Why do 300 names on a monthly refresh beat 30 on an annual update?
Coverage breadth — the full ~300-name junior universe re-scored every month under one framework — is a methodological requirement, not a marketing stat: peer-relative valuation and consistent cross-sectional comparison only exist when every comparable was measured the same way in the same month.
A service that covers 30 names on an annual cadence cannot produce a peer distribution — 30 names is a watchlist, not a peer group, and a year-old score ranks a company against prices and share counts from three quarters ago.
Breadth plus recency is what makes the ninth factor (peer valuation) coherent: a 0.5x NAV multiple only means "cheap" once you know comparable names — same metal, same stage, scored the same month — sit at, say, 0.7x. The comparison is the information, and it does not exist until the comparables are measured.
Consistency is the hidden half: re-deriving every name every month under one rubric (no carried-forward values) is what lets two companies be compared at all — different methods applied to different names in different quarters are not comparable numbers.
Worked example
- WDO.TO — one of ~300 names rebuilt by the same monthly refresh under one framework (9-Factor 77.0) — its peer-valuation read is only meaningful because the whole cohort was scored the same month. The per-ticker peer percentiles are members-only; the category scores are public on the card.