From: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com (canslim-digest) To: canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: canslim-digest V2 #203 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 203 In this issue: [CANSLIM] Re: Larry Re: [CANSLIM] imrs [CANSLIM] "M" [CANSLIM] EPIQ - ProForma [CANSLIM] Your Weekend Review Re: [CANSLIM] NVAL Re: [CANSLIM] hibb [CANSLIM] Re: ADSL (Was BELF) Re: [CANSLIM] "M" re: [CANSLIM] "M" Re: [CANSLIM] Re: ADSL (Was BELF) [CANSLIM] Is CANSLIM quantifiable? Re: [CANSLIM] EPIQ - ProForma Re: [CANSLIM] "M" Re: [CANSLIM] Is CANSLIM quantifiable? re: [CANSLIM] "M" Re: [CANSLIM] Your Weekend Review Re: [CANSLIM] Graphs in HTMMIS Re: [CANSLIM] Is CANSLIM quantifiable? Re: [CANSLIM] Is CANSLIM quantifiable? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 17:12:53 -0700 (PDT) From: dbphoenix Subject: [CANSLIM] Re: Larry <> There are several ways of going about this. You're using a "bottom-up" approach, screening for fundies first, then looking at the chart. You can also follow a bottom-up approach by reversing the order (a "top-down" approach would start with the group fundies and/or chart). In other words, you can look for chart patterns you like, then see if the fundies are acceptable. The danger here for a newbie is making the fundies look better than they really are because you like the chart so much. If you're experienced, this is not necessarily a bad thing, particularly in market environments such as this one in which fundies are to a large extent suspended. (There's also a danger in buying a bad chart because you like the fundies.) Instead of loosening your criteria, why don't you take a break and thumb through charts? Once you've found some you like, then do the fundie research. That's what takes the most time anyway, unless you let the computer do it. I've mislaid your original post, so I don't remember what you were doing for fundie scanning. If you haven't already done so, try the Advanced Screen at dailystocks.com. It's the most comprehensive I've found on the web. You can try all sorts of combinations of fundie criteria in rapid fashion. If you want to know what the EPS and RS are without fooling around with IBD or DG, go to the delphi.com site and sign up for it (it's free). A member posts lists of stocks that meet minimum RS and EPS levels on a weekly basis. There's no fast way to thumb through charts on the net, but if you buy Murphy's The Visual Investor (which you ought to do anyway), you'll get free charting software with it. If you then subscribe to a data service (such as DialData), you'll have all the charts your little heart desires. <> Whether it's a reasonable sell criterion or not depends on what you want. For Connie, it might be perfect. For you, it might be the worst thing you could do. Picking up bits and pieces of information here and there and trying them on for size is perfectly OK. But when developing an investment philosophy and style, make sure you know the style and timeframe of the person you're borrowing from. An intermediate-term trader isn't going to be interested in the same stop strategies as a daytrader. A short-term investor isn't going to be interested in the same trendlines as a long-term investor. The indicators you use, the trendlines you look at, the patterns you select, the stops you place are all a result of your goals, your timeframe, how much time and effort you have to devote to this, your risk level, the amount of discipline you've acquired, the quality and immediacy of information that's available to you, how you feel about investing in general, who you're responsible for. By all means, listen to everybody, but pick and choose very carefully what you adopt to use in the management of your money. - --Db _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 20:55:00 -0400 From: "Tony Austin" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] imrs Stochastics and time segmented volume are indicating and overbought condition, however, there has been selling pressure for the past 3 weeks and the stock held up through the selling, could be a bullish sign. Returning volume and a break above 29 1/2 could be viewed as a by signal. Tony - ---------- > From: David S. Pinhasik > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > Subject: [CANSLIM] imrs > Date: Monday, April 20, 1998 2:02 PM > > I would like to hear your opinions on Information Management. EPS 99 RS 98 > Annual growth rate 126% with very good stability rank of 16. Last 4 qtrs are > up 150% 250% 233% and 333%.Funds 36% U/D 1.4 EPS is due 5/7. Is there a base > here? Is it extended? > > TIA, > > David > > > - > - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 21:21:16 -0400 From: Jeffry White <"postwhit@sover.net"@sover.net> Subject: [CANSLIM] "M" To All: I need a little reality check. Is it my focus on the internet stocks of late as short candidates that has heightened my awareness, or are we seeing something like this: "When the forgotten old dogs begin to bark and raise up out of the grave and spearhead the market advance, the stock market is on its last feeble leg. Watch out. "Many times this will show up in the form of poor quality stocks dominating the most active list on "up" days in the market....." HTTMIS, p. 64. Now, as all know, I've been seeing potential tops in the indices since March (twice now), and each time, I've posted that a signal made me fairly comfortable that a "failed rally attempt" was not going to materialize. Sentiment makes me uncomfortable here, and I'll look for even more bulls this week. I see leaders of some comfort, and I haven't seen classic "distribution days" on this couple week old leg up, but I'm really seeing something different in these penny stock types doing moon shots and stocks that are trading on air is not something we've seen in quite some time. Anybody offer me some feedback, straighten me out, give me some comfort here. The last thing I want is my head in the game "figuring out" the "M", but something's different. Is it my head, or am I seeing something different? Please, and thanks. jeffry - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 21:49:02 -0400 From: "James Adams" Subject: [CANSLIM] EPIQ - ProForma Tom and others. EPIQ, which has been mentioned here before, released earnings after the bell which at first glance seems to be outstanding. However, the comparisons are on a "ProForma" basis. Can someone help me understand what this means? TIA, James Adams......................Maysville, KY USA http://www.cris.com/~jimadams/ Internet Pager 1343361@pager.mirabilis.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 22:03:08 -0400 From: Larry Horn Subject: [CANSLIM] Your Weekend Review Frank Wolynski said he would be interested in seeing a web page with the = stocks I pull from "Your Weekend Review". I'm sure most of you know = "Your Weekend Review" is listed every Friday in IBD and lists all stocks = above $7, within 15% of the 52 week high, with EPS and RS =3D> 85, and = it is ranked by group strength. The stocks I take from "Your Weekend = Review" have A/D=3DA or B, a rank of A-, A, or A+ for the highest = performing mutual fund with a large investment in the stock, and Group = Strength=3DA. I then get Shares Outstanding, Float and ROE from Yahoo!. = And for some of the stocks, I get %Institution from Waterhouse. I thought this might be helpful for people that don't have better = screening tools. Each week lists about 120 stocks. 120 is too many for = me to think about but you can copy and paste them into your spreadsheet = or database, and then sort them however you like. Unfortunately, I don't = know how to make a site that allows you to sort on it. But if others = find this useful, perhaps another member who is better at html can copy = the data from my site and make a better site. The web site is www.duke.edu/~clhorn/canslim Larry - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 22:44:21 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] NVAL I'm not saying the insiders were, per se, buying on the basis of "inside" information on how well the company was doing since I haven't researched the co to see what, if any, info was then publicly available. Obviously tho, you don't want to own stock in any company that does not closely scrutinize and restrict their insiders trading in company stock since they might be selling ahead of publicly released bad news. This not only screws the shareholders, it is a virtual guarantee of a future class action lawsuit. The main point I was trying to make on NVAL was that using insider buying as any part of a fresh buy decision was too late. Insiders were buying at a price equal to about 60% of the current price. Personally, insider buys and sells is not even considered in my buy and sell decision making. Tom W - -----Original Message----- From: James Adams To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Date: Tuesday, April 21, 1998 3:23 PM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] NVAL >From: Tom Worley > > >>Yeah, and those insiders were buying towards the end of an 8 week base >>at 5.50. The stock is now 8.50, 20% extended from the closest base, >>and it's only a 2 week base at that. Not my cup of tea, esp with the >>possibility of insiders trading on non-public info. > > >Tom, tell more about why this "insiders trading on non-public info" is >particularly bad. I might put too much emphasis on insider buying as well as >not understand the nuances