{% extends "base.html" %} {% block title %}{{ _("Share Ideas") }} · Wealth Dashboard{% endblock %} {% block heading %}{{ _("Share Ideas") }}{% endblock %} {% block lede %}

{{ _("Four boards over the same nightly Yahoo cache: shares that have fallen and are cheap, shares paying a high dividend that is still growing, ETFs with strong past growth at a low TER, and dividend ETFs paying a high yield at a low TER. A shortlist to research, never a recommendation to buy.") }}

{% endblock %} {% block content %} {# Board tabs. Each is a different QUESTION, not a different filter of one answer — so each has its own gates, its own pillars and its own columns. Switching tabs fetches once, then everything is client-side. #}

{{ _("The board") }}

{{ _("Loading…") }}

{{ _("Ranked candidates") }}
—
{{ _("Strong (70+)") }}
—
{{ _("PEA-eligible") }}
—
{{ _("Gated out") }}
—

{{ _("Filter") }}

{{ _("The screen is transparent on purpose — every column below is an input to the score, not an output of it.") }}
{# Header and rows are both built by the script from the active board's column spec — four boards ranking on four different sets of figures cannot share one fixed . #}

{{ _("Candidates") }}

{{ _("Click a row for the full breakdown.") }}

{{ _("Gated out") }}

{{ _("Excluded before scoring, and why. Shown because an absence you cannot explain is worse than no screen at all.") }}

{{ _("How to read this") }}

{{ _("Value [board]") }}

{{ _("Value 25% · cheapness 25% · quality 30% · dividend 20%. It finds shares that have fallen a long way from their own 52-week high and are cheap on earnings while still earning well and paying a covered dividend.") }}

{{ _("The flag that matters most is “near its 52-week low”. “40% off the high” and “still falling” are the same fact seen from two ends, and only the second tells you the market has not finished selling.") }}

{{ _("Dividends") }}

{{ _("Yield 35% · growth 30% · safety 20% · quality 15%. Yield and growth carry most of it, as they should on an income board — but not all of it, because a ranking on yield alone puts the next dividend cut at the top of the list every single time. The growth pillar blends dividend growth (the forward annual rate against the last twelve months' actual), revenue growth and earnings growth.") }}

{{ _("A yield above 12% is gated out rather than rewarded: on a large cap that is the market pricing a cut, not an opportunity. So is a payout ratio above 90%, and a business whose revenue is shrinking. The free-cash-flow payout is the column to look at when two names have the same yield — earnings can be flattered, cash cannot, and a dividend costing more than 100% of free cash flow is being paid out of the balance sheet.") }}

{{ _("ETFs") }}

{{ _("Growth 40% · cost 30% · risk 20% · size 10%. Growth is the compound annual total return in euros, computed from the adjusted price history rather than read from a field — Yahoo leaves its own return fields empty for almost every European UCITS listing, and the raw price of a distributing fund understates its return by roughly its yield every year.") }}

{{ _("The growth column is the past and the TER is the future. Five years that contained one of the strongest US equity runs on record will rank concentration highly for reasons that have already happened. The TER is charged every year whatever the market does — which is why cost carries 30% of a board whose headline is growth.") }}

{{ _("The universe is UCITS-only on purpose: without a PRIIPs KID a US-listed ETF cannot be bought at a European broker at all, so ranking one would be ranking something unbuyable. PEA eligibility is a curated fact, not an inferred one — it depends on the fund's holdings and wrapper, and a synthetic MSCI World qualifies where a physical one does not.") }}

{{ _("Dividend ETFs") }}

{{ _("Yield 35% · cost 25% · growth 20% · stability 20%. The yield is computed from the distributions the fund actually paid over the last twelve months, not read from a field — Yahoo populates its own yield for barely one European listing in six, so a board that trusted it would be blank for five funds out of every six it ranks.") }}

{{ _("It will read lower than the yield on the factsheet. The numerator is the past year's payments and the denominator is today's price, so a fund that has risen shows a smaller ratio than the “indicated” yield a provider quotes. Both are honest; this one is backward-looking on purpose, because a forward yield is an estimate and there are enough estimates on this page already.") }}

{{ _("Yield is only 35% for the same reason it is on the share board, and the reason bites harder here: an index that selects on yield mechanically buys whatever has just fallen. Worse, a fund has no payout ratio and no balance sheet you can interrogate — so the only evidence that its income is durable is whether it has ever collapsed. That is the Worst cut column, and it carries most of the stability pillar.") }}

{{ _("Cost is 25% because the TER comes out of the same cash the distribution does. At a 3.5% yield a 0.45% TER is not “half a percent” — it is 13% of your income, every year, guaranteed. The Net column does that subtraction. Accumulating share classes are gated out: they pay nothing, which does not make them bad funds, only not income ones.") }}

{{ _("Every score is a sorting device for a research queue, not a valuation and not advice. Fundamentals come from Yahoo and are refreshed once a day in the background; they can be wrong, stale, or reported in a currency other than the price. Verify the two or three names you actually care about at the source before doing anything.") }}

{% endblock %} {% block scripts %} {% endblock %}