From: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com (canslim-digest) To: canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: canslim-digest V2 #1869 Reply-To: canslim Sender: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-No-Archive: yes canslim-digest Friday, November 30 2001 Volume 02 : Number 1869 In this issue: [CANSLIM] Fallen Angels and Market Valuations Re: [CANSLIM] Fallen Angels and Market Valuations [CANSLIM] (CANSLIM) Clarify Group RS Re: [CANSLIM] (CANSLIM) Clarify Group RS Re: [CANSLIM] Fallen Angels and Market Valuations [CANSLIM] hey katherine ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 19:20:47 -0600 From: "Katherine Malm" Subject: [CANSLIM] Fallen Angels and Market Valuations This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_027E_01C179D4.1D6A06C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable BRCM Many of you may know this stock. It is was a spectacular stock during = the last Bull run. It is a company filled with brilliant people who have = great vision. I have been watching the action in this stock recently as = it tries to form a bottom. Certainly many of you would classify it as a = "fallen angel." At the time that it peaked in price in late August 2000, = it was selling for about $268. It's PE at the time was over 10 times the = S&P average. I remember at the time thinking that this would be = something we would never see again in our lifetime. Good heavens, 10 = times? Down the price came along with other similar players. Since that = time, of course, earnings have slowed along with earnings in most every = tech stock. Today it closed at $43.99. It's PE? 16.9 times the S&P average PE. = Hmmm...something to consider when asking whether or not the bubble = excesses have yet been worked out. Katherine - ------=_NextPart_000_027E_01C179D4.1D6A06C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
BRCM
 
Many of you may know this stock. It is = was a=20 spectacular stock during the last Bull run. It is a company filled = with=20 brilliant people who have great vision. I have been watching the action = in this=20 stock recently as it tries to form a bottom. Certainly many of you would = classify it as a "fallen angel." At the time that it peaked in price in = late=20 August 2000, it was selling for about $268. It's PE at the time was over = 10=20 times the S&P average. I remember at the time thinking that this = would be=20 something we would never see again in our lifetime. Good heavens, 10 = times? Down=20 the price came along with other similar players. Since that time, of = course,=20 earnings have slowed along with earnings in most every tech = stock.
 
Today it closed at $43.99. It's PE? = 16.9=20 times the S&P average PE. Hmmm...something to consider when = asking=20 whether or not the bubble excesses have yet been worked = out.
 
Katherine
- ------=_NextPart_000_027E_01C179D4.1D6A06C0-- - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 21:36:33 -0500 From: "Dan Forant" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Fallen Angels and Market Valuations This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_005B_01C179E7.14DFC4A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I've known this stock since Oct., 5th. It closed then at 25.55. A few = technical indicators caught my attention. Even fallen angels have some = value.=20 DanF ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Katherine Malm=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 8:20 PM Subject: [CANSLIM] Fallen Angels and Market Valuations BRCM Many of you may know this stock. It is was a spectacular stock during = the last Bull run. It is a company filled with brilliant people who have = great vision. I have been watching the action in this stock recently as = it tries to form a bottom. Certainly many of you would classify it as a = "fallen angel." At the time that it peaked in price in late August 2000, = it was selling for about $268. It's PE at the time was over 10 times the = S&P average. I remember at the time thinking that this would be = something we would never see again in our lifetime. Good heavens, 10 = times? Down the price came along with other similar players. Since that = time, of course, earnings have slowed along with earnings in most every = tech stock. Today it closed at $43.99. It's PE? 16.9 times the S&P average PE. = Hmmm...something to consider when asking whether or not the bubble = excesses have yet been worked out. Katherine - ------=_NextPart_000_005B_01C179E7.14DFC4A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I've known this stock since Oct., 5th. = It closed=20 then at 25.55. A few technical indicators caught my attention. Even = fallen=20 angels have some value.
 
DanF
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Katherine=20 Malm
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 = 8:20=20 PM
Subject: [CANSLIM] Fallen = Angels and=20 Market Valuations

BRCM
 
Many of you may know this stock. It = is was a=20 spectacular stock during the last Bull run. It is a = company filled with=20 brilliant people who have great vision. I have been watching the = action in=20 this stock recently as it tries to form a bottom. Certainly many of = you would=20 classify it as a "fallen angel." At the time that it peaked in price = in late=20 August 2000, it was selling for about $268. It's PE at the time was = over 10=20 times the S&P average. I remember at the time thinking that this = would be=20 something we would never see again in our lifetime. Good heavens, 10 = times?=20 Down the price came along with other similar players. Since that time, = of=20 course, earnings have slowed along with earnings in most every tech=20 stock.
 