such as you've mentioned. > >James Adams......................Maysville, KY USA >http://www.cris.com/~jimadams/ >Internet Pager 1343361@pager.mirabilis.com > > >- > - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 22:48:40 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] hibb Patrick, to tell you the truth, I'm sure that for every "rule" someone can find the exception. Lately in this group, it seems that every time I express an opinion, someone is jumping in to argue the point or disagree with it, so I'm just going to shut up. It's time to pass the baton, so consider it passed to whoever whats it. My statement was "I don't like ...". It's MY OPINION, based on MY EXPERIENCE. It's just like my cautionary comment this morning on ZOMX, which turned out in that case to be accurate. Tom W - -----Original Message----- From: Patrick Wahl To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Date: Tuesday, April 21, 1998 4:09 PM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] hibb > From: "Tom Worley" > To: > Nice 7 week base around 27, way too extended not at 35. I don't like > non-standard fiscal years (this one ends Jan). Looks like they had a I don't see how when the fiscal year ends has any pertinence to whether or not a stock might be a good buy. Cisco has some oddball earnings schedule, that stock has done quite well. - - - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 22:16:23 -0500 From: Dave Cameron Subject: [CANSLIM] Re: ADSL (Was BELF) Bill wrote: > > ADSL is nothing more than warmed over ISDN with the major difference being > is that at the Central Office (CO) the ISP doesn't use existing switching > equipment to compete with voice services. New switches are added at the COs > and theirin lies the rub - they are at the mercy of the telcos for access > and floor space. Not necessarily, a number of RBOC (Regional Bell Operating Companies) are putting big investment into ADSL... > > Most TV cable plant in existance can't support cable modems and need an > upgrade, so its not something that can be retroffited at will. > > Best bet and lowest cost at this time are a couple of POTS lines with modem > teaming, ie two 56K modems hitting the same ISP. See above. I live in an area where cable access is available, and ADSL is coming soon. However, I'm sticking to POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) because its 1/3 the price. Dave Cameron > > Bill-->> > ---------------------------- > > At 11:56 AM -0400 4/19/98, Frank V. Wolynski wrote: > >I couldn't agree more! ADSL has been promised and forcast for almost 2 > >years. ISDN is too costly and very regulated. Time Warner is installing > >cable modem technology quicker than Cendant can plow the earth to plant > >those weeds in a corn field! > > > >I believe the first forcast I can remember came from Paradyne Corp with a > >news release almost 1 1/2 years ago. It was going to revolutionize the > >online world! > >Good bye modems! > > > >So far, my USR 56k and Hayes are saved from being junked! > > > >Frank Wolynski > > > >At 07:09 4/19/98 -0700, Tim Fisher wrote: > >>>From the viewpoint of a computerhead who follows the hype about ISDN, ADSL, > >>etc. regularly, I would take anyone's projections of ADSL use in this > >>country and throw them right into the shredder. ADSL has an installed base > >>of almost ZERO users at the current time, ISDN has a few tens of thousands, > >>and 56k modems number in the hundreds of thousands. Plus, cable modem > >>services are spring up like weeds in a cornfield in the past few months. If > >>I had to pick one technology that was dead before it left the nest, I'd pick > >>ADSL. IMHO. > >> > >>At 01:04 PM 4/19/98 +0200, you wrote: > >>>Hi John, > >>> > >>>interesting list and a couple weeks ago I stumbled on this piece of news > >>>from investools on belf... > >>> > >>>Undervalued 3Com Supplier Set To Shine In 1999 (BELF) > >>>Friday, March 27, 1998 > >>> > >>>"Bel-Fuse's (BELF) opportunity to see significant demand > >>>from its ADSL (Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line) products > >>>is tremendous," Jonathan Steinberg says about the electronic > >>>components supplier. "Jupiter Communications, a research > >>>company, forecasts that ADSL technology will provide fast- > >>>access Internet services to 3.4 million homes by 2002. This > >>>means that 1999 could be an excellent year for Bel-Fuse as > >>>it ramps up production of ADSL products. The tail end of > >>>1998 could be significant as well." > >>> > >>>But the real story remains Bel-Fuse's valuation. As > >>>Steinberg noted in his March issue, when he first > >>>recommended the stock: "not many technology companies grow > >>>at 15% to 20% a year and trade at seven times 1997 