From: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com (canslim-digest)
To: canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com
Subject: canslim-digest V2 #201
Reply-To: canslim
Sender: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com
Errors-To: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes

canslim-digest         Tuesday, April 21 1998         Volume 02 : Number 201



In this issue:

       RE: [CANSLIM] Intro:  Larry Horn
       Re: [CANSLIM] IBM
       Re: [CANSLIM] IBM
       Re: [CANSLIM] Some additions to my watch list
       Re: [CANSLIM] EAT, ZOMX (was Some additions to my watch list)
       [CANSLIM] Book<Virus checked>
       [CANSLIM] Re: Carlos
       [CANSLIM] Charting Software.
       RE: [CANSLIM] institutional ownership
       Re: [CANSLIM] My Entire Watch List
       [CANSLIM] AVEI MF
       Re: [CANSLIM] institutional ownership
       [CANSLIM] ZOMX
       [CANSLIM] PUBO
       Re: [CANSLIM] ZOMX
       Re: [CANSLIM] PUBO
       Re: [CANSLIM] IBM
       Re: [CANSLIM] OVID
       Re: [CANSLIM] APCO
       Re: [CANSLIM] APCO
       [CANSLIM] DELL might breakout today, getting close!
       Re: [CANSLIM] EAT, ZOMX (was Some additions to my watch list)
       [CANSLIM] NEWP

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 04:00:31 GMT
From: musicant@autobahn.org (Dan Musicant)
Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Intro:  Larry Horn

On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 00:45:00 -0400, Larry Horn <clhorn@acpub.duke.edu>
wrote:

Hello Everyone,

I have subscribed to the digest since early February and would like to
introduce myself.  I am a psychiatry resident at Duke University
Medical Center in Durham, NC and I am new to investing in stocks.  I
read HTMMIS 2 years ago and have recently been rereading parts of it.
I use the charts at BigCharts, I subscribe to IBD, and I have my
brokerage accounts at Waterhouse.  Waterhouse is a little bit (1.5x or
$12/trade) more expensive than other online brokers but most of my
money is in mutual funds and they have a fair number of no transaction
fee funds.  I have appreciated learning from the members over the past
few months. =20

I would like some feedback on my screening process as I think it is
too restrictive on some elements.  I start with IBD's Friday "Your
Weekend Review" which I'm sure most of you know about.  It lists all
stocks above $7, within 15% of 52 wk high, and with EPS and RS greater
than 85.  It ranks them by group strength.  It also lists a mutual
fund that owns each stock.  I'm not sure how they decide which mutual
fund to list but I think they list the one with the best 36 month
performance.
- - - - -
- ----> I am subscribed to IBD, but haven't checked out this feature on
=46ridays, though I believe I've heard about it. I'm a busy person, too,
as I'm sure you are.
- - - - -
With that in hand, I pick the ones with A/D=3DA or B (which is
conveniently listed on the same table), Group Strength=3DA (For that, I
refer back and forth to the main stock tables until I find where the
cutoff between A and B is.  Remember the whole table is organized by
group strength.), and finally I pick the ones that have a fund owning
it with a rank of A- or better (top 15% of mutual funds over past 36
months).  That usually gives me 120-140 stocks and they don't change
much from week to week.  But that is still too many for me to think
about and it only covers CA SLI.  Well if you count being within 15%
of its 52 week high, then maybe we can say it covers N also. =20
- - - - -
- ---> I don't know about the last sentence. N is not so much about
being near a new high as having new product, service and/or
management. It's a good sign if is within a few % of new high, though.
- - - - -
To weed this number down to a more manageable size, I head off to
Yahoo! and enter them all in at the same time.  Then I check the
profile on each of them to check shares outstanding and float, and I
get rid of ones with float greater than 30 (That was the number that
IBD suggested on a tape "Investing to Win" which describes CANSLIM and
came with my subscription).  I then calculate %Management like this
(shares outstanding-float)/shares outstanding.  I hope that is the
correct formula, it seems like it should be.  Sometimes the number I
get is different than that reported in IBD and when I checked further,
Yahoo! had different numbers for the float.  I think they are not as
up to date as IBD.  I then get rid of companies with %Management < 15%
or > 50% (Those are also numbers that were recommended on that same
tape).  So, that gives me more S information and leaves me with about
60-70 stocks.
- - - - -
- ----> I think you should be more open minded about your float
percentages. Even 5% insider holdings (though small) doesn't mean a
stock won't perform. I'm holding LEN right now, which has been a big
mover and has less than 2.5% insider holdings, if I can believe what I
see at DG Online. I think your methodology is to take a lot of stocks
and pare them down with restrictive criteria. You have to do this
somewhat, but if you wind up with a dozen stocks you don't have a lot
to choose from unless you like to hold promising stocks instead of
buying off a base at a pivot point in a breakout (which is CANSLIM
buying).=20
- - - - -

I then head off to Waterhouse to look at the S&P sheets on these
companies to find out the %Owned by Institutions.  I keep those with
less than 30% but more than 5% (The 30% was also recommended on that
tape but for the low number, he just said "some", 1 or 2% sponsorship
which seems a little low).