Today it closed at $43.99. It's PE? = 16.9=20 times the S&P average PE. Hmmm...something to consider = when=20 asking whether or not the bubble excesses have yet been worked=20 out.
 
Katherine
- ------=_NextPart_000_005B_01C179E7.14DFC4A0-- - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 18:45:13 -0800 From: "Chris Mc" Subject: [CANSLIM] (CANSLIM) Clarify Group RS This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C179CF.2591FC40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Tom-Katherine: Went back and reviewed my shorthand notes concerning comment on Group = RS. (You may be too young to remember shorthand!) The comment was made by one of the Workerbees (AAHAAA - I can hear you = saying!!) We were on a chart discussion of Cisco with a double bottom = in 1991! In reviewing the fundamentals, the Group RS was only 41 but = the top 5 stocks in the group all had RS between 97 & 99. (How can the = Group RS only be 41 in this case? - will need to look into how Group RS = is determined). The comment was made that in going back through the = model books, as long as there are 2 or 3 other stocks in the same group = exhibiting strong RS, that is all the confirmation you need for group = confirmation. Using the words "Group RS" was a misinterpretation in my = part and may not mean the same to you - ? We also had a chart discussion of Schwab (1998) wherein the Group = Relative Strength was only 33 but this was at the time Schwab was a new = leader in the online brokerage business and was then moved into another = group. So, I think maybe I took this out of context a little and it = really only applied as discussed on these two stocks because of the = other strong fundamentals. Just like if you don't have the C & the A, = you better have the N & the L. It's up to us which "sin" we want to = commit. Katherine, re: your comment about attending two seminars. Why did you = feel you needed to go a second time? Were the presentations different? Thanks to all for many interesting contributions. Chris Mc - ------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C179CF.2591FC40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Tom-Katherine:
 
Went back and reviewed my shorthand = notes=20 concerning comment on Group RS.  (You may be too young to = remember=20 shorthand!)
 
The comment was made by one of the = Workerbees=20 (AAHAAA - I can hear you saying!!)  We were on a chart discussion = of Cisco=20 with a double bottom in 1991!   In reviewing the fundamentals, = the=20 Group RS was only 41 but the top 5 stocks in the group all had RS = between 97=20 & 99.  (How can the Group RS only be 41 in this case? - = will need=20 to look into how Group RS is determined).  The comment was made = that in=20 going back through the model books,  as long as there are 2 or 3 = other=20 stocks in the same group exhibiting strong RS, that is all the = confirmation you=20 need for group confirmation.  Using the words = "Group RS"=20 was a misinterpretation in my part and may not mean the same to you -=20 ?
We also had a chart discussion of = Schwab (1998)=20 wherein the Group Relative Strength was only 33 but this was at the time = Schwab=20 was a new leader in the online brokerage business and was then moved = into=20 another group.  So, I think maybe I took this out of context a = little and=20 it really only applied as discussed on these two stocks because of the = other=20 strong fundamentals.  Just like if you don't have the C & = the A,=20 you better have the N & the L.    It's up to us which = "sin"=20 we want to commit.
 
Katherine, re: your comment about = attending two=20 seminars.  Why did you feel you needed to go a second time?  = Were the=20 presentations different?
 
Thanks to all for many=20 interesting contributions.
 
