Post New

FYI
The weekly download file (data from close Jan 10, file named 2025-01-17) is garbage, but in a new and exciting way. The prices are right for once, which will fool anyone who uses price checks to figure out whether the update is bad, but all the 4- 13- and 26-week data fields are completely null. Perhaps other problems, I didn't check everything.

You can't just patch in the total return values from last week's file and live with a bit of lag on your momentum figures, as that update file had the same problem: all the weekly total return fields are null.
I tried the "update now" menu item in the Windows program and the total return fields are still null, it did nothing.

If someone has the gumption to calculate all the 4- 13- 26-week TR fields for the standard VL set, (and right now), feel free to post 'em! I don't think VL support will do anything. Ever.

Jim

The weekly download file (data from close Jan 10, file named 2025-01-17) is garbage, but in a new and exciting way. The prices are right for once, which will fool anyone who uses price checks to figure out whether the update is bad, but all the 4- 13- and 26-week data fields are completely null. Perhaps other problems, I didn't check everything.

Yup. Another week with no useful rankings. I don't know how much longer I'm going to throw away my money for this shitty subscription.
The screens that I use actively, ROE_Cash and ROE_Cash2 don't rely on the missing fields. But I have a growing suspicion that VL isn't updating the necessary data fields regularly. The turnover in those screens has been practically zero for months.

Elan

Most of the few recent reviews on Glassdoor are quite negative. i.e.:
Serious culture issues - Director of Quantitative Research Value Line Employee Review
See All Reviews (47)
2.0
Mar 6, 2024

Director of quantitative research
Former employee, more than 1 year
New York, NY
Recommend NO
CEO approval -
Business outlook NO
Pros

Independence of thought was encouraged. I had the freedom to set my own research agenda. Some coworkers had been there for a long time (decades) and were very knowledgeable about the product and its history.

Cons

Culture was lacking. Could have been partly due to covid and remote work, but I...

Despair - Anonymous employee Value Line Employee Review
See All Reviews (47)
1.0
Jul 5, 2023

Anonymous employee
Former employee, more than 3 years
New York, NY
Recommend NO
CEO approval NO
Business outlook NO
Pros

• Great life/work balance • some of the folks are okay

Cons

• compensation package • toxic environment • toxic management • everything is...

am curious if shrewders know :
- who is valueline's ~40% revenue single client?
- what are mid-long terms plans for this family biz?
- how are they addressing other financial-specific AI services?

and lastly:
- does valueline's family of mutual funds demonstrate the system doesnt work, or the fund managers dont know how to use it?

(nostalgic note, valueline was the first non-vanguard fund i ever owned, and first fund i ever ditched)

The mutual funds seem to be doing OK. Most have been run by the same portfolio manager since 1990. They are getting net inflows, so someone is buying them, and most are highly rated by M*. But ETFs have tax advantages, so I would expect many mutual funds to disappear.

Value Line Inc (VALU) is up 2% today on no news, after falling 8% yesterday. Down 33% in the last 3 months. (AB&Co. owns approximately 90% of the Company's outstanding common stock.) There are no signs of sales growth. Earnings growth is also not obvious. The 7 VL mutual funds have about $5B AUM with $0.4B net inflows YTD.

Value Line Mid Cap Focused Institutional VLMIX $2.0B AUM
Value Line Asset Allocation Investor VLAAX $0.9B AUM
Value Line Small Cap Opportunities Instl VLEIX $0.8B AUM
Value Line Capital Appreciation Instl VLIIX $0.5B AUM
Value Line Larger Companies Focus Instl VLLIX $0.4B AUM
Value Line Select Growth Institutional VILSX $0.4B AUM
Value Line Core Bond VAGIX $0.04B AUM

5-year CAGR of 12% is close to the market's 15%.
https://testfol.io/?s=31OyeFczwI1

A research article in 2000 concluded the Valueline Timliness was mostly about the negative performance of low ranked stocks, not the future performance of highly rated stocks.

i would imagine this (just avoid the losers) would still lead to above average results for equity, although it is more similar to oaktree's lending philosophy.

still curious who the dominant customer , ~40% revenue, is for value line. no luck asking AI.

FY2024 Sales were $37M with Net Income of $19M. The profits are about half from the mutual funds and half from the periodicals. Revenues as reported are all from periodicals and copyright fees.

