| I had forgotten that I did that that Stock Comparison a couple of years ago. However, now that I look at it again, I see that gSC is NOT what I want. gSC multiplies stock returns together. If their product is positive, the returns have the same sign ... and the two stocks move up or down together. gSC then adds all those products and That means that LARGE returns have a greater product (hence a greater weight) than small returns. Is that what I want? NO! What I want is to be able to say things like: "Over the past 5 years, the weekly prices of Chevron (CVX) and Exxon-Mobil (XOM) have moved together -- 79% of the time." Now that calculation don't require no fancy We jest sorta count the number of times the returns have the same sign, eh? It's like -- a poor man's correlation. ![]() ![]() Am I happy? ![]() P.S. Did I mention that gC2 stands for Comparison #2. If'n y'all want to play this game, here's the spreadsheet: http://www.gummy-stuff.org/Excel/gC2.xls I might also mention that, being Every time I do this, the size of the spreadsheet grows ... and grows. This one is obscene, at (almost) 6 MB! ![]() That used to bother me. It don't, no more. Once upon a time, somebuddy went through all my spreadsheets and created new ones -- reducing the size of each significantly. That was when there were a couple of dozen. Now there are over 500 of 'em !! ![]() One thing that's interesting is persistence. Suppose you discover some neat relationship between a pair of stocks over the last 5 years. Will that relationship persist over the next year? Here are charts for 5-years and the subsequent year: ![]() ![]() --------------------------------------------- ![]() ![]() You decide. |
Showing posts with label gC2. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gC2. Show all posts
Monday, May 31, 2010
gC2
Labels:
gC2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)