The last thing I do (well actually I do it before checking
%Institutions so I don't have to look up as many companies at
Waterhouse) is not CANSLIM but I did get it from IBD's Investor's
Corner.  Return On Equity >15.  I don't recall anyone mentioning ROE
so I am interested in hearing if I am wasting my time with this number
or what.  This whole process takes about 2-3 hours and leaves me with
less than a handful of stocks.

If anyone is interested, I can post all of these stocks in a table on
a web page starting with the 120-130 stocks, but I won't waste that
much space here.  I will just list the ones that pass all of the
screens.  >From here, I guess I just watch the volume and price to see
if I can figure a good time to buy.  I'm  looking forward to trying to
use Connie's tools to help me figure that out instead of just volume
and price.

Since I started this in February or March, the only ones that have
come up are TMBS, ANLT, BVF, APCO, FTIC, SOSS, CVB and CBR.  This
process I use seems too restrictive.

Right now the only ones on it are:
Co	PE	A/D	EPS	RS	Fund	SHR	FLT	%Mgmt
ROE	%Instit=09
ISCA	41	A	87	92	A+	39	20	48%
15.2	6=09
MVBI	25	B	88	88	A+	9.6	6.3	34%
18	9=09
TMBS	24	B	99	95	A	7	4.9	30%
42.8	13=09
ADV	17	A	92	87	A+	8.9	6	32%
15.5	20

Of those, TMBS is the only one which has a chart that looks like it's
worth buying now, as far as I can tell.  I actually bought it for 14
9/16 on 2/5/98 when I thought it was breaking out.  I plan on selling
the next time the 7-line crosses below the 10-line (EMA).  I don't
know what to make of the MF on TMBS but I don't think it looks good.
It goes up sharply, then down sharply and doesn't really seem to track
the price well.  Even worse, the last few days have shown a negative
divergence if I understand that concept properly.

Larry
- - - - -
- ----> You bought TMBS the day before I did, and got a much better
price. On 2/6/98 I got it at 16 1/8. I don't understand "negative
divergence" (is this a pick up of volume when the price drops?), but I
feel that TMBS is hard to read. I've seen much discussion of the
resistance at 18, and won't be surprised if it is not really breached
this time around. However, I feel that this won't necessarily be so.
However, I find it hard to be as optimistic about the stock as I would
be if I just looked at the chart. I think the chart looks great.
Somehow, I'm not nearly as hopeful as I think I would be if I was just
a chartreader on this one. I read your strategy to mean that you will
sell when it trends down. I've been thinking similarly.

Dan
=20







- -


- -

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 04:08:13 GMT
From: musicant@autobahn.org (Dan Musicant)
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] IBM

You mean 111-ish, no doubt. Yea, I don't know. I just saw the report
on PBS. I never know what these things mean. Lots of times CO's report
lower earnings, but if it beats estimates, the result is positive.
However, my impression from the report (I know, it WAS on TV), was one
of some foreboding. Did the stock really climb in after hours trading?
Or was that pre-close trading? I believe the report on/by IBM was
after hours.=20

Obviously, IBM's report doesn't have the clout of an Intel. I guess
people figure, as Intel goes, so goes the sector. IBM? Not.

Dan

On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 20:26:28 -0700, you wrote:

:AFAIK IBM announced EPS a penny under estimates at about 3PM eastern and
:dropped immediately but wound up +3 on the day at 121-ish.=20
:
:At 03:11 AM 4/21/98 GMT, you wrote:
:>A note: Tech stock owners and buyers take note that IBM posted poor
:>quarterly results after hours today (Monday) -- their PC sales were
:>well down, I believe. Could be a down day on the Nasdaq Tuesday.
:>
:>Dan
:
:Tim Fisher, 1995 President, Pacific Fishery Biologists
:Ore-ROCK-On Rockhounding Web Site
:PFB Information
:tfish@spiritone.com
:WWW http://www.spiritone.com/~tfish -- See naked fish and rocks!
:
:
:-


- -

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 00:21:23 -0400
From: "Tom Worley" <stkguru@netside.net>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] IBM

FWIW, NASDAQ100 futures at 12:15AM east coast time are up two pts,
which doesn't suggest a selloff on tech stocks at this time.

Tom W

- -----Original Message-----
From: Dan Musicant <musicant@autobahn.org>
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com <canslim@lists.xmission.com>
Date: Tuesday, April 21, 1998 12:06 AM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] IBM


You mean 111-ish, no doubt. Yea, I don't know. I just saw the report
on PBS. I never know what these things mean. Lots of times CO's report
lower earnings, but if it beats estimates, the result is positive.
However, my impression from the report (I know, it WAS on TV), was one
of some foreboding. Did the stock really climb in after hours trading?
Or was that pre-close trading? I believe the report on/by IBM was
after hours.

Obviously, IBM's report doesn't have the clout of an Intel. I guess
people figure, as Intel goes, so goes the sector. IBM? Not.