==================
2024 Annual Report

($ in thousands) FY2024 FY2023
Income from operations $9,141 $11,470
profits from EAM Trust $13,282 $11,131

Revenue ($ in thousands) FY2024 FY2023 FY2022
Total investment periodicals and related publications $25,420 $26,232 $27,145
Copyright fees $12,067 $13,463 $13,380
Total operating revenues $37,487 $39,695 $40,525

https://www.valueline.com/getmedia/0eec520d-ba37-4...(RDG-COPY).pdf?ext=.pdf

EULAV Asset Management, a Delaware statutory trust (“EAM” or “EAM Trust”), which serves as the investment advisor to the Value Line Funds and engages in related distribution, marketing and administrative services.

Yup. Another week with no useful rankings. I don't know how much longer I'm going to throw away my money for this shitty subscription.

A recap for the last 3 months (remembering that each file is generally released 4 days before the date in the file name):

File name dated Nov 15: seems OK
File name dated Nov 22: All stock prices and "Current P/E" fields bad by a mile.
File name dated Nov 29: seems OK
File name dated Dec 6: seems OK
File name dated Dec 13: All stock prices and "Current P/E" fields bad by a mile.
File name dated Dec 20: seems OK
File name dated Dec 27: seems OK
File name dated Jan 3: seems OK
File name dated Jan 10: no total return fields for 1-,4-,13-,26-week
File name dated Jan 17: no total return fields for 4-,13-,26-week
File name dated Jan 24: no total return fields for 4-,13-,26-week
File name dated Jan 31: no total return fields for 4-,13-,26-week
File name dated Feb 7: seems OK
File name dated Feb 14: seems OK

For all of the errors mentioned above, most other fields I did a spot check on seem OK (?), but it wasn't exhaustive so there may be other problems.

As for whether this poor product is worth renewing, I saved myself anguish (and hassle) and recently renewed for five years (for which they give a good discount). Maybe a waste of money, but I don't have to make the decision every year!

Jim

Jim wrote: File name dated Feb 14: seems OK

I'm afraid not. The return fields are off for 13-Wk, 26-Wk and YTD. Here is a comparison between my calculations and what they have released.

          1-Wk    4-Wk    13-Wk  26-Wk  YTD     1-Year  3-Year  5-Year  10-Year  2024    2023  2022     2021    2020
VL Calc   -1.84%  -3.91%  5.99%  5.99%  5.99%   29.50%  11.39%  25.88%  24.69%   31.61%  49%   -26.40%  34.65%  81.87%
Zee Calc  -1.84%  -3.91%  1.87%  8.61%  -9.20%  30.70%  11.86%  23.93%  23.87%   34.46%  49%   -26.51%  33.81%  80.71%

can someone explain how this is tolerable to any non-retail investor subscribers?

(coming from a retail member of m* who sometimes has incorrect data pop up on the screen, not as a data client)

I'm afraid not. The return fields are off for 13-Wk, 26-Wk and YTD.

You're right - the dead giveaway is that the three values are identical for each stock. That works only if the stock market is closed for six months.

FWIW, on my few checks, the one week figures are wrong too.
By Value Line convention, the one week returns for the file with the name Feb 14 released on Monday morning Feb 10 should be returns from close Friday night Jan 31 to close Friday night Feb 7.
e.g, the return for Amazon in that period was -3.59%, and the VL one week return is reported as 1.79%.
I only hand checked one other stock, and it too was bad.

Customer support at VL does not reply to problems by email, and apparently their phone system is on the fritz they say. They can't transfer you, and the phone line goes dead if you try for the tech support department.

Jim

can someone explain how this is tolerable to any non-retail investor subscribers?

I doubt they have any, other than companies that subscribed years ago and haven't yet gotten around to reconsidering.

Jim

what services are going to the single ~40% revenue client?
(not institutional?)

I'm afraid not. The return fields are off for 13-Wk, 26-Wk and YTD.

You're right - the dead giveaway is that the three values are identical for each stock. That works only if the stock market is closed for six months.

The same was true for both Feb. 7 and 14. They haven't had a good file since Jan. 3. That's six weeks in a row and counting.

Elan

what services are going to the single ~40% revenue client?
(not institutional?)

I suspect, just a hunch, that public libraries across the country are their main source of subscription revenue. They keep going year after year on inertia.