EBITDA > >>>(Earnings Before Interest Taxes Depreciation Amortization, > >>>otherwise known as cash flow). The company also trades at > >>>1.15 times its 1997 sales, 13 times its 1997 earnings and > >>>11.6 times (the newsletter's) very conservative estimate for > >>>fiscal 1998 of $2.00 per share." > >>> > >>>In his April issue, Steinberg reiterates his buy > >>>recommendation with a price target of $30 per share, or 15 > >>>times its fiscal 1998 estimate. > >>> > >>>For more on Jonathan Steinberg's recommendation see > >>>"Bel-Fuse," April 1998, Individual Investor's Special > >>>Situations Report. Jonathan Steinberg provides one > >>>undervalued stock per month poised for substantial growth > >>>and profit. > >>> > >>>bye, > >>>Alexander Herrmann eMail: alex@who.net > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: John Nogueira (mssm2000) > >>>> To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > >>>> Date: Friday, April 17, 1998 12:54 AM > >>>> Subject: [CANSLIM] My watch list > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >Only the following factors were considered in making this CANSLIM > >>>> watch > >>>> >list: > >>>> > > >>>> >EPS, RS, Chart, Shares > >>>> > > >>>> >Symbol EPS RS Chart Avg. Vol. Pivot? > >>>> >------ --- -- ----- --------- ------ > >>>> >mtxc 96 97 Tight Base 24,700 $28 > >>>> >astx 99 86 Base (cup w/handle?) 110,600 $17 > >>>> >belf 97 93 Short Base 40,700 $27 1/2 > >>>> >nsit 97 87 Long Base 49,700 $43 > >>>> >fdpc 96 86 Short Base 17,000 $13 7/8 > >>>> >grdg 95 93 Short Base 135,200 $22 1/2 > >>>> > > >>>> >Should any breakouts occur, please do your homework before > >>>> purchasing. > >>>> >Also note that my readings of the pivot points may differ from yours. > >>> > >>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 23:23:31 -0400 From: Craig Griffin Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] "M" Jeffrey, I agree the internet stocks are going nuts. No reason to alot of it. But I would not short a mania personally, these things could go a lot higher before reason takes over. I have minimal shorting experience, but in a bull market like this one, I would at least want to see a downtrend (stock trading below the 50 dma and bouncing off of it from the underside is my ideal case). DELL and IBM both broke out today - regardless of sentiment, Internet mania, and significant overvaluation - the leaders of this market are intact at the moment. (CSCO hit a new high, MSFT treaded water, as did YHOO, PFE gapped up again and pulled back all day ... climactic?). At 09:21 PM 4/21/98 -0400, you wrote: >To All: > >I need a little reality check. Is it my focus on the internet stocks of >late as short candidates that has heightened my awareness, or are we >seeing something like this: > >"When the forgotten old dogs begin to bark and raise up out of the grave >and spearhead the market advance, the stock market is on its last feeble >leg. Watch out. There is a bit of this going on, no doubt, worth keeping an eye on. Here are some examples: DBCC, ASFT, PQT. > >"Many times this will show up in the form of poor quality stocks >dominating the most active list on "up" days in the market....." Doesn't seem to be the case. >>... but I'm >really seeing something different in these penny stock types doing moon >shots and stocks that are trading on air is not something we've seen in >quite some time. Doesn't look healthy. Exhuberance needs wringing out. But could last a while longer. Volume on the NASDAQ is unreal. Remember, the old saw "the trend is your friend". I am staying long until some more definite signs (like distribution, etc.) come in. Hopefully prices will flatten out here and a few of the excesses will be taken out. Thanks for helping to keep us alert. Seems ok for now (we will see what tomorrow brings). I am a growing increasingly worried about the coming hangover. Best regards, Craig - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 23:28:05 -0400 From: Michael A Langston Subject: re: [CANSLIM] "M" jeffry white writes: > need a little reality check...on the internet stocks...offer > me some feedback, straighten me out, give me some comfort speculation, froth, mania -- pick your euphemism -- frequently a precursor to a market top for small, high-growth stocks -- the NDX may be ok, but this could spell short-term trouble, especially for the RUT -- just my two cents -- mike langston - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 22:29:47 -0500 (CDT) From: "Jason P. Butler" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Re: ADSL (Was BELF) On Tue, 21 Apr 1998, Dave Cameron wrote: > Bill wrote: > > > > ADSL is nothing more than warmed over ISDN with the major difference being > > is that at the Central Office (CO) the ISP doesn't use existing switching > > equipment to compete with voice services. New switches are added at the COs > > and theirin lies the rub - they are at the mercy of the telcos for access > > and floor space. > > Not necessarily, a number of RBOC (Regional Bell Operating Companies) are > putting big investment into ADSL... ADSL is alot better than ISDN. Also, no need to have special phone lines installed. Works over standard copper twisted-pair. > > > > > Most TV cable plant in existance can't support cable modems and need an > > upgrade, so its not something that can be retroffited at will. > > > > Best bet and lowest cost at this time are a couple of POTS lines with modem > > teaming, ie two 56K modems hitting the same ISP. > > See above. I live in an area where cable access is available, and ADSL > is coming soon. However, I'm sticking to POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) > because its 1/3 the price. Cable modem's with service run about $40 a month. This is about the same as an extra phone line for the internet access and the cost of getting an ISP. Once the company's get the upgrade (which they are doing lots of places), it'll explode. > > Dave Cameron > > > > > Bill-->> > > ---------------------------- > > > > At 11:56 AM -0400 4/19/98, Frank V. Wolynski wrote: > > >I couldn't agree more! ADSL has been promised and forcast for almost 2 > > >years. ISDN is too costly and very regulated. Time Warner is installing > > >cable modem technology quicker than Cendant can plow the earth to plant > > >those weeds in a corn field! > > > > > >I believe the first forcast I can remember came from Paradyne Corp with a > > >news release almost 1 1/2 years ago. It was going to revolutionize the > > >online world! > > >Good bye modems! > > > > > >So far, my USR 56k and Hayes are saved from being junked! > > > > > >Frank Wolynski > > > > > >At 07:09 4/19/98 -0700, Tim Fisher wrote: > > >>>From the viewpoint of a computerhead who follows the hype about ISDN, ADSL, > > >>etc. regularly, I would take anyone's projections of ADSL use in this > > >>country and throw them right into the shredder. ADSL has an installed base > > >>of almost ZERO users at the current time, ISDN has a few tens of thousands, > > >>and 56k modems number in the hundreds of thousands. Plus, cable modem > > >>services are spring up like weeds in a cornfield in the past few months. If > > >>I had to pick one technology that was dead before it left the nest, I'd pick > > >>ADSL. IMHO. > > >> > > >>At 01:04 PM 4/19/98 +0200, you wrote: > > >>>Hi John, > > >>> > > >>>interesting list and a couple weeks ago I stumbled on this piece of news > > >>>from investools on belf... > > >>> > > >>>Undervalued 3Com Supplier Set To Shine In 1999 (BELF) > > >>>Friday, March 27, 1998 > > >>> > > >>>"Bel-Fuse's (BELF) opportunity to see significant demand > > >>>from its ADSL (Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line) products > > >>>is tremendous," Jonathan Steinberg says about the electronic > > >>>components supplier. "Jupiter Communications, a research > > >>>company, forecasts that ADSL technology will provide fast- > > >>>access Internet services to 3.4 million homes by 2002. This > > >>>means that 1999 could be an excellent year for Bel-Fuse as > > >>>it ramps up production of ADSL products. The tail end of > > >>>1998 could be significant as well." > > >>> > > >>>But the real story remains Bel-Fuse's valuation. As > > >>>Steinberg noted in his March issue, when he first > > >>>recommended the stock: "not many technology companies grow > > >>>at 15% to 20% a year and trade at seven times 1997 EBITDA > > >>>(Earnings Before Interest Taxes Depreciation Amortization, > > >>>otherwise known as cash flow). The company also trades at > > >>>1.15 times its 1997 sales, 13 times its 1997 earnings and > > >>>11.6 times (the newsletter's) very conservative estimate for > > >>>fiscal 1998 of $2.00 per share." > > >>> > > >>>In his April issue, Steinberg reiterates his buy > > >>>recommendation with a price target of $30 per share, or 15 > > >>>times its fiscal 1998 estimate. > > >>> > > >>>For more on Jonathan Steinberg's recommendation see > > >>>"Bel-Fuse," April 1998, Individual Investor's Special > > >>>Situations Report. Jonathan Steinberg provides one > > >>>undervalued stock per month poised for substantial growth > > >>>and profit. > > >>> > > >>>bye, > > >>>Alexander Herrmann eMail: alex@who.net > > >>> > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > >>>> From: John Nogueira (mssm2000) > > >>>> To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > > >>>> Date: Friday, April 17, 1998 12:54 AM > > >>>> Subject: [CANSLIM] My watch list > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> >Only the following factors were considered in making this CANSLIM > > >>>> watch > > >>>> >list: > > >>>> > > > >>>> >EPS, RS, Chart, Shares > > >>>> > > > >>>> >Symbol EPS RS Chart Avg. Vol. Pivot? > > >>>> >------ --- -- ----- --------- ------ > > >>>> >mtxc 96 97 Tight Base 24,700 $28 > > >>>> >astx 99 86 Base (cup w/handle?) 