Dan

On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 20:26:28 -0700, you wrote:

:At 03:11 AM 4/21/98 GMT, you wrote:
:>A note: Tech stock owners and buyers take note that IBM posted poor
:>quarterly results after hours today (Monday) -- their PC sales were
:>well down, I believe. Could be a down day on the Nasdaq Tuesday.
:>
:>Dan
:



- -

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 23:41:07 -0400
From: "James Adams" <jimadams@may-uky.campus.mci.net>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Some additions to my watch list

From: Tom Worley <stkguru@netside.net>
EATS, TTILF, MTON, ACAM, BOYD

Tom, did you see the after the bell Quarterly Report on EATS..They
reported great numbers. I assume they will gap up at the open.
Also, ZOMX, which I tried to get back into today, report a knock-out quarter
after the bell.
I doubt if I can get in tomorrow before it runs up. My bad luck. The bid was
19 and the ask was 19 3/8. I put in a buy for 1000 @ 19 1/8 and didn't get
it. I thought it would pull back some but didnt'.....

James Adams......................Maysville, KY  USA
http://www.cris.com/~jimadams/
Internet Pager  1343361@pager.mirabilis.com


- -

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 00:40:34 -0400
From: "Tom Worley" <stkguru@netside.net>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] EAT, ZOMX (was Some additions to my watch list)

I hadn't seen the news, but will try to review later or tomorrow
before the open. I was coincidentally just looking at some of my old
favorites, ZOMX included, this evening and had noted the move up today
so was already on my list to try and watch closely tomorrow.

Tom W

- -----Original Message-----
From: James Adams <jimadams@may-uky.campus.mci.net>
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com <canslim@lists.xmission.com>
Date: Tuesday, April 21, 1998 12:28 AM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Some additions to my watch list


>
>From: Tom Worley <stkguru@netside.net>
>EATS, TTILF, MTON, ACAM, BOYD
>
>Tom, did you see the after the bell Quarterly Report on EATS..They
>reported great numbers. I assume they will gap up at the open.
>Also, ZOMX, which I tried to get back into today, report a knock-out
quarter
>after the bell.
>I doubt if I can get in tomorrow before it runs up. My bad luck. The
bid was
>19 and the ask was 19 3/8. I put in a buy for 1000 @ 19 1/8 and
didn't get
>it. I thought it would pull back some but didnt'.....
>
>James Adams......................Maysville, KY  USA
>http://www.cris.com/~jimadams/
>Internet Pager  1343361@pager.mirabilis.com
>
>
>-
>


- -

------------------------------

Date: 27 Feb 98 14:10:40
From: Les Collins <Les_Collins%STATISTICS_NZ@stats.govt.nz>
Subject: [CANSLIM] Book<Virus checked>

This is the preamble of an RFC-1341 encoded, mixed message.

- ---- next item ----
Content-Type: Text/Plain

Can someone recommend a good book(s) on interest rates, monetary policy, yield 
curve, inflation and currency relationships?  Particularly one that gave some 
historical analysis of these relationships, and how they effected stock and 
bond prices.  Thanks.



- ---- next item ----
Content-Type:Text/Plain; Name="ATT01"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content='"MSHTML 4.71.1712.3"' name=GENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 face=Arial size=2>Can someone recommend a good book(s) 
on interest rates, monetary policy, yield curve, inflation and currency 
relationships?&nbsp; Particularly one that gave some historical analysis of 
these relationships, and how they effected stock and bond prices.&nbsp; 
Thanks.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>



- ---- next item ------



- -

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 22:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: dbphoenix <dbphoenix@yahoo.com>
Subject: [CANSLIM] Re: Carlos

<<In the mean time -- i hope you don't mind taking a look at ARSC (Aris
Corp) -- I bought some at 32 3/4 on 4/9 and some more at 33 3/4 on 4/13
(trying to pyramid up on upward movement with good volume).  I thought I
was the next coming of J.P. Morgan the next day when it went up over a
point and a half.  Now several days later with the stock down for 3
out of
4 days I are starting to think that junk bonds are where it is at.  The
volume has really dried up on the last couple of days.  What does a
decrease on very little volume mean?  Is that just showing that the move
from 31 was a hoax?  Or is it just some people bailing out on the stock
and cashing in some gains after the stock hit an all time high at 35?
Just wondering -- Still trying to get my CS algorithm down.>>

I don't know your criteria for selection or the timeframe you're
interested in, so I can only give blind advice.  This stock had no CS
buypoint anywhere near where you bought it.  You were, in effect,
chasing it.  Therefore, there's virtually no support above 30.5.  A
decline in price on decreased volume isn't a negative, but that
doesn't necessarily make it a positive, either.  If the stock doesn't
recover from here, it will violate a short-term trendline and either
move sideways or retrace.  Given the lack of support, if I owned it
and it retraced to 33.75, I'd call myself fortunate and sell without
hesitation.