Elan

i believe most american libs are grouped by county, city, or university level.
they mostly dont not pool budgets\buy subscription services, and would not count as 'single' client.

I suspect, just a hunch, that public libraries across the country are their main source of subscription revenue. They keep going year after year on inertia.


Not my local libraries. The two nearby ones used to carry VL but they dropped it 7-8 years ago because of low usage. The only one that still has it is the state capital 60 miles away.



The same was true for both Feb. 7 and 14. They haven't had a good file since Jan. 3.

I guess it's a good thing that last year I stopped using the screen that used the 26 & 52 week figures.

Now I am wondering if the VL 1500 is valid or garbage.

Yesterday I could reach one of the Accounts Managers at VL on phone and pointed out the problem with the data. His response was that this is the first time they are hearing about it, but assured me that he will bring this to the attention of the concerned people to rectify the problem.
AJ

a. His response was that this is the first time they are hearing about it, but assured me that he will bring this to the attention of the concerned people to rectify the problem.

Ah, in other words, "Send the regular cockroach letter".

Yesterday I could reach one of the Accounts Managers at VL on phone and pointed out the problem with the data...

I too spend a while contacting them, but finally reached a human. They recognized my name and account number, and the problem. I described the specific new problem of TRnW nulls or bad data in detail, and how to reproduce it. He said he'd talk to someone.

No, I don't expect a fix. But it's sort of one's social responsibility to try.

Jim

Jim wrote: By Value Line convention, the one week returns for the file with the name Feb 14 released on Monday morning Feb 10 should be returns from close Friday night Jan 31 to close Friday night Feb 7.

Actually, they calculate from Thursday to Thursday. As I wrote previously for AAPL.

Thursday 1/30/2025 AAPL CLOSE is $237.59.

Thursday 2/6/2025 AAPL CLOSE is $233.22.

Difference is -1.84% which is a match to their 1-Wk Return value for AAPL.

Actually, they calculate from Thursday to Thursday. As I wrote previously for AAPL.

Thursday 1/30/2025 AAPL CLOSE is $237.59.

Thursday 2/6/2025 AAPL CLOSE is $233.22.

Difference is -1.84% which is a match to their 1-Wk Return value for AAPL.

The latest version of the app says, at the bottom right corner, "Weekly as of 02/05/25 Prices as of 02/07/25". That's Wednesday to Wednesday. So if they're actually calculating Thu to Thu, they're doing it wrong. But that's just a small quibble, if they could do it at all.

Elan

Actually, they calculate from Thursday to Thursday. As I wrote previously for AAPL.

Perhaps so, I don't think I've never checked the timing on the total return fields before this (other than the ones that use month ends, like 1 year and longer). I tend to look at (and use) their prices, which always use Friday close...at least when they haven't messed up their database release!

Jim

Value Line have outdone themselves today. They haven't posted a database update at all. I know, it's a holiday. But over the years they have always, consistently, posted the updates on Monday mornings, holidays or not.

Elan

Value Line have outdone themselves today. They haven't posted a database update at all. I know, it's a holiday. But over the years they have always, consistently, posted the updates on Monday mornings, holidays or not.

I suppose if one were being generous, you could view all those earlier instances as a bonus. Everybody like holidays, so I could let that slide.

The bigger issue is that, now that this week's update file is out (the one with file name Feb 21), it's again garbage. Prices seem right, but the week-cycle total return fields are wrong. For each stock, r13=r26=ytd which is obviously incorrect, same as happened in the prior two releases. Other fields may be wrong.

Question for anyone else using the VL windows program - if you connect in "on line" mode, and do the update menu item, do the total return fields get recalculated and corrected? (Mine doesn't, but I am using a *very* old version). I am assuming the answer is "no", as in the general case you won't be doing an update an even number of weeks from a prior release...I never do the online updates, but I am guessing they update only a few ratios directly determined by stock price: the price, market cap, Current P/E ratio, dividend yield? Not total return figures.

Jim

Jim:
I applied the updates "Online" this morning (02/19/2025) and I see no difference in return fields compared to "Online" updates I had applied on 02/17/2025. However, previous few weeks these return fields were Empty after applying updates each week.

AJ

I applied the updates "Online" this morning (02/19/2025) and I see no difference in return fields compared to "Online" updates I had applied on 02/17/2025.