110,600 $17 > > >>>> >belf 97 93 Short Base 40,700 $27 1/2 > > >>>> >nsit 97 87 Long Base 49,700 $43 > > >>>> >fdpc 96 86 Short Base 17,000 $13 7/8 > > >>>> >grdg 95 93 Short Base 135,200 $22 1/2 > > >>>> > > > >>>> >Should any breakouts occur, please do your homework before > > >>>> purchasing. > > >>>> >Also note that my readings of the pivot points may differ from yours. > > >>> > > >>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 23:30:29 -0400 From: Paul Altman Subject: [CANSLIM] Is CANSLIM quantifiable? Hi CANSLIM Folks: I'm somewhat new to the list, so please forgive me if I've missed a similar thread... I was originally electrified by reading WON's book. I had fantasies of boldly ignoring the "prevailing wisdom", and making returns of 100% annually, as some of WON's associates seemed to do. I subscribed to IBD and pored over it every night and weekend, looking for patterns and substantiation of WON's ideas. For awhile, I was living under stacks of old IBD's and tables of manually entered data. I finally came to the conclusion that I simply would never muster the stomach to take CANSLIM-style risks, because I couldn't prove to myself that CANSLIM had a reasonable chance of being profitable. Yes, the CANSLIM ideas are common-sense, and therefore appealing, but without a database to objectively backtest on, I just couldn't convince myself to risk real money. Of course, I approached IBD several times and complained of the lack of electronic historical data, but they didn't seem interested in distributing. I suppose it's because they have a profitable consulting business, and they don't want to dilute that business. But I was left with the distinct impression that WON had gotten me very excited about playing a game that he wasn't really prepared to share with me. After all, WON is definitely a computerized type of guy! Although he was pleading with me to ignore the "conventional wisdom" and think and test out ideas for myself, he was depriving me of the ability to follow that advice when it came to thinking about CANSLIM. Don't get me wrong. I have a lot of respect for WON, and I've learned a lot from him. I just don't see how I can comfortably risk money on CANSLIM. I'm sure these sentiments are not news to anybody on this list. I'm just curious as to how others have made their peace with them. I suppose some of you are "discretionary" CANSLIM players, but I don't have the stomach for that. I'm a "boring", computerized, system-trading type of guy. In summary, I'd really like to play CANSLIM, and I've put a lot of time into thinking about CANSLIM, but I think I'd need a database to play off of. Ironically, that's obviously how WON feels about his own risk capital, too. Any comments or referrals to substitute databases much appreciated. Thanks, Paul - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 23:51:28 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] EPIQ - ProForma During the Q1 of 1997, EPIQ went public. Prior to going public, it was a sub-chapter S corp (in which the owners take the profits according to their share of ownership and are taxed at personal tax rates as opposed to the corp keeping the profits as is the case now and being taxed at the higher corp tax rate). Thus, the results for Q1, 1997 are on a pro forma basis since part of the qtr was as a sub chapter S corp. This is entirely appropriate and correctly done, as far as I can see. All the "pro forma" means in this case is that this would have been the actual results had the company been a publicly owned corp for the entire qtr. Tom W - -----Original Message----- From: James Adams To: Canslim Date: Tuesday, April 21, 1998 9:52 PM Subject: [CANSLIM] EPIQ - ProForma >Tom and others. >EPIQ, which has been mentioned here before, released earnings after the bell >which at first glance seems to be outstanding. However, the comparisons are >on a "ProForma" basis. Can someone help me understand what this means? >TIA, > >James Adams......................Maysville, KY USA >http://www.cris.com/~jimadams/ >Internet Pager 1343361@pager.mirabilis.com > > >- > - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 23:52:43 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] "M" Glad to see ya back, Mike. Tom W - -----Original Message----- From: Michael A Langston To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Date: Tuesday, April 21, 1998 11:26 PM