12) wrote:

TMFBabo

I doubt anyone looks upon you with hostility.  You've made pitches/blogs that demonstrate a clearly superior knowledge, along with being one of the nicest people here. 

Report this comment
#15) On December 28, 2010 at 5:40 PM, JakilaTheHun (99.93) wrote:

Babo,

Thanks for the thoughts. 

Accuracy/score inflation or not, I think most of the people in the Top 100 are good stock pickers.  In fact, it seems like most people who start using the leveraged short-biased funds in the Top 100 are doing so because they had fairly high scores to begin with, but eventually hit a brick wall where the only way to move higher was to increase accuracy. 

My major issue is one of incentives.  The current system incentivizes the best stock pickers here to pick the inverse ETFs.  Eldrehad is probably the most obvious case.  Don't believe he has done anything in the past year other than red thumb inverse short bias funds.  Yet, he's one of the best people here when it comes to stock analysis.  We won't see any of that analysis any time soon, unfortunately. Can't blame him in a way; I just don't like how the current system incentivizes this.

At least with an alternate system, we'd have something to work for again.  It still might be secondary to the main scoring system, but most of us "in the know" would probably view the alternative system as being somewhat more accurate.  It would also encourage people to make more real picks in order to improve their "alternative rating." 

If people still wanted to work for the traditional rating by red thumbing inverse ETFs, that's fine.  But at least they'd have an alternative goal to work for. 

Report this comment
#16) On December 28, 2010 at 5:40 PM, JakilaTheHun (99.93) wrote:

Babo,

Thanks for the thoughts. 

Accuracy/score inflation or not, I think most of the people in the Top 100 are good stock pickers.  In fact, it seems like most people who start using the leveraged short-biased funds in the Top 100 are doing so because they had fairly high scores to begin with, but eventually hit a brick wall where the only way to move higher was to increase accuracy. 

My major issue is one of incentives.  The current system incentivizes the best stock pickers here to pick the inverse ETFs.  Eldrehad is probably the most obvious case.  Don't believe he has done anything in the past year other than red thumb inverse short bias funds.  Yet, he's one of the best people here when it comes to stock analysis.  We won't see any of that analysis any time soon, unfortunately. Can't blame him in a way; I just don't like how the current system incentivizes this.

At least with an alternate system, we'd have something to work for again.  It still might be secondary to the main scoring system, but most of us "in the know" would probably view the alternative system as being somewhat more accurate.  It would also encourage people to make more real picks in order to improve their "alternative rating." 

If people still wanted to work for the traditional rating by red thumbing inverse ETFs, that's fine.  But at least they'd have an alternative goal to work for. 

Report this comment
#17) On December 28, 2010 at 6:23 PM, stan8331 (91.52) wrote:

After I initially started playing CAPS, I did red-thumb a few leveraged inverse ETF's.  After a while I decided to stop - I knew I wasn't really going to have the time or energy to play the ETF's to the nth degree anyway, and I figured what would make the game most interesting to me would be to see how well I could do with a mostly or all-long CAPS portfolio that's based on the same basic premises and strategies I use for my real world investments.  I've been pleasantly surprised to see that it is possible to maintain a respectable score without playing the ETF's.

I would love to see an expanded capacity to filter player scores based on various criteria.  There could be some standard canned searches - best long portfolio, best portfolio excluding inverse etf's, etc. and users could also have additional criteria to use in constructing our own searches against the player database, which wouldn't require changing the basic game.  

I also agree with JTH that the stock ratings would be better served by excluding the dedicated short-bias ETF's from the calculations.  If a player has an overall score of 99.50 but his/her score on long individual stock selections is 38.50, giving added weight to the player's long stock selections in calculating that scores of those stocks really makes no sense to me at all.

I would add that I bear no animosity toward those who do play the short ETF's to the hilt.  They're simply playing the game as it was constructed.  It's just that CAPS will be more valuable to me if I have a greater ability to isolate performance along the parameters I really care about.       

