This may have appeared in some form already. One thing that would make life a lot simpler would be to have a single master database of quote history that could then be called indirectly. In essence the ability to create lists that are nothing more than pointers into the master DB without having to reload or re manage the securities in question.

I do a lot of work on the underlying in various indexes. As these shift a lot even in the course of a year, having the ability to reference different lists of symbols (not folders of yet more data to manage) would make life easy.

Pretty much every other product out there already uses this approach. It should at least be an option.

hey bryan..... i clearly see your point ...... that is kinda the function of the favorites folder.... lists created in it are just that, pointers to your metastock local data folder...... no data at all.....

i have the components of many etf's and indexes in list style.... there is never any data managing at all, just the occasional juggling of the components themselves.....

orginally i created additional folders for the etf and index components  in the metastock local data folder and downloaded them nitely.... it finally dawned on me how many redundant quotes were being downloaded.....

now i use lists in the favorites folder  such as you mentioned.... sure simplfys things....h

I see your point although I think what I am proposing is closer to the holy grail of zero data maintenance in some respects. I should have made it much clearer that a central repository where you could browse, pick and choose the files/stocks you wanted to add to an index or collection, should all be done through some simpler interface than we have now.

Also, it should be possible to have some form of dynamic list management available (a la QC) where it would be simpler to manage the underlying. So for example when the S&P changes, you could just point to an S&P list object and it would go do the right thing and find the current files. Of course it would need a link to a DB manager to get that info on the Reuters end.

Make sense?