One question you must ask yourself is whether you want to buy low and
sell high, or buy high and sell higher.  Few investors tackle this
question and they wind up making some very expensive mistakes.  If you
want to buy low and sell high, you never should have bought this stock
in the first place.  If you want to buy high and sell higher, and are
aware of and don't object to the risks inherent in this tactic, keep
your stops tight and make sure they are in place with your broker.

- --Db





_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


- -

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 22:59:56 -0700
From: budfox2 <budfox2@earthlink.net>
Subject: [CANSLIM] Charting Software.

Hello,

I interested in either SuperCharts 4.0 or MetaStock 6.5.  Can anyone
tell me which one is better?  Thanks.

Vince


- -

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 23:08:23 -0700
From: Mike Lucero <mikelu@foxinternet.net>
Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] institutional ownership

Here's an example comparing Quotes Plus institutional ownership with Daily 
Graphs Online fund%. I was trying to get fund ownership from institutional 
ownership, but I don't see much of a correlation. (Note that total 
institutional ownership would be fund, banks, and insurance companies. If 
you try to add up the numbers available in DGO, you'd have to guess at 
insurance company ownership, and still the numbers wouldn't match. DGO just 
says they think their numbers are best.)

Mike

		QP	DG
		Inst	Fund%
ASMLF		0	11
ABF		95	32
ALK		95	18
ACF		89	16
BBY		62	17
BSX		52	18
CELL		79	41
CNI		55	30
EMC		83	27
ELN		80	59
ETEC		95	32
GLBL		65	41
INTL		60	14
FEET		56	24
LOW		73	30
MAST		32	17
MCRL		66	54
MON		79	51
		

On Sunday, April 19, 1998 8:53 PM, Mike Lucero 
[SMTP:mikelu@foxinternet.net] wrote:
> A problem with Institutional Ownership I've seen from Quotes Plus and
> Microsoft Investor is that they don't match the numbers from Daily 
Graphs.
> They don't break down the number so you can find out how much are owned 
by
> funds. which is the most important number.
>
> Does anyone know how often Daily Graphs fund ownership numbers are 
updated?
> They seem to change pretty often, but the description seems to say the 
data
> comes from the mutual funds quarterly. Don't the funds only have to 
report
> what they owned at the end of the previous quarter? Wouldn't that make 
the
> data at least 90 days old? If that's the way it works, I'm not sure how
> useful the numbers would be. This worries me a little, because I'm
> screening out stocks with too much fund ownership.
>
> Mike
>
>
> On Sunday, April 19, 1998 12:50 PM, Lucy Barnett 
[SMTP:BarnettL@nwrel.org]
> wrote:
> >
> > http://www.wsrn.com/home/companyResearch.html
> >
> > When you enter a stock symbol a page will appear with links to many
> > sources of information for the company you are researching.
> > Look for the heading:  "Research, Reports & Summaries" and click on
> > "QuickSource: Description & Stats."  At the bottom of this page you 
will
> > find the % of shares held by institutions. This site has loads of info
> > on stocks.  Can't vouch for up-to-datedness (is that a word?) or
> > accuracy.
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From:	Joan Sherman [SMTP:joani@mindspring.com]
> > > Sent:	Sunday, April 19, 1998 11:04 AM
> > > To:	Canslim
> > > Subject:	[CANSLIM] institutionnal ownership
> > >
> > > Does anyone have a web site that indicates institutional ownership 
for
> > > listed stocks?
> > > TIA
> > >
> > >
> > > Joan Sherman,   /\~~~/\  /\~~~/\    /\~/\  /\~/\
> > >                               **           **            **       **
> > >                                 Help Support Animal Rescue
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> 

- -

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 14:52:17 +0000
From: Peter Christiansen <peterc@loxinfo.co.th>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] My Entire Watch List

Thanks Dan.  I'm glad you found it interesting. I will likely buy ITDS today.

At 03:11 AM 4/21/98 +0000, you wrote:
>Very impressive. ASTX passed the pivot today (barely), so is still
>"buyable". Volume wasn't breakout type, but the move was over 6%. Has
>been a lot of discussion of it and knowing posters here have avowed
>great interest.
>
>ITDS, GRS of 98, still looks pretty good to me. Thanks, Peter. Got a
>whole portfolio in my Yahoo watching these. The pivots below look
>pretty faultless, far as I've seen, and I've given a dozen or so a
>look.
>
>A note: Tech stock owners and buyers take note that IBM posted poor
>quarterly results after hours today (Monday) -- their PC sales were
>well down, I believe. Could be a down day on the Nasdaq Tuesday.
>
>Dan
>
>On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 22:16:01 +0000, you wrote:
>
>:Here is my  current watch list, including potential pivot points.  There
>:are quite a few interesting charts here.  Enjoy.  Hope the formatting is ok.
>:
>:aatt		36.625
>:accc		55.625 
>:accs		40.125
>:ammb		38.125 
>:ans		29.625 
>:apex		32.125 
>:asf		44.125 
>:astsf		52.375
>:astx		17.125 
>:csgs		49.625 
>:csli		18.625 
>:ctxs		57.6250 
>:dell		72.125
>:faf		69.125 
>:haz		40.5 
>:hrly		15.125 
>:imp		34.125 
>:intl		28.625
>:itds		29.125
>:ldry		31.75
>:lson		39.125
>:medi		58.375
>:metz		34.125
>:mth		20.5
>:mtic		18.125
>:ndn		40.125 
>:nsit		43.125
>:qlgc		42.125 
>:ssd		43.125 
>:sut		43.125
>:tklc		49.5
>:uvn		42.125
>:vii		12.125 
>:
>:
>:Peter Christiansen 
>:Chiang Mai - Thailand 
>:
>:-
>
>
>-
> 

