Period 2 Review: Five Days, a Rebound, and the Signal in Stability

Five trading days are not enough to evaluate a strategy — but they are enough to see which screens are stable and which ones are noise. That distinction matters more than the returns.

Period 2 covers April 22 to April 27, 2026 — five trading days. Any honest analyst will tell you that five days is statistical noise. Markets can do almost anything in a week and it tells you nothing reliable about a strategy's edge. So why write this?

Because the interesting observation from Period 2 is not the returns. It is the retention rates. Specifically: after Period 1 exposed which screens were volatile and which were stable, Period 2 shows whether that was a pattern or a one-off. For two of the most concerning screens from last time, the answer is encouraging.

Best Screen

+2.3%

S&P 500

+4.5%

Worst Screen

−0.9%

Overlap Stocks

6

Retention: The Screens Stabilised

The two screens that showed alarming turnover in Period 1 — Magic Formula (33.3%) and Piotroski F-Score (25.0%) — both recovered sharply in Period 2. Magic Formula hit 100% retention. Piotroski climbed to 81.2%. This is the most meaningful data point from this period.

Period 1 Retention

S9 · Quality Growth100%
S1 · Burry Value93.9%
S3 · Lunch85.7%
S2 · Schloss Dividend72.7%
S8 · CANSLIM Rocket57.9%
S6 · Magic Formula33.3%
S7 · Piotroski F-Score25.0%

Period 2 Retention

S6 · Magic Formula100%
S9 · Quality Growth100%
S1 · Burry Value91.9%
S2 · Schloss Dividend90.0%
S3 · Lunch90.0%
S7 · Piotroski F-Score81.2%
S8 · CANSLIM Rocket88.2%

What does this mean? In Period 1, Magic Formula turned over two-thirds of its portfolio. But the stocks it moved into stayed put through Period 2 with zero turnover. This suggests the Period 1 rotation was a genuine re-screening event — the old names no longer qualified and the new names do. The screen is working as designed, not misfiring.

Similarly, Piotroski's jump from 25% to 81.2% retention indicates that the radical rebuild of Period 1 landed on a more stable set of names. Three stocks still exited in Period 2, but the 13-stock replacement from last time mostly held their F-Score qualifications.

The measure of a good screen is not that it never changes — it is that when it changes, it changes for the right reasons.

Multi-Strategy Overlap: The Highest-Conviction Names

One of the most useful signals this journal tracks is the multi-strategy overlap — stocks that pass two or more independent screens simultaneously. If Burry's value criteria and CANSLIM's earnings momentum both flag the same name, that convergence is worth paying attention to. Each screen uses completely different metrics, so overlap is genuine coincidence of signal, not redundancy.

As of the April 27 snapshot, six stocks appear in two or more screens:

Stocks in 2+ Screens · Apr 27, 2026

AUPH S1 · Burry Value Screen  |  S9 · Quality Growth
CALM S1 · Burry Value Screen  |  S6 · Magic Formula
DAVE S1 · Burry Value Screen  |  S9 · Quality Growth
INCY S1 · Burry Value Screen  |  S9 · Quality Growth
DRD S6 · Magic Formula  |  S8 · CANSLIM Rocket
LUXE S7 · Piotroski F-Score  |  S8 · CANSLIM Rocket

Three names — AUPH, DAVE, INCY — pass both the Burry Value and Quality Growth screens. This is a compelling combination: value metrics say the price is cheap relative to fundamentals, while quality metrics confirm the business is genuinely strong. This is the zone where Buffett operates: a great business at a fair price.

DRD passes both Magic Formula and CANSLIM Rocket. Magic Formula targets high earnings yield combined with high return on capital. CANSLIM targets accelerating earnings with strong relative price strength. A stock that satisfies both is cheap, profitable, and already moving. That is an unusual combination — cheap stocks that are working tend to be rare precisely because the market reprices them quickly.

CALM passes Burry Value and Magic Formula — two independently value-oriented screens. This is less surprising as an overlap (both filters look at similar fundamentals), but the persistence across two snapshots in a declining market suggests genuine fundamental support.

Portfolio Returns: All Screens Lagged the Index

The five-day period coincided with a sharp market rebound — the S&P 500 added +4.5% as sentiment improved on trade policy signals. Below are the Period 2 returns for each tracked strategy. Treat them as directionally interesting, not statistically meaningful.

Strategy Period 2 Return vs S&P 500
S8 · CANSLIM Rocket +2.26% −2.23 pp
S7 · Piotroski F-Score +0.05% −4.44 pp
S2 · Schloss Dividend +0.01% −4.48 pp
S6 · Magic Formula −0.23% −4.72 pp
S9 · Quality Growth −0.52% −5.01 pp
S3 · Lunch −0.71% −5.20 pp
S1 · Burry Value Screen −0.93% −5.42 pp
Benchmark · S&P 500 +4.49%
Benchmark · NASDAQ +6.54%

Every strategy underperformed the index. This is not a failure of the screens — it is a consequence of what drove the rebound. The rally was led by large-cap semiconductors and technology names (NVDA, TSM, MU) which carry heavy index weighting but appear only partially in these screens. CANSLIM Rocket came closest at +2.26%, precisely because momentum criteria select for exactly those types of high-growth, high-velocity names.

What Five Days Actually Tells You

Five days is a data point, not a verdict. What the period does confirm:

Screen stability is converging. Every strategy except Burry (91.9%) and Piotroski (81.2%) is now at 88%+ retention. The screens are settling into a core of qualifying names. This matters for transaction costs in a real portfolio — high weekly turnover is expensive.

The overlap list is a research shortlist, not a buy signal. Six names in two screens means six names worth deeper analysis. It does not mean they will outperform next week. It means the systematic evidence pointing toward them is broader than for any single-screen name.

Three snapshots are not enough. The journal continues. Period 3, when it comes, will begin to answer whether the patterns seen here persist. Two periods is a minimum. Twelve periods starts to look like data.

New to this journal? Start with the Period 1 Review for context on the methodology and full portfolio results.