Chris Mc
 
 
- ------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C179CF.2591FC40-- - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 21:03:40 -0600 From: "Katherine Malm" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] (CANSLIM) Clarify Group RS This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_028D_01C179E2.7D154400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Chris, >>Went back and reviewed my shorthand notes concerning comment on Group = RS. (You may be too young to remember shorthand!) Hah! I use something called "notescript" which absolutely *no*body has = heard of and certainly doesn't use!!!! Seriously though, I'm really glad = you went back and pulled your notations, because I think it helps to = enrich the discussion. Thanks for doing that. >>The comment was made by one of the Workerbees (AAHAAA - I can hear you = saying!!) =20 If it was Bryan or Gil, it still counts! >>We were on a chart discussion of Cisco with a double bottom in 1991! = In reviewing the fundamentals, the Group RS was only 41 but the top 5 = stocks in the group all had RS between 97 & 99. (How can the Group RS = only be 41 in this case? - will need to look into how Group RS is = determined). =20 Here is the DGO definition of INDUSTRY GROUP RELATIVE STRENGTH (Grp = Str) NUMERIC RATING: Based on 6-month price performance of stocks within the group. The = calculation gives 70 percent weighting to the current 3-month period and = 30 percent weighting to the prior 3-month period. Industry groups are = rated with a value of 99 (highest) to 1 (lowest). All stocks in the = William O'Neil + Company database are classified into 197 industry = groups based on the primary source of operating income. So, you can see that it weights the most current 3 months action more = heavily, but a previous 3 months where the group was underperforming = would penalize the rating and lower the current group RS. Also, a group = RS is always going to be hampered by underperforming stocks. I don't have any industry analysis as far back as '91, so let me move on = to your Schwab example. >>The comment was made that in going back through the model books, as = long as there are 2 or 3 other stocks in the same group exhibiting = strong RS, that is all the confirmation you need for group confirmation. = Using the words "Group RS" was a misinterpretation in my part and may = not mean the same to you - ? We also had a chart discussion of Schwab = (1998) wherein the Group Relative Strength was only 33 but this was at = the time Schwab was a new leader in the online brokerage business and = was then moved into another group. So, I think maybe I took this out of = context a little and it really only applied as discussed on these two = stocks because of the other strong fundamentals. =20 This is an excellent example of the point I was trying to make. That is, = you want to be in stocks in *RISING* industries, not necessarily *TOP* = industries. Schwab is in the "Investment/Brokers" group in my system. = This group was bottoming between 8/21/98 and 10/9/98. It was ranked #171 = at that time. It started moving up and stayed in an uptrend until it = peaked in 5/21/99. Shortly before it topped out, it was ranked #23. = That, by all definitions, is a *RISING* industry. Let's look at Schwab. = It broke out of a lovely basing pattern somewhere around 10/9-10/16 and = rose along with the industry group until its blow off top in 4/99. = (Sorry about the vague dates, I'm looking at weekly charts to go this = far back.) Also going along for the ride were stocks like SWS, MWD, JEF, = SIEB, MER and others which have disappeared because of M&A activity. = This is a great example of what they were referring to in the = discussion. >>Just like if you don't have the C & the A, you better have the N & the = L. It's up to us which "sin" we want to commit. In "easy" bull markets, I think you can fudge and get away with this. = But the market we are in and the market that we will be in for the next = 15 years or so will not allow for fudging. It's going to be very hard = work and stock picking skills will be of utmost importance. >>Katherine, re: your comment about attending two seminars. Why did you = feel you needed to go a second time? Were the presentations different? I started studying CANSLIM on my own and "trying" it out for a while = before committing to it fully in late '97. In '98 I went to a free 3 = hour IBD seminar to enhance my understanding after reading the books. = Each year I make a list of goals, skills I want to enhance, concepts I = want to learn, etc. Part of my commitment included understanding CANSLIM = at a deeper level, and so I reinvested my returns by attending the full = day seminar in May '99. But, no matter how long you do something, seems = there are only more questions and more things to learn. I went to = another full day seminar in June '00. Same *exact* presentation, same = *exact* handouts. But somehow, because my understanding was deeper, many = of the points, though the same, made more of an impact. Also, I always = love doing something where you can pick plenty of brains! This year, I = chose other investing seminars in its place, but at some point I'll go = back and do it again. Gary Kaltbaum who does radio commentary told me = he's been 8 times so far, and has never failed to learn something new. I = used to think of myself as a "WON disciple" but I cringe at the idea of = raising someone to the status that this implies and I don't think it's = really about a person, just a methodology. Instead, I now like to think = of myself as someone who follows the "CANSLIM discipline." I think that = says everything about what it takes to be successful at it. Hey, thanks again for adding to the discussion. Katherine - ------=_NextPart_000_028D_01C179E2.7D154400 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Chris,
 
 
>>Went back and reviewed my = shorthand notes=20 concerning comment on Group RS.  (You may be too young to = remember=20 shorthand!)
 