Thanks, as I suspected.

However, previous few weeks these return fields were Empty after applying updates each week.

Yes, it seems several total return fields were all null for the four weekly releases named Jan 10 to Jan 31 inclusive. Then they got tired of that and started shipping garbage data for these fields in the next three releases. So I presume that a null field remains null (just as a bad-but-filled field remains bad-but-filled) after an on line update.

Jim

Alright, just explain --- what is the value of Value Line? It seems they knowingly publish garbage in some fields which people have identified, contacted them them and either got ignored or got the roach letter.

How confident are you that other fields aren't garbage?

How confident are you that their T1-T5 ratings are not also garbage?

I realize that many years ago Value Line was the only source for accurate stock data with Samuel Eisenstadt’s Timliness Rank as a bonus. Value Line went on a different path in 2009 when they told Eisenstadt his services were no longer needed. Eisenstadt’s dismissal came soon after publications had announced that the annual return differences of the Timeliness Ranking Group 1 minus Group 5 had declined to a zero difference.
https://www.cxoadvisory.com/investing-expertise/pe...
I have a great respect and admiration of the vast market knowledge of many on this board that greatly exceed my limited capabilities but I do believe Value Line isn’t the company it used to be. In 2010 Value Line had 190 employes but now only has 122 employees, down 12% from last year. Revenue has dropped from a peak of 100M in1999 to 36M last year. Glassdoor says only 32% of value line employees would recommend working there to a friend.
At this point ChatGPT 4 for free might even be an alternative or at least a compliment to Value Line.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/beyond-hype-real-be...
I’ve checked my rudimentary AI/ML stock selections to see what ChatGPT thinks of them and although I haven’t yet changed any buy sell decisions they do seem to correlate with my AI/ML predictions based on fundamentals.

Alright, just explain --- what is the value of Value Line? It seems they knowingly publish garbage in some fields which people have identified, contacted them them and either got ignored or got the roach letter.

How confident are you that other fields aren't garbage?

How confident are you that their T1-T5 ratings are not also garbage?

Good questions, with no good answers. I've noted before that I'm not sure VL is regularly updating the annual and quarterly data for balance sheet and income statement information. The two screens that I continue to use, ROE_Cash and ROE_Cash2, have had negligible turnover in the last few months. These are naturally low turnover screens, but their turnover has been markedly lower recently.

As for Timeliness, who's to tell if it's right? It's a proprietary item to begin with. I continue to use it for my 6/3 option picks, which continue to perform well.

Overall, this is pushing me toward a change in strategy from MI stock picking to index ETFs, which is prudent anyway at my age. I've started making that transition gradually. In a year or two I probably won't be holding any more individual stocks.

Elan

Ok, with all the sources of fundamental and proprietary ranking data out there, for collectively less annually than a VL sub, my question is why do you guys not cancel immediately and demand a refund for the unused portion (if you subscribed annually?) Can you imagine the crap data showing up in libraries? Do any libraries actually even keep the paper anymore?

We've got SI Pro, P123, Zacks, Stockcharts, Fidelity to name just a few. For about the same money collectively as a VL subscription, I'm guessing. Zacks is the only one with a proprietary rating system, but so what? We know what VL's system is based on, it was reverse engineered 20 years ago.

To VL, perhaps and overdramatically: the legendary speech most famously used against Neville Chamberlain: "Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go."

Flying Circus wrote: We've got SI Pro, P123, Zacks, Stockcharts, Fidelity to name just a few.

As discussed many times in the past it is very, very rare to find data that does not include major survivorship bias. I doubt very much any of those mentioned do not include this to some degree. This is why so much effort was put into the GTR1 backtester. It is absolutely survivorship bias free. And probably a small fraction of you who have used it all these years have even contributed a dime to it! Sad! I'm not referencing those that have, which I know is not a small number and I also the contributions have not been minor by any means. My point is this: You have access to data that far outpaces any of those sources and the thousands of others online. It seems prudent to express one's gratitude for this data with a contribution to Robbie that exceeds a mere thank you!

It seems prudent to express one's gratitude for this data with a contribution to Robbie that exceeds a mere thank you!

Agreed. How would we contribute to Robbie?

A few choices:

1. Wise
2. Paypal
3. Zelle

He prefers #1. If you need details on how to do this just choose privately email below and I'll give you the low down.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.