Report this comment
#18) On December 28, 2010 at 7:03 PM, TMFCrocoStimpy (92.37) wrote:

@Jakila: We have explored many of the ideas you've put forth in examining how the CAPS universe would have operated without the allowance of such things as leveraged ETFs (a short bit of discussion is here), and found that most of them fall into the red-herring category in terms of real problems that skew the system.  We are definitely falling into a little bit of a trap with the low liquidity/accuracy capture strategy, and that is something that is actively under investigation to see if there is a way to make this measure more true to what its ideal would be, but the idea that "the rating system has been mostly ineffective for a long time" is somewhat belied by the end result of the relative performance of the quintiles.  I have set myself a New Year's resolution to start blogging about the internal analytics and alternate model studies that we perform in our research to help shape this debate, because there is clearly room for improvement, but I think you will find that many perceived problems do not actually pan out when modeled.

@anchak:  Been meaning to contact you directly since our brief exchange on TMFJake's blog, but things got hectic.  Would definitely like to explore some of the overlap potential between the mechanical investing board and the CAPS quant work.

 -Stimpy (Xander)

Report this comment
#19) On December 28, 2010 at 7:51 PM, anchak (99.86) wrote:

Xander.....Jake has my email - next couple of days are good.

Report this comment
#20) On December 29, 2010 at 11:02 AM, TSIF (99.96) wrote:

I think life could be even simpler.  Besides Reverse ETF's we have "unusual timing" in starting an account. We also have a learning curve, both in the markets and how CAPs works. Simplest play on everything, (maybe not a perfect play, but simplest), is a rolling time based score.  Your score is only weighted on the last 12-15 months.  The reason we have such wide moats in scores is because the market went haywire.  While one could argue that a recession happens every 5-10 years, so is normal, it's influence is really not normal in a CAPs world. 

Eventually it will smooth out again and while swing trading a few ETF's may still help accuracy, it won't have nearly the impact of a good stock picker.

There would still be players who focus on low volume, marginal OB/PK stocks, those who want to play ETF's, and those who time a market/CAPs entry into volitility, but they would have minimal effect when targeted over a rolling score.  Each player should have their own style, but the effects would be reduced.

A rolling score would give new players a chance to break in and have a target that's achievable rather than play against players who built a moat over time.  It would let players "learn" from their mistakes.  Both real world and how CAPs works.

Heck, it might even encourage people to work their profiles instead of starting new ones every time they give up on one.

 TSIF

Report this comment
#21) On December 29, 2010 at 11:43 AM, anchak (99.86) wrote:

TSIF - how about a twist - let people keep their points for perpetuity  as 1/3, 12 months rolling 1/3 and Accuracy - ONLY 12 month rolling - ie you can't sit tight and bask in historical accuracy.

 

 

Report this comment
#22) On December 29, 2010 at 11:48 AM, anchak (99.86) wrote:

But I still think - there should clearly demarcated styles in CAPS - and rules shoud be adjusted to allow them.

 

Report this comment
#23) On December 29, 2010 at 11:59 AM, portefeuille (99.66) wrote:

If you are unsure whether you are good at anything you might want to ask google, hehe ...

http://www.google.com/#q=site:fool.com/tag+anchak

http://www.google.com/#q=site:fool.com/tag+zzlangerhans

http://www.google.com/#q=site:fool.com/tag+portefeuille2

Report this comment
#24) On December 29, 2010 at 12:59 PM, spiril (26.69) wrote:

Has there been an official view from the MF rule makers regarding this topic? It seems like a lot of Fools are concerned about it, so some clarification would be nice.

Report this comment
#25) On December 29, 2010 at 1:18 PM, TSIF (99.96) wrote:

#24 Spiril, see #18 from crocostimpy and a link to a thread with a lot of TMF input.

#21 Anchak, I guess I'd like to see the data both ways to see see how a 25% allottment for total points worked out, but I would agree that players would should have a record of both their total points/accurracy and the rolling data.  I'd tend to think the 1 year data should simply be one year and not a hybrid to get the smoothing everyone seems to want.  If both sets of data could be available and used for data mininig it could be pretty interesting.  WE have top 1, 7 and 30 day data, so I just see 1 year rolling data as a useful easy to obtain metric that might smooth out some of the variability in the markets, players styles and market timing.

It's benign enough that it could be unwound if it didn't help.  It would also help prove or disprove TMF's analysis on how minor the "apparent" inconsistancies really are.