Peter Christiansen 
Chiang Mai - Thailand 

- -

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 06:53:40 -0400
From: Jeffry White <"postwhit@sover.net"@sover.net>
Subject: [CANSLIM] AVEI MF

Anindo wrote:

> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 14:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Anindo Majumdar <amajumda@cisco.com>
> Subject: [CANSLIM] What does your OBV/MF analysis tell you about AVEI
> 
>   What does OBV/MF tell you about AVEI ? They had a blowout quarter but since
> then has been going down.
> 
> Anindo


Not Connie Mack's BC MF which is a relatively simple indicator, but a
more complex MF calculation suggests AVEI is topping a list of negative
MF within the entire market. It's one of my better shorts I think, BTW. 
Also, interesting, in light of it's meteoric three day double, turning
the float several times in the process is SEEK's negative MF at this
site:

http://www.trading-ideas.com/mflow.htm

Regards

Jeffry

- -

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 08:04:23 -0400
From: "Tom Worley" <stkguru@netside.net>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] institutional ownership

Remember that DG counts institutional percentages differently than
most other sites. DG shows management as a percent of the total issue,
but funds, banks percent as a percent of the float. Most other sites
are likely to show these also as a percent of the total issue. That's
one of the difficulties in making comparisons. In addition, because
the data is not reported frequently, a lot can also depend on how
quickly each site updates their database. Finally, there can be major
changes during the course of a single quarter.

It is for all these reasons that I place little decision making weight
on institutional holdings. I have no problem buying a small cap with
zero institutional holdings and 60% management when the CS elements
are strong and the chart looks good. I figure sooner or later the
funds will discover it, typically starting with the small cap funds,
altho I would prefer that there be a couple percent ownership since
fund mgrs talk to each other. On the other hand, I will pass on a
stock with 35 or 40% fund ownership as I feel it's more likely to not
get sig increased institutional buying, but rather the risk is of
funds starting to either simply take profits, or bailing out if they
see a problem (which with their staff they will probably spot sooner
than I can).
Tom W

- -----Original Message-----
From: Mike Lucero <mikelu@foxinternet.net>
To: 'canslim@lists.xmission.com' <canslim@lists.xmission.com>
Date: Tuesday, April 21, 1998 2:09 AM
Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] institutional ownership


>Here's an example comparing Quotes Plus institutional ownership with
Daily
>Graphs Online fund%. I was trying to get fund ownership from
institutional
>ownership, but I don't see much of a correlation. (Note that total
>institutional ownership would be fund, banks, and insurance
companies. If
>you try to add up the numbers available in DGO, you'd have to guess
at
>insurance company ownership, and still the numbers wouldn't match.
DGO just
>says they think their numbers are best.)
>
>Mike
>



- -

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 08:50:25 -0400
From: "Tom Worley" <stkguru@netside.net>
Subject: [CANSLIM] ZOMX

A word of caution on ZOMX's earnings reported yesterday. They reported
13 cents vs 7 cents, however this was a result of restating the 1997
results on a "pro forma" basis as if three acquisitions made in Feb
1998 had been a part of the company a year prior. They originally
reported the Mar 1997 qtr as a 27 cent profit. I find this a highly
questionable accounting procedure to restate earnings a year prior to
actual acquisition. I doubt they will actually change the 1997
results, but rather are now presenting them differently to provide
comparable year to year comparisons, and to use the loss carryforwards
from the acquired cos to offset past profits generated by ZOMX in the
past, thereby reducing actual taxes. May be legal, may be correct, I'm
not an accountant. But for any shareholders expecting them to beat 27
cents, they may not find 13 cents adequate.

Tom W



- -

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 01:10:20 +1200
From: "Dean Edwards" <d_edwa00@ihug.co.nz>
Subject: [CANSLIM] PUBO

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_015D_01BD6D8B.6B95C0E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I would like opinions PUBO =20
EPS 88
RS   91
Shares 3.1M
Accumulation A
PE 6
Funds 20%

My own opinion:=20

The negative is the volume which is low to non existent=20
Average volume 1,400
Volume last 14,900

The positive is the book value or the cash per share the company is =
sitting
on:

Book Value per share $11.71 =20
            Earnings (ttm) $1.37 =20
            Sales (ttm) $13.34 =20
            Cash per share $9.72 =20
   =20

52-Week Low $7.75 =20
            Recent Price $15.25=20
            52-Week High $15.50 =20
   =20