Hah! I use something = called=20 "notescript" which absolutely *no*body has heard of and certainly = doesn't=20 use!!!! Seriously though, I'm really glad you went back and pulled your=20 notations, because I think it helps to enrich the discussion. Thanks for = doing=20 that.
 
>>The comment was made by one of = the=20 Workerbees (AAHAAA - I can hear you saying!!) 
 
If it was Bryan or Gil, = it still=20 counts!
 
>>We were on a chart discussion = of Cisco with=20 a double bottom in 1991!   In reviewing the fundamentals, the = Group RS=20 was only 41 but the top 5 stocks in the group all had RS between 97 = &=20 99.  (How can the Group RS only be 41 in this case? - will = need to=20 look into how Group RS is determined). 
 
Here is the DGO = definition=20 of  INDUSTRY GROUP RELATIVE STRENGTH (Grp Str) NUMERIC=20 RATING:
Based on 6-month price performance of = stocks=20 within the group. The calculation gives 70 percent weighting to the = current=20 3-month period and 30 percent weighting to the prior 3-month period. = Industry=20 groups are rated with a value of 99 (highest) to 1 (lowest). All stocks = in the=20 William O'Neil + Company database are classified into 197 industry = groups based=20 on the primary source of operating=20 income.
 
So, you can see that it = weights the=20 most current 3 months action more heavily, but a previous 3 months where = the=20 group was underperforming would penalize the rating and lower the = current group=20 RS. Also, a group RS is always going to be hampered by underperforming=20 stocks.
 
I don't have any = industry analysis as=20 far back as '91, so let me move on to your Schwab example.
 
>>The comment was made that in = going back=20 through the model books,  as long as there are 2 or 3 other stocks = in the=20 same group exhibiting strong RS, that is all the confirmation you need = for=20 group confirmation.  Using the words "Group RS" = was a=20 misinterpretation in my part and may not mean the same to you - ? = We also had a chart discussion of Schwab (1998) = wherein the=20 Group Relative Strength was only 33 but this was at the time Schwab was = a new=20 leader in the online brokerage business and was then moved into another=20 group.  So, I think maybe I took this out of context a little and = it really=20 only applied as discussed on these two stocks because of the other = strong=20 fundamentals.  
 
This is an excellent = example of the=20 point I was trying to make. That is, you want to be in stocks in = *RISING*=20 industries, not necessarily *TOP* industries. Schwab is in the=20 "Investment/Brokers" group in my system. This group was bottoming = between=20 8/21/98 and 10/9/98. It was ranked #171 at that time. It started moving = up and=20 stayed in an uptrend until it peaked in 5/21/99. Shortly before it = topped out,=20 it was ranked #23. That, by all definitions, is a *RISING* industry. = Let's look=20 at Schwab. It broke out of a lovely basing pattern somewhere around = 10/9-10/16=20 and rose along with the industry group until its blow off top in 4/99. = (Sorry=20 about the vague dates, I'm looking at weekly charts to go this far = back.) Also=20 going along for the ride were stocks like SWS, MWD, JEF, SIEB, MER and = others=20 which have disappeared because of M&A activity. This is a great = example of=20 what they were referring to in the discussion.
 
>>Just like if you don't have the = C & the=20 A, you better have the N & the L.    It's up to us = which=20 "sin" we want to commit.
 
In "easy" bull markets, = I think you=20 can fudge and get away with this. But the market we are in and the = market that=20 we will be in for the next 15 years or so will not allow for fudging. = It's going=20 to be very hard work and stock picking skills will be of utmost=20 importance.
 
>>Katherine, re: your comment = about attending=20 two seminars.  Why did you feel you needed to go a second = time?  Were=20 the presentations different?
 