Subject: re: [CANSLIM] "M" >jeffry white writes: > >> need a little reality check...on the internet stocks...offer >> me some feedback, straighten me out, give me some comfort > >speculation, froth, mania -- pick your euphemism -- frequently >a precursor to a market top for small, high-growth stocks -- >the NDX may be ok, but this could spell short-term trouble, >especially for the RUT -- just my two cents -- mike langston > > >- > - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 00:04:23 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Is CANSLIM quantifiable? Paul, over several decades, I've tried lots of different strategies for investing. I've spent thousands of dollars subscribing to various periodicals, newsletters, "systems", etc. and have found what works best for me is my "interpretation/application" of CANSLIM. Over the past six months, which is the first period in which I have stuck to nothing but CANSLIM exclusively, my IRA went from about $3500 to yesterday at just over $11,700 while my margin acct (allowing for money I withdrew to pay bills) went from about $6000 to just over $10,000. Many investors new to CANSLIM chose to "paper trade" for a year or more, till both their understanding has increased, and they have confidence that it works. As far as I am concerned, there is far too much "subjective" decision making involved to ever "computerize" it. If this was the case, we would just hand over the check book to our PCs and let it do all the work (and there is work involved if you want it to work). Some of the present members of this group have tried some back testing, I don't recall the results offhand, but perhaps others may be able to share this. But for me, I am satisfied knowing it works for me. That's my ultimate backtest. CANSLIM is not for everyone. The people at O'Neill's shop recognize that, and are not out to convert all to this philosophy, so I guess I am not surprised they were of little help in proving it works. Tom W - -----Original Message----- From: Paul Altman To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Date: Tuesday, April 21, 1998 11:32 PM Subject: [CANSLIM] Is CANSLIM quantifiable? >Hi CANSLIM Folks: > >I'm somewhat new to the list, so please forgive me if I've missed a similar >thread... > >I was originally electrified by reading WON's book. I had fantasies of >boldly ignoring the "prevailing wisdom", and making returns of 100% > >I finally came to the conclusion that I simply would never muster the >stomach to take CANSLIM-style risks, because I couldn't prove to myself >that CANSLIM had a reasonable chance of being profitable. Yes, the CANSLIM >ideas are common-sense, and therefore appealing, but without a database to >objectively backtest on, I just couldn't convince myself to risk real money. > - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 00:16:08 -0400 From: Michael A Langston Subject: re: [CANSLIM] "M" > Glad to see ya back, Mike. am still around tom -- this list has surely changed a lot since jeff brought it on line -- keep up the chatter and best wishes with the job hunting -- mike - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 21:34:51 -0700 From: "Robert Venchiarutti" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Your Weekend Review Thanks for the site. Looks like a good place to scout for new prospects. - -----Original Message----- From: Larry Horn To: CANSLIM (E-mail) Date: Tuesday, April 21, 1998 7:04 PM Subject: [CANSLIM] Your Weekend Review Frank Wolynski said he would be interested in seeing a web page with the stocks I pull from "Your Weekend Review". I'm sure most of you know "Your Weekend Review" is listed every Friday in IBD and lists all stocks above $7, within 15% of the 52 week high, with EPS and RS => 85, and it is ranked by group strength. The stocks I take from "Your Weekend Review" have A/D=A or B, a rank of A-, A, or A+ for the highest performing mutual fund with a large investment in the stock, and Group Strength=A. I then get Shares Outstanding, Float and ROE from Yahoo!. And for some of the stocks, I get %Institution from Waterhouse. I thought this might be helpful for people that don't have better screening tools. Each week lists about 120 stocks. 