- ------=_NextPart_000_015D_01BD6D8B.6B95C0E0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.2106.6"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"" size=3D4>I would like opinions =
PUBO&nbsp;=20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"" size=3D4>EPS 88</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"" size=3D4>RS&nbsp;&nbsp; =
91</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"" size=3D4>Shares 3.1M</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"" size=3D4></FONT><FONT =
size=3D4>Accumulation=20
A</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>PE 6</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>Funds 20%</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"" size=3D4>My own opinion: =
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>The negative is the volume which is low to non =
existent=20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT><FONT size=3D4>Average volume =
1,400</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>Volume last 14,900</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"" size=3D4>The positive is the book =
value or the=20
cash per share the company is sitting</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"" size=3D4></FONT><FONT =
size=3D4>on:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>
<TABLE cellPadding=3D3 cellSpacing=3D0 width=3D100%>
    <TBODY>
    <TR>
        <TD align=3Dleft width=3D36%>Book Value per share</TD>
        <TD align=3Dright=20
            =
width=3D12%><SMALL>$</SMALL><CODE>11.71<SMALL>&nbsp;</SMALL></CODE></TD><=
/TR>
    <TR>
        <TD align=3Dleft width=3D36%>Earnings <SMALL>(ttm)</SMALL></TD>
        <TD align=3Dright=20
            =
width=3D12%><SMALL>$</SMALL><CODE>1.37<SMALL>&nbsp;</SMALL></CODE></TD></=
TR>
    <TR>
        <TD align=3Dleft width=3D36%>Sales <SMALL>(ttm)</SMALL></TD>
        <TD align=3Dright=20
            =
width=3D12%><SMALL>$</SMALL><CODE>13.34<SMALL>&nbsp;</SMALL></CODE></TD><=
/TR>
    <TR>
        <TD align=3Dleft width=3D36%>Cash per share</TD>
        <TD align=3Dright=20
            =
width=3D12%><SMALL>$</SMALL><CODE>9.72<SMALL>&nbsp;</SMALL></CODE></TD></=
TR></TBODY></TABLE></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>
<TABLE cellPadding=3D3 cellSpacing=3D0 width=3D100%>
    <TBODY>
    <TR>
        <TD align=3Dleft width=3D36%>52-Week Low</TD>
        <TD align=3Dright =
width=3D12%><SMALL>$</SMALL><CODE>7.75&nbsp;</CODE></TD></TR>
    <TR>
        <TD align=3Dleft width=3D36%>Recent Price</TD>
        <TD align=3Dright =
width=3D12%><SMALL>$</SMALL><CODE>15.25</CODE></TD></TR>
    <TR>
        <TD align=3Dleft width=3D36%>52-Week High</TD>
        <TD align=3Dright=20
    =
width=3D12%><SMALL>$</SMALL><CODE>15.50&nbsp;</CODE></TD></TR></TBODY></T=
ABLE></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3D"" =
size=3D3><STRONG></STRONG></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_015D_01BD6D8B.6B95C0E0--


- -

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 09:10:43 -0400
From: "Tom Worley" <stkguru@netside.net>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] ZOMX

I must be on drugs this morning, and I'm sure my PC is as it is being
real cranky. Went back and looked at the DG chart. A year ago they
reported 6 cents profit on $5.4 mil in revenues. This year they
reported for Q1 a profit of 14 cents on 14.2 mil in rev. Thus it looks
like they are not trying a tax shelter, but simply trying to show
comparable data. Still, I don't understand it and will discuss with an
accountant friend. What I was apparently thinking of was the 23 cents
they netted in Q4, which may have led shareholders to expect even
more.

Ok, I'm confused, haven't had any coffee in three weeks, what do you
want?

Tom W

- -----Original Message-----
From: Tom Worley <stkguru@netside.net>
To: CANSLIM <canslim@lists.xmission.com>
Date: Tuesday, April 21, 1998 8:57 AM
Subject: [CANSLIM] ZOMX


>A word of caution on ZOMX's earnings reported yesterday. They
reported
>13 cents vs 7 cents, however this was a result of restating the 1997
>results on a "pro forma" basis as if three acquisitions made in Feb
>1998 had been a part of the company a year prior. They originally
>reported the Mar 1997 qtr as a 27 cent profit. I find this a highly
>questionable accounting procedure to restate earnings a year prior to
>actual acquisition. I doubt they will actually change the 1997
>results, but rather are now presenting them differently to provide
>comparable year to year comparisons, and to use the loss
carryforwards
>from the acquired cos to offset past profits generated by ZOMX in the
>past, thereby reducing actual taxes. May be legal, may be correct,
I'm
>not an accountant. But for any shareholders expecting them to beat 27
>cents, they may not find 13 cents adequate.
>
>Tom W
>
>
>
>-
>


- -

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 09:21:09 -0400
From: "Tom Worley" <stkguru@netside.net>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] PUBO

Looks interesting, altho I pay little if any attention to book value,
sales/share etc. I also note they had a non-recurring event in Q4
which appears to have skewed earnings substantially higher, thus the
trailing PE is liable to be inaccurate.

