Performance of our Most AttracÂtive Stocks consistently ranks as among the best of all the major firms according to Barron’s. Our top-ranked stock research drives our Predictive Ratings for 7400+ ETFs and mutual funds.
- 2nd Half of 2011 Survey: “Focus Lists Were Out of Focus in 2011’s Turmoil“, ranked #4 over 3 years
- 1st Half of 2011 SurÂvey: “Stumbling To the Halfway Mark”, ranked #2 over 3 years
- Full-year 2010 SurÂvey: “MarÂket BeatÂers”, ranked #2 over the prior 12 months and #3 over the prior 3 years.
- 1st Half of 2010 SurÂvey: “FindÂing Good Stocks in Bad MarÂkets”, ranked #1 over the prior 12 months
- Full-Year 2009 SurÂvey: “How the BroÂkers Stack Up”, ranked #2 over the prior 12 months
- 1st Half of 2009 SurÂvey: “The Bull ResurÂfaces Just In Time”, ranked #2 over the prior 12 months
See a complete list of media highlights here. See stock-picking accolades for media coverage specific to our stock-picking.
Click here for details on stock rating methodology.
Even if you think the Financial Footnotes do not matter, you have to appreciate the consistency of our stock-picking success.
Why do our stock picks work? Our success comes from the unrivaled analytical rigor enabled by our Paradigm-shifting research platform and the fact that we are the only firm to have completely analyzed over 100,000 annual reports, 10-Ks, 10-K/As, 20-Fs, 40-Fs, 8-Ks, etc.
Historically, high levels of analytical rigor could be applied to only a handful of companies because manually reading and analyzing the Financial Footnotes takes an enormous amount of time and expertise. Analyzing the Notes requires reading hundred of pages for details on items like off-balance sheet debt, hidden charges, false revenues, option liabilities, pension liabilities and asset disposals. And every company reports differently, which makes analyzing the Notes even harder. Our patented research system coupled with our expertise enables us to read, analyze and model the impact of data from the Financial Footnotes for 3000+ companies.
As detailed in Decoding Wall Street Propaganda, Wall Street firms are in the business of selling stock not good research. In fact, good research is in conflict with their investment banking business, which makes all the profits of the bank while research departments are pure cost centers. This helps explain why New Constructs consistently outperforms the big Wall Street firms, all of which have many multiples of the resources we employ. Better to be efficient and have shared interests with our clients…better for clients…at least. 🙂
12 replies to "Top Ranking for Stock Picking for New Constructs"
Thanks for a Informative post; I enjoyed it very much. Goo luck Allie Comes
[…] out New ConÂstructs’ stock-picking accoÂlades. BarÂrons has conÂsisÂtently ranked our Most AttracÂtive Stocks as #1 or #2 amongst the model […]
Great blog, Just wanted to comment that i can not connect to the rss stream, you might want install the right wordpress plugin for that to workthat.
[…] the sucÂcess of our RatÂing sysÂtem for indiÂvidÂual stocks, we believe its appliÂcaÂtion to groups of […]
[…] proÂvides a preÂdicÂtive ratÂing, just like a buy/hold/sell stock rating. We apply the same top-ranked ratÂing sysÂtem we use for stocks to funds by comÂbinÂing our modÂels for each of the stocks […]
[…] The main reaÂson for the NeuÂtral, rather than an Attractive-or-better ratÂing, is Berkshire’s recent acquiÂsiÂtion of BurlingÂton NorthÂern Santa Fe CorÂpoÂraÂtion (BNSF). The rather large purÂchase price causes the company’s invested capÂiÂtal to rise draÂmatÂiÂcally, which lowÂers free cash flow and the free cash flow yield of the stock to our Very DanÂgerÂous RatÂing. OthÂerÂwise, BRK.A scores very well in New ConÂstructs’ top-ranked stock ratÂing sysÂtem. […]
[…] the sucÂcess of our ratÂing sysÂtem for indiÂvidÂual stocks, we believe its appliÂcaÂtion to groups of […]
[…] the sucÂcess of our ratÂing sysÂtem for indiÂvidÂual stocks, we believe its appliÂcaÂtion to groups of […]
[…] the sucÂcess of our ratÂing sysÂtem for indiÂvidÂual stocks, we believe its appliÂcaÂtion to groups of […]
[…] fund ratÂing sysÂtem is the same as our stock ratÂing sysÂtem, which has received many accoÂlades for its […]
Was shocked to run the stock screener (basic) for the “Consumer Staples” sector and find HQSM (HQ Sustainable Maritime Industries, Inc) listed with the #1 Predictive Rating. Has anyone ever looked at the detailed quote for HQSM ? It is trading for 18 cents and the quote on Morningstar lists it as a “Distressed Stock”. A class action lawsuit was filed on April 28, 2011 “on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of HQ Sustainable Maritime …. After the close of the market on April 1, 2011, investors were shocked to discover that HQSM was still out of compliance with federal laws and AMEX listing standards, causing trading in the Company’s shares to be suspended by the AMEX.” The web-link to the class action suit is http://www.hbsslaw.com/cases-and-investigations/HQSM
So my question is where does the data come from that is used in the “Stock Screener” ? –
Garbage in … garbage out.
Kevin: we cut HQSM from coverage immediately. We are in the middle of 10-k filing season…HQSM’s status slipped thru the cracks. Apologies.
Details on our research process are here: https://www.newconstructs.com/2012/02/17/the-real-earnings-season-begins-now/