I started studying = CANSLIM on my own=20 and "trying" it out for a while before committing to it fully in late = '97. In=20 '98 I went to a free 3 hour IBD seminar to enhance my understanding = after=20 reading the books. Each year I make a list of goals, skills I want to = enhance,=20 concepts I want to learn, etc. Part of my commitment included = understanding=20 CANSLIM at a deeper level, and so I reinvested my returns by attending = the full=20 day seminar in  May '99. But, no matter how long you do something, = seems=20 there are only more questions and more things to learn. I went to = another full=20 day seminar in June '00. Same *exact* presentation, same *exact* = handouts. But=20 somehow, because my understanding was deeper, many of the points, though = the=20 same, made more of an impact. Also, I always love doing something where = you can=20 pick plenty of brains! This year, I chose other investing seminars in = its place,=20 but at some point I'll go back and do it again. Gary Kaltbaum who does = radio=20 commentary told me he's been 8 times so far, and has never failed to = learn=20 something new. I used to think of myself as a "WON disciple" but I = cringe at the=20 idea of raising someone to the status that this implies and I don't = think it's=20 really about a person, just a methodology. Instead, I now like to think = of=20 myself as someone who follows the "CANSLIM discipline." I think that = says=20 everything about what it takes to be successful at it.
 
Hey, thanks again for = adding to the=20 discussion.
 
Katherine
 
 
 
 
- ------=_NextPart_000_028D_01C179E2.7D154400-- - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 21:06:20 -0600 From: "Katherine Malm" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Fallen Angels and Market Valuations This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0296_01C179E2.DC5AEA00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dan, You mean, riding it up on the last leg based on technical oversold = indicators at 25.55? If so, darn good trade you made there. But if I had = done that and hadn't yet taken profits, I'd have it on a very short = rope. If this thing falls out of this latest consolidation zone, it has = a long way to fall on the downside before it's over! Katherine ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Dan Forant=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 8:36 PM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Fallen Angels and Market Valuations I've known this stock since Oct., 5th. It closed then at 25.55. A few = technical indicators caught my attention. Even fallen angels have some = value.=20 DanF ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Katherine Malm=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 8:20 PM Subject: [CANSLIM] Fallen Angels and Market Valuations BRCM Many of you may know this stock. It is was a spectacular stock = during the last Bull run. It is a company filled with brilliant people = who have great vision. I have been watching the action in this stock = recently as it tries to form a bottom. Certainly many of you would = classify it as a "fallen angel." At the time that it peaked in price in = late August 2000, it was selling for about $268. It's PE at the time was = over 10 times the S&P average. I remember at the time thinking that this = would be something we would never see again in our lifetime. Good = heavens, 10 times? Down the price came along with other similar players. = Since that time, of course, earnings have slowed along with earnings in = most every tech stock. Today it closed at $43.99. It's PE? 16.9 times the S&P average PE. = Hmmm...something to consider when asking whether or not the bubble = excesses have yet been worked out. Katherine - ------=_NextPart_000_0296_01C179E2.DC5AEA00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dan,
 
You mean, riding it up on the last leg = based on=20 technical oversold indicators at 25.55? If so, darn good trade you made = there.=20 But if I had done that and hadn't yet taken profits, I'd have it on a = very short=20 rope. If this thing falls out of this latest consolidation zone, it has = a long=20 way to fall on the downside before it's over!
 
Katherine
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Dan=20 Forant
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 = 8:36=20 PM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Fallen = Angels and=20 Market Valuations

I've known this stock since Oct., = 5th. It closed=20 then at 25.55. A few technical indicators caught my attention. Even = fallen=20 angels have some value.
 
DanF
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Katherine=20 Malm
Sent: Friday, November 30, = 2001 8:20=20 PM
Subject: [CANSLIM] Fallen = Angels and=20 Market Valuations

BRCM
 
Many of you may know this stock. It = is was a=20 spectacular stock during the last Bull run. It is a = company filled with=20 brilliant people who have great vision. I have been watching the = action in=20 this stock recently as it tries to form a bottom. Certainly many of = you=20 would classify it as a "fallen angel." At the time that it peaked in = price=20 in late August 2000, it was selling for about $268. It's PE at the = time was=20 over 10 times the S&P average. I remember at the time thinking = that this=20 would be something we would never see again in our lifetime. Good = heavens,=20 10 times? Down the price came along with other similar players. = Since that=20 time, of course, earnings have slowed along with earnings in most = every tech=20 stock.
 
Today it closed at $43.99. It's PE? = 16.9 times the S&P average PE. Hmmm...something = to=20 consider when asking whether or not the bubble excesses have yet = been worked=20 out.
 