As to ADV, the issue is only 3.1 mil, don't know what the float is,
but funds reported already owning 20% of that. Thus you may only have
500K to 800K shares actually freely trading, so an ADV of 1400 doesn't
strike me as unusual. It does mean a severe lack of liquidity,
however. If a lot of the new buyers over the past two weeks decide to
bail, it could quickly drop back to $12.

Tom W

- -----Original Message-----
From: Dean Edwards <d_edwa00@ihug.co.nz>
To: canslim@mail.xmission.com <canslim@mail.xmission.com>
Date: Tuesday, April 21, 1998 9:08 AM
Subject: [CANSLIM] PUBO


I would like opinions PUBO
EPS 88
RS   91
Shares 3.1M
Accumulation A
PE 6
Funds 20%

My own opinion:

The negative is the volume which is low to non existent
Average volume 1,400
Volume last 14,900

The positive is the book value or the cash per share the company is
sitting
on:

Book Value per share $11.71
            Earnings (ttm) $1.37
            Sales (ttm) $13.34
            Cash per share $9.72


52-Week Low $7.75
            Recent Price $15.25
            52-Week High $15.50






- -

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 13:30:52 GMT
From: musicant@autobahn.org (Dan Musicant)
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] IBM

Right you are, Tom. And the Nasdaq CME futures contracts at market
open point very sharply up.

Dan

On Tue, 21 Apr 1998 00:21:23 -0400, you wrote:

:FWIW, NASDAQ100 futures at 12:15AM east coast time are up two pts,
:which doesn't suggest a selloff on tech stocks at this time.
:
:Tom W
:
:-----Original Message-----
:From: Dan Musicant <musicant@autobahn.org>
:To: canslim@lists.xmission.com <canslim@lists.xmission.com>
:Date: Tuesday, April 21, 1998 12:06 AM
:Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] IBM
:
:
:You mean 111-ish, no doubt. Yea, I don't know. I just saw the report
:on PBS. I never know what these things mean. Lots of times CO's report
:lower earnings, but if it beats estimates, the result is positive.
:However, my impression from the report (I know, it WAS on TV), was one
:of some foreboding. Did the stock really climb in after hours trading?
:Or was that pre-close trading? I believe the report on/by IBM was
:after hours.
:
:Obviously, IBM's report doesn't have the clout of an Intel. I guess
:people figure, as Intel goes, so goes the sector. IBM? Not.
:
:Dan
:
:On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 20:26:28 -0700, you wrote:
:
::At 03:11 AM 4/21/98 GMT, you wrote:
::>A note: Tech stock owners and buyers take note that IBM posted poor
::>quarterly results after hours today (Monday) -- their PC sales were
::>well down, I believe. Could be a down day on the Nasdaq Tuesday.
::>
::>Dan
::
:
:
:
:-


- -

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 06:41:24 -0700
From: Tim Fisher <tfish@spiritone.com>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] OVID

The data I have has insiders at 56% and institutions at 14%. Also they have
done horribly the last 2 qtrs. Earnings deceleration that looks like they
got flushed down the toilet is not something I'd buy into.

At 10:58 PM 4/20/98 -0400, you wrote:
>This one broke out today here's some info on OVID. I would like to find out
>if the rumors that institutions have been gobbling this one up the past are
>true.
>
>Close: 20 1/2;  Change +1 1/2 (+7.89%) Prev Cls
>Volume 51,000 ADV 35,409
>Day's Range 18 7/8 - 20 1/2  Bid  20 Ask 20 1/2
>52-week Range 7 - 20
>
>IBD EPS=8 (ouch);  RS-95; Acc/Dis =A
>MF & OBV uptrending; Vol/Accumulation=positive buying;
>March 10 - Upgraded by Hambrecht & Quist
>Next Earnings Announcement: April 24, 1998
>
> Zacks Consensus Moderate Buy
> Qtr EPS Estimate NA  FY EPS Estimate $0.47
> P/E on FY EPS Est. 40.90
> Dividend Yield 0.00%
> Market Cap 116.0 Mil
> Shares Outstanding 6.1 Mil
> Daily Vol (13 wk avg) 38,700.0
> Institutional Ownership 16.90%
> Beta 1.8
> Short Interest Shares 6,730
>
>Companies with Competing Products :
>Access Health  CompuServe  Dataware Technologies
>Excalibur Technologies  Fulcrum Technologies  Healtheon
>Infonautics  OneSource  Primark  Prodigy  Reed Elsevier  Telescan
>Verity
>
>Industry:COMP-SERVICES
>Ranked 41 of 101
>
>James Adams......................Maysville, KY  USA
>http://www.cris.com/~jimadams/
>Internet Pager  1343361@pager.mirabilis.com
>
Tim Fisher, 1995 President, Pacific Fishery Biologists
Ore-ROCK-On Rockhounding Web Site
PFB Information
tfish@spiritone.com
WWW http://www.spiritone.com/~tfish -- See naked fish and rocks!


