Average annual high (I'm assuming you're using the stock price daily high from a multi-year set of highs from its daily OHLC bars as the 'high' here) is a poor metric to evaluate whether or not a company is doing well. Low beta stocks usually don't really outperform so I mean you need to just optimize for low correlation, high relative outperformance vs. a sector wide index or something.
I just don't think the random numbers you asserted are real at all - this would be something that one would need to test.
Anyone getting their 'market moving news' from BusinessInsider/financial news sites is doing it wrong.
The entire point was that the metrics I chose were bad. Furthermore they were such minor differences that even if they weren't bad they still wouldn't be relevant. They were intended to be comically useless.
It means that the hypothetical author of the article didn't have any idea what they're reporting, which is exactly what I was trying to express. The authors rely on the readers' ignorance and the way many people reflexively accept numeric data as true, pertinent, and sufficient evidence of any claim.
Sorry about that - just saw the article and immediately started hyperventilating/wanted to vent as a child comment with someone that also seemed to 'get it' haha... cheers
I just don't think the random numbers you asserted are real at all - this would be something that one would need to test.
Anyone getting their 'market moving news' from BusinessInsider/financial news sites is doing it wrong.