120 is too many for me to think about but you can copy and paste them into your spreadsheet or database, and then sort them however you like. Unfortunately, I don't know how to make a site that allows you to sort on it. But if others find this useful, perhaps another member who is better at html can copy the data from my site and make a better site. The web site is www.duke.edu/~clhorn/canslim Larry - - - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 21:39:47 -0700 From: "Robert Venchiarutti" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Graphs in HTMMIS Please post your findings if you have the chance to examine those charts more closely. - -----Original Message----- From: Eric Boller To: CANSLIM Date: Tuesday, April 21, 1998 2:48 PM Subject: [CANSLIM] Graphs in HTMMIS >Has anyone noticed that most of the stocks shown in O'Neils book on those >three or four pages of stock market winners (The graphs of past winners) >had pretty poor annual growth rates and quarterly growth rates. If you >look closely you can see that alot of them had very little growth at the >point those charts were shown. I didn't do a full count so I'm not sure if >the majority of those didn't exaclty qualify for the C and A part of >CANSLIM. Maybe I'll check tonight. Just a thought. > >Eric > > > >- > > - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 22:04:58 -0800 From: "Patrick Wahl" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Is CANSLIM quantifiable? > Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 23:30:29 -0400 > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > I'm sure these sentiments are not news to anybody on this list. I'm just > curious as to how others have made their peace with them. I suppose some > of you are "discretionary" CANSLIM players, but I don't have the stomach > for that. I'm a "boring", computerized, system-trading type of guy. > I think Telescan may allow you to backtest canslim ideas, can't be sure of that. If you boil it down, basically the idea is, buy fast growing stocks as they emerge from a base, something with a new idea/product (see internet stocks for example), leading industry. This seems to make sense, somewhat dependent on the investors ability to evaluate a business. I suppose I got comfortable with it just by observing market behaviour over a few years and noticing how stocks moved and which ones seemed to move the most. Just curious, how do you currently make decisions to purchase a stock? - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 22:20:41 -0700 From: amiller@almaden.ibm.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Is CANSLIM quantifiable? Paul Altman wrote: > Hi CANSLIM Folks: [... hopes of CANSLIM profits...] > I finally came to the conclusion that I simply would never muster the > stomach to take CANSLIM-style risks, because I couldn't prove to myself > that CANSLIM had a reasonable chance of being profitable. Yes, the CANSLIM > ideas are common-sense, and therefore appealing, but without a database to > objectively backtest on, I just couldn't convince myself to risk real money. Its hard for call CANSLIM a system when it has at least 7 variables, each with considerable degrees of freedom (or interpretation.) I could be pragmatic and say that CANSLIM exists just to sell newspapers, but its the best publicly disclosed approach to the market that I know of. Authors make their living taking two exact datasets (price,time), (volume,time), and turning them into hundreds of sophisticated indicators, when they just averages of one kind or another. I do not consider myself a successful CANSLIM investor, but I would like to become one. There's so much information in IBD, and then I read Barron's and WSJ on the web, and I play with Quotes-Plus demo downloads. I add tickers to my AIQ MarketExpert portfolios and download new quotes from DialData. Other than watching my portfolio a few times a day, I am OVERLOADED with information. Some automated tool that does CANSLIM screening would save me a lot of time, but I understand that WOM doesn't want me to download his database on my machine. I read chapters from books by Edler, Schwager, and Rotella, but the giant technical analysis light bulb in my brain has yet to shine brightly. Except for a few 30..60% wins, most of my results only mimic a mediocre mutual fund, with is pathetic considering how much of my personal time I spend trying to learn. I'm curious to know how many (successful) CANSLIM investors don't bother with data feeds and web sites, and just use the newspaper (and simple charts.) I guess if you're reading this message then you're a computer-type. p.s.: my difficulty in starting CANSLIM was using the CAN_L_M and ignoring the S-stocks too thinly traded and I-stocks with either no or too much sponsorship. Also, since EPS and RELSTR are slow (6 month) averages, a 99/99/A or 99/99/B is most likely yesterday's news. My 7-8% stop orders were too easy to trip on intraday price swings, especially on stocks < $25 -- the high RELSTR stocks move down even faster than they move up and a 20 minute quote delay is like forever. - ---Alex - - ------------------------------ End of canslim-digest V2 #203 ***************************** 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.