- -

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 06:41:22 -0700
From: Tim Fisher <tfish@spiritone.com>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] APCO

Hmmm, insiders 15% institutions 16%, NO debt, 18% ROI, looks like a winner.
No history (must have went public 5 qtrs ago?) so it doesn't make my scan,
guess I pay the price for using a freebie database.

At 11:26 PM 4/20/98 -0400, you wrote:
>APCO Automobile Protection Corportation
>
>IBD #s  88/98/A
>OBV/MF Positively following latest price increases.
>Zacks Recommendation = Strong Buy 1.0
>Next Earnings (Approx.): 24-Apr-98
>Earnings Estimates    Qtr(3/98)    Qtr(6/98)    FY(12/98)    FY(12/99)  
>Average Estimate        $0.08        $0.11          $0.42           $0.51  
>Year Ago EPS    $0.05    $0.08    $0.34    $0.42  
>Growth Rate    53.33%    37.50%    22.55%    22.40%  
>Zack's Industry: BUSINESS SERVI 
>
>P/E 39.80    Market Cap. 151.5 Mil  # Shares Out. 10.9 Mil 
>Dividend/Share 0.00  Exchange NASDAQ 
> 
>
>James Adams......................Maysville, KY  USA
>http://www.cris.com/~jimadams/
>Internet Pager  1343361@pager.mirabilis.com
>
>
>-
>
>
>
Tim Fisher, 1995 President, Pacific Fishery Biologists
Ore-ROCK-On Rockhounding Web Site
PFB Information
tfish@spiritone.com
WWW http://www.spiritone.com/~tfish -- See naked fish and rocks!


- -

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 09:45:27 -0400
From: "Tom Worley" <stkguru@netside.net>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] APCO

Nah, they've been public for years, went thru a period where they were
a real penny stock, don't recall if they were ever delisted from
NASDAQ or not, or if they may have done a reverse split to maintain
listing. Not a company I trust because of the business they're in
(automotive extended warranties), I got burned by a competitor who was
doing the same kind of cute accounting that eventually got APCO
burned.

Tom W

- -----Original Message-----
From: Tim Fisher <tfish@spiritone.com>
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com <canslim@lists.xmission.com>
Date: Tuesday, April 21, 1998 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] APCO


>Hmmm, insiders 15% institutions 16%, NO debt, 18% ROI, looks like a
winner.
>No history (must have went public 5 qtrs ago?) so it doesn't make my
scan,
>guess I pay the price for using a freebie database.
>
>At 11:26 PM 4/20/98 -0400, you wrote:
>>APCO Automobile Protection Corportation
>>
>>IBD #s  88/98/A
>>OBV/MF Positively following latest price increases.
>>Zacks Recommendation = Strong Buy 1.0
>>Next Earnings (Approx.): 24-Apr-98
>>Earnings Estimates    Qtr(3/98)    Qtr(6/98)    FY(12/98)
FY(12/99)
>>Average Estimate        $0.08        $0.11          $0.42
$0.51
>>Year Ago EPS    $0.05    $0.08    $0.34    $0.42
>>Growth Rate    53.33%    37.50%    22.55%    22.40%
>>Zack's Industry: BUSINESS SERVI
>>
>>P/E 39.80    Market Cap. 151.5 Mil  # Shares Out. 10.9 Mil
>>Dividend/Share 0.00  Exchange NASDAQ
>>
>>
>>James Adams......................Maysville, KY  USA
>>http://www.cris.com/~jimadams/
>>Internet Pager  1343361@pager.mirabilis.com
>>
>>
>>-
>>
>>
>>
>Tim Fisher, 1995 President, Pacific Fishery Biologists
>Ore-ROCK-On Rockhounding Web Site
>PFB Information
>tfish@spiritone.com
>WWW http://www.spiritone.com/~tfish -- See naked fish and rocks!
>
>
>-
>


- -

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 15:45:31 +0200
From: Johan Van Houtven <Johan.VanHoutven@ping.be>
Subject: [CANSLIM] DELL might breakout today, getting close!

DELL 71 3/4 x 71 7/8 on nice vol at the opening.



- --- Johan Van Houtven



- -

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 10:22:09 -0400
From: "James Adams" <jimadams@may-uky.campus.mci.net>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] EAT, ZOMX (was Some additions to my watch list)

Tom, apparently the market wasn't crazy about ZOMX's report. Down 5/8 on
better than average volumn.
James Adams......................Maysville, KY  USA
http://www.cris.com/~jimadams/
Internet Pager  1343361@pager.mirabilis.com


- -

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 10:20:46 -0400
From: "James Adams" <jimadams@may-uky.campus.mci.net>
Subject: [CANSLIM] NEWP

Anyone following NEWP (Newport Corporation)?
95/85/A
Reported good earnings and revenue yesterday. They appear to be attempting
to break out of a short base. At 10:20 EDT  20-20 1/8, up 1.00, vol 50% of
ADV

James Adams......................Maysville, KY  USA
http://www.cris.com/~jimadams/
Internet Pager  1343361@pager.mirabilis.com


- -

------------------------------

End of canslim-digest V2 #201
*****************************

 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.