Katherine
- ------=_NextPart_000_0296_01C179E2.DC5AEA00-- - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 20:27:01 -0800 From: "Scott Gettis" Subject: [CANSLIM] hey katherine This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0026_01C179DD.5DB79450 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit can you explain the exact details of an ascending base. There is not that much information on this type of chart pattern. I want to get very clear on this pattern, because if the market pulls back, new leaders may emerge from this pattern. I read Loren Flecksteins column however i am still totally not clear. -----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Katherine Malm Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 7:06 PM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Fallen Angels and Market Valuations Dan, You mean, riding it up on the last leg based on technical oversold indicators at 25.55? If so, darn good trade you made there. But if I had done that and hadn't yet taken profits, I'd have it on a very short rope. If this thing falls out of this latest consolidation zone, it has a long way to fall on the downside before it's over! Katherine ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Forant To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 8:36 PM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Fallen Angels and Market Valuations I've known this stock since Oct., 5th. It closed then at 25.55. A few technical indicators caught my attention. Even fallen angels have some value. DanF ----- Original Message ----- From: Katherine Malm To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 8:20 PM Subject: [CANSLIM] Fallen Angels and Market Valuations BRCM Many of you may know this stock. It is was a spectacular stock during the last Bull run. It is a company filled with brilliant people who have great vision. I have been watching the action in this stock recently as it tries to form a bottom. Certainly many of you would classify it as a "fallen angel." At the time that it peaked in price in late August 2000, it was selling for about $268. It's PE at the time was over 10 times the S&P average. I remember at the time thinking that this would be something we would never see again in our lifetime. Good heavens, 10 times? Down the price came along with other similar players. Since that time, of course, earnings have slowed along with earnings in most every tech stock. Today it closed at $43.99. It's PE? 16.9 times the S&P average PE. Hmmm...something to consider when asking whether or not the bubble excesses have yet been worked out. Katherine - ------=_NextPart_000_0026_01C179DD.5DB79450 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
can=20 you explain the exact details of an ascending base.  There is not = that much=20 information on this type of chart pattern.  I want to get very = clear on=20 this pattern, because if the market pulls back, new leaders may emerge = from this=20 pattern.  I read Loren Flecksteins column however i am still = totally not=20 clear.
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Katherine = Malm
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 7:06 PM
To:=20 canslim@lists.xmission.com
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Fallen = Angels and=20 Market Valuations

Dan,
 
You mean, riding it up on the last = leg based on=20 technical oversold indicators at 25.55? If so, darn good trade you = made there.=20 But if I had done that and hadn't yet taken profits, I'd have it on a = very=20 short rope. If this thing falls out of this latest consolidation zone, = it has=20 a long way to fall on the downside before it's over!
 
Katherine
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Dan=20 Forant
Sent: Friday, November 30, = 2001 8:36=20 PM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Fallen = Angels=20 and Market Valuations

I've known this stock since Oct., = 5th. It=20 closed then at 25.55. A few technical indicators caught my = attention. Even=20 fallen angels have some value.
 
DanF
----- Original Message ----- =
From:=20 Katherine=20 Malm
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com= =20
Sent: Friday, November 30, = 2001 8:20=20 PM
Subject: [CANSLIM] Fallen = Angels and=20 Market Valuations

BRCM
 
Many of you may know this stock. = It is was a=20 spectacular stock during the last Bull run. It is a = company filled=20 with brilliant people who have great vision. I have been watching = the=20 action in this stock recently as it tries to form a bottom. = Certainly many=20 of you would classify it as a "fallen angel." At the time that it = peaked=20 in price in late August 2000, it was selling for about $268. It's = PE at=20 the time was over 10 times the S&P average. I remember at the = time=20 thinking that this would be something we would never see again in = our=20 lifetime. Good heavens, 10 times? Down the price came along with = other=20 similar players. Since that time, of course, earnings have slowed = along=20 with earnings in most every tech stock.
 
Today it closed at $43.99. It's = PE?=20 16.9 times the S&P average PE. = Hmmm...something to=20 consider when asking whether or not the bubble excesses have yet = been=20 worked out.
 
Katherine
- ------=_NextPart_000_0026_01C179DD.5DB79450-- - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ End of canslim-digest V2 #1869 ****************************** To unsubscribe to canslim-digest, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe canslim-digest" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.