Report this comment
#26) On December 29, 2010 at 1:49 PM, TMFCrocoStimpy (92.37) wrote:

#20  TSIF, the timing of different players around the crash and return of the market and whether or not that provides an unrealistic moat has been a considerable concern of mine.  Since we are ostensibly looking for the highest rated stock pickers to provide some higher probability of successful picks in the future than players rated lower than them, it could be that the large number of points (and potentially accuracy) could have been garnered in a "weird" market, and will not provide much predictive power when/if we finally return to some form of normal market.  I like the rolling score idea for this very reason, though the time period of a rolling score essentially designates a constraint that could also deter certain strategies, such as opportunistic timing plays, so my preference is to watch players over several time horizons.  We've backtested this type of scoring and found that the cumulative separation between the 5-star and 1-star is less than the current rating system, but since it seems that this could impact the way players make their picks the backtesting that we can do falls into the more speculative category than some of the other scoring metric tests.

#22  Anchak, interesting idea, but I would phrase it a bit differently.  I wouldn't want players to try and tailor their style (unless they are specifically interested in doing that), but for me it would be interesting to demarcate different investment styles and then project each player onto the different scoring metrics, so that they can get a feel for what their style actually is as opposed to what they think they are doing.  We've begun some research in this area in the attempt to define the level of cognitive diversity (to borrow a phrase from Michael Mauboussin) within the CAPS player population and how it changes over time, and this idea of defining different investment style characteristics and projecting players onto those characteristics has been the core approach.

Report this comment
#27) On December 29, 2010 at 8:20 PM, MKArch (99.70) wrote:

http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/caps-version-ii/402639

This was my own shot at an alternate ranking system added to the current system Jakila. I focused more on eliminating harvesting and focusing on score per pick but I also suggested eliminating or at least limiting the ETF's. It's good to see someone smarter than me is thinking along the same lines.

Report this comment
#28) On December 30, 2010 at 12:10 AM, Pennyperson (< 20) wrote:

I don't play the game, because it is a game. I'm only here becuase of people like you. Investors helping one another.

Of course we could all play Monopoly!!!...down on the boardwalk!!

Report this comment
#29) On December 30, 2010 at 10:02 AM, TSIF (99.96) wrote:

#26  TMFCrocoStimpy, I appreciate your reply and I understand your focus on using the ratings as a tie-in to the star system on individual stocks.  While this is an important component of CAPs I think it's actually of a lower value once someone joins CAPs than the individual contributions that collectively produce a community of shared knowledge about all facets of investing. 

Adjustments to the player ratings, scoring system, "best of" metrics, and the ability of "newer players" to achieve some recognition should all be factored in to keep everyones interest.  While most CAPs players are here to learn and only aspire to keeping track of thier individual progress, the charms, best of, top of the list goals, etc all bring additional challenge to what is billed as a "game" and as a result will continue to add to the community.   Past achievements however, should not be overlooked or disregarded.  A history book/world's best data acknowledgement of achievement should be maintained, but it would be nice if someone new could enter the game with some expectations of blazing achievements that are also noted by the community.  While few would actually rise to the top under any metric the slight possibility would influence the players to new achievements overall.

There must be some balance of protecting your "star rating" metric and the fun/variability/participation of the individuals.

Report this comment
#30) On December 30, 2010 at 11:24 AM, anchak (99.86) wrote:

#26 Xander..... I wouldn't like to crimp people's styles - however - the alpha's and bogies need to be adjusted - or the rules a little more flexible.

There is no adjustment for risk today in CAPS - which is OK  from the rating perspective  - because everyone knows that Small Caps tend to outperform the index over long run - especially value. And this "game" is a verification technique for the MF to second guess there research - so I am ok with the SPY bogie.

 

However - people who play dividends and large CAPs and ETFs ( non levered) are at a disadvantage because of the accuracy system- alpha thresholds need to adaptive.

Similarly if you position trade - then accuracy is a moot point - I want the overall position to bring back value ie points to me 

My point is - CAPS crimps styles - and hence you find distortions in the system with odd plays "like Mar 09 timing" , "unbridled hedonistic Levered Shorting" etc plays pay off big.

The 12 month - rolling is an idea which I have also floated before - ie you are good as youve been lately concept .....if you want to simulate optimized weights as TSIF suggested - I think that would be cool also.

Report this comment
#31) On December 30, 2010 at 11:25 AM, anchak (99.86) wrote:

Hans .....I would not have trusted that search - inspite of me being a fan of google - but I put your main player in - and voila - it said - Top Player : Porte : Healthcare and Biotech - I trust it now.

 

You are tops in a lot of course

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement