From: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com (canslim-digest) To: canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: canslim-digest V2 #2079 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 Thursday, January 24 2002 Volume 02 : Number 2079 In this issue: [CANSLIM] PSFT: Accounting Shenanigans Re: [CANSLIM] Accounting Shenanigans [CANSLIM] Mr. Greenspan's speech Re: [CANSLIM] Mr. Greenspan Re: [CANSLIM] Mr. Greenspan ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 18:17:49 -0600 From: "Katherine Malm" Subject: [CANSLIM] PSFT: Accounting Shenanigans This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_01FC_01C1A503.6DE9AC40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Tom, I have accidentally deleted your last comment on this issue, so = this is a continuation of the discussion. After reading your comments about analysts doing what is expected of = them, trusting the DGO to use diligent researchers, etc, a few thoughts = came to mind. First regards earnings estimates. This is where the analysts are = supposed to do the leg work for us by pouring through the financials, = interviewing the company, etc etc. But this is only *one* piece of = information in the DGO charts and only *one* of many hurdles that a = stock candidate must pass to be considered a buyable candidate under = CANSLIM guidelines. I use the forward growth rate as the single most = important hurdle when considering a candidate. If it doesn't pass = minimum standards, I don't even look at the stock. So far, I've not met = many forecasters who *under* forecast anything, so meeting a minimum = hurdle doesn't lose any candidates. But what it *does* do is let = marginal companies with marginal businesses and high expectations by the = analyst community past the gate. This is the first reason that I think = due diligence is necessary. During this process, I am looking at the = business to see if the estimates pass the test of reasonableness. I = don't take anybody at their word when it comes to forecasting. I've = dealt with too many manufacturing businesses to know better. Second has to do with past fundamentals. When DGO reports, they use the = proforma numbers NOT the GAAP numbers. In other words, they delete all = the one time and extraordinary charges just like everybody else before = they report and calculate the resultant QoQ and YoY growth rates. Every = once in a while, they can't take the extraordinary items out per their = procedure, so they put a little mark next to the numbers to let you know = this. BUT, they don't adjust any of the growth rates as a result. So = here we already have a big discrepancy. I first became keenly aware of = this when I owned JDSU in '99-'00. I'm looking at the GAAP numbers and = seeing red, looking at the proforma numbers and seeing green. Not only = that, but the difference was *huge.* So, again, due diligence and = digging through the 10K's and 10Q's to sniff out the quality of earnings = and revenues is a must in my mind. Also, any shenanigans around balance = sheets would only show up in the ROE numbers reported in DGO and/or in = the cashflow vs. EPS comparisons. When these numbers don't jibe...I'm = off to the 10K's with red pen in hand. In all, this is the very reason = that I do not mine for candidates based on DGO data. I *especially* = don't trust the EPS rankings and I pretty much ignore the SMR in favor = of doing my own assessment of revenues, margins, earnings, ROE and = cashflow. It takes time, but I think in the end it's worth it. It = certainly doesn't mean I'm an expert at it, but at least I've put forth = the effort. In the end, I have only myself to blame and not some 27 year = old kid getting paid $1m/year to have lunch with CEO's. Speaking of which....here's the due diligence blunder of the year... = MCAF...will its lessons never end? After some follow-up discussions here on my MCAF selling blunder, I = wrote to MCAF's IR department asking them exactly how they generated = income from the "Windows XP tie-in" that was so heavily touted about the = time MCAF started its run. This I should have done *while* I was doing = my DD, not in post analysis. Here is the IR reply to my inquiry: My question: It was my understanding that MCAF was the security service of choice = under the Microsoft Windows XP OS, yet a friend of mine recently = purchased a Dell with XP and it came with Symantec's product installed. = How, specifically does the tie in work and how does it generate revenues = for MCAF? Dear Ms Malm: McAfee.com is a tab in the XP version of Windows Instant Messenger. = Windows Messenger has a large community of users and by putting our = services in front of so many users; it will translate to subscribers, = which will translate to revenue. Dell has chosen the Symantec product to bundle on its computers. Regards, Marisa Lewis, Investor Relations Manager Well...I'll mark this one for the "journal of duh", as one of my friends = likes to call it. --Katherine - ------=_NextPart_000_01FC_01C1A503.6DE9AC40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Tom, I have accidentally deleted your last comment on this issue, = so this=20 is a continuation of the discussion.
 
After reading your comments about analysts doing what is expected = of them,=20 trusting the DGO to use diligent researchers, etc, a few thoughts came = to=20 mind.
 
First regards earnings estimates. This is where the analysts are = supposed=20 to do the leg work for us by pouring through the financials, = interviewing the=20 company, etc etc. But this is only *one* piece of information in the DGO = charts=20 and only *one* of many hurdles that a stock candidate must pass to be = considered=20 a buyable candidate under CANSLIM guidelines. I use the forward growth = rate as=20 the single most important hurdle when considering a candidate. If it = doesn't=20 pass minimum standards, I don't even look at the stock. So far, I've not = met=20 many forecasters who *under* forecast anything, so meeting a minimum = hurdle=20 doesn't lose any candidates. But what it *does* do is let marginal = companies=20 with marginal businesses and high expectations by the analyst community = past the=20 gate. This is the first reason that I think due diligence is necessary. = During=20 this process, I am looking at the business to see if the estimates pass = the test=20 of reasonableness. I don't take anybody at their word when it comes to=20 forecasting. I've dealt with too many manufacturing businesses to know=20 better.
 
Second has to do with past fundamentals. When DGO reports, they use = the=20 proforma numbers NOT the GAAP numbers. In other words, they delete all = the one=20 time and extraordinary charges just like everybody else before they = report and=20 calculate the resultant QoQ and YoY growth rates. Every once in a while, = they=20 can't take the extraordinary items out per their procedure, so they put = a little=20 mark next to the numbers to let you know this. BUT, they don't adjust = any of the=20 growth rates as a result. So here we already have a big discrepancy. I = first=20 became keenly aware of this when I owned JDSU in '99-'00. I'm looking at = the=20 GAAP numbers and seeing red, looking at the proforma numbers and seeing = green.=20 Not only that, but the difference was *huge.* So, again, due diligence = and=20 digging through the 10K's and 10Q's to sniff out the quality of earnings = and=20 revenues is a must in my mind. Also, any shenanigans around balance = sheets would=20 only show up in the ROE numbers reported in DGO and/or in the cashflow = vs. EPS=20 comparisons. When these numbers don't jibe...I'm off to the 10K's with = red pen=20 in hand. In all, this is the very reason that I do not mine for = candidates based=20 on DGO data. I *especially* don't trust the EPS rankings and I pretty = much=20 ignore the SMR in favor of doing my own assessment of revenues, margins, = earnings, ROE and cashflow. It takes time, but I think in the end it's = worth it.=20 It certainly doesn't mean I'm an expert at it, but at least I've put = forth the=20 effort. In the end, I have only myself to blame and not some 27 year old = kid=20 getting paid $1m/year to have lunch with CEO's.
 
Speaking of which....here's the due diligence blunder of the = year...=20 MCAF...will its lessons never end?
 
After some follow-up discussions here on my MCAF selling blunder, I = wrote=20 to MCAF's IR department asking them exactly how they generated income = from the=20 "Windows XP tie-in" that was so heavily touted about the time MCAF = started its=20 run. This I should have done *while* I was doing my DD, not in post = analysis.=20 Here is the IR reply to my inquiry:
 
My question:

It was my understanding that = MCAF was the=20 security service of choice under the Microsoft Windows XP OS, yet a = friend of=20 mine recently purchased a Dell with XP and it came with Symantec's = product=20 installed. How, specifically does the tie in work and how does it = generate=20 revenues for MCAF?

 
Dear Ms=20 Malm:

McAfee.com is = a tab in=20 the XP version of Windows Instant Messenger. Windows Messenger has a = large=20 community of users and by putting our services in front of so many = users; it=20 will translate to subscribers, which will translate to=20 revenue.

 Dell has = chosen the=20 Symantec product to bundle on its = computers.

Regards,

Marisa=20 Lewis, Investor=20 Relations Manager

Well...I'll=20 mark this one for the "journal of duh", as one of my friends likes to = call=20 it.  = - --Katherine

- ------=_NextPart_000_01FC_01C1A503.6DE9AC40-- - - - -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: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 19:41:02 -0500 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Accounting Shenanigans This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_00E8_01C1A50F.0DF643A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Katherine, up to a point I agree with you. But I pay a respectable = amount of money for the services (and data) of DGO. If I find that data = is wrong, I complain. I am paying them this money to collect in one = place a lot of data, and I expect it to be correct. It would be different if I was using some free service on the net, then = it's worth just what I am paying, and my responsibility to check the = data. When I look at a DGO chart, and there is no earnings estimates given, I = understand it's going to be my job to do that. But when I see a forecast = there from one or more analysts, I also have the right, IMO, to presume = they (the analysts) did their job correctly, at least in terms of = reading factual material like 10Q/K reports, and news releases. Where I = accept their error is in trying to forecast the future. But the presence = of a forecast, even if it appears too high, should give me assurance I = don't have to go read a stack of historical reports unless I have = questions. Tom Worley stkguru@netside.net AIM: TexWorley ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Katherine Malm=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 7:17 PM Subject: [CANSLIM] PSFT: Accounting Shenanigans Tom, I have accidentally deleted your last comment on this issue, so = this is a continuation of the discussion. After reading your comments about analysts doing what is expected of = them, trusting the DGO to use diligent researchers, etc, a few thoughts = came to mind. First regards earnings estimates. This is where the analysts are = supposed to do the leg work for us by pouring through the financials, = interviewing the company, etc etc. But this is only *one* piece of = information in the DGO charts and only *one* of many hurdles that a = stock candidate must pass to be considered a buyable candidate under = CANSLIM guidelines. I use the forward growth rate as the single most = important hurdle when considering a candidate. If it doesn't pass = minimum standards, I don't even look at the stock. So far, I've not met = many forecasters who *under* forecast anything, so meeting a minimum = hurdle doesn't lose any candidates. But what it *does* do is let = marginal companies with marginal businesses and high expectations by the = analyst community past the gate. This is the first reason that I think = due diligence is necessary. During this process, I am looking at the = business to see if the estimates pass the test of reasonableness. I = don't take anybody at their word when it comes to forecasting. I've = dealt with too many manufacturing businesses to know better. Second has to do with past fundamentals. When DGO reports, they use = the proforma numbers NOT the GAAP numbers. In other words, they delete = all the one time and extraordinary charges just like everybody else = before they report and calculate the resultant QoQ and YoY growth rates. = Every once in a while, they can't take the extraordinary items out per = their procedure, so they put a little mark next to the numbers to let = you know this. BUT, they don't adjust any of the growth rates as a = result. So here we already have a big discrepancy. I first became keenly = aware of this when I owned JDSU in '99-'00. I'm looking at the GAAP = numbers and seeing red, looking at the proforma numbers and seeing = green. Not only that, but the difference was *huge.* So, again, due = diligence and digging through the 10K's and 10Q's to sniff out the = quality of earnings and revenues is a must in my mind. Also, any = shenanigans around balance sheets would only show up in the ROE numbers = reported in DGO and/or in the cashflow vs. EPS comparisons. When these = numbers don't jibe...I'm off to the 10K's with red pen in hand. In all, = this is the very reason that I do not mine for candidates based on DGO = data. I *especially* don't trust the EPS rankings and I pretty much = ignore the SMR in favor of doing my own assessment of revenues, margins, = earnings, ROE and cashflow. It takes time, but I think in the end it's = worth it. It certainly doesn't mean I'm an expert at it, but at least = I've put forth the effort. In the end, I have only myself to blame and = not some 27 year old kid getting paid $1m/year to have lunch with CEO's. Speaking of which....here's the due diligence blunder of the year... = MCAF...will its lessons never end? After some follow-up discussions here on my MCAF selling blunder, I = wrote to MCAF's IR department asking them exactly how they generated = income from the "Windows XP tie-in" that was so heavily touted about the = time MCAF started its run. This I should have done *while* I was doing = my DD, not in post analysis. Here is the IR reply to my inquiry: My question: It was my understanding that MCAF was the security service of choice = under the Microsoft Windows XP OS, yet a friend of mine recently = purchased a Dell with XP and it came with Symantec's product installed. = How, specifically does the tie in work and how does it generate revenues = for MCAF? Dear Ms Malm: McAfee.com is a tab in the XP version of Windows Instant Messenger. = Windows Messenger has a large community of users and by putting our = services in front of so many users; it will translate to subscribers, = which will translate to revenue. Dell has chosen the Symantec product to bundle on its computers. Regards, Marisa Lewis, Investor Relations Manager Well...I'll mark this one for the "journal of duh", as one of my = friends likes to call it. --Katherine - ------=_NextPart_000_00E8_01C1A50F.0DF643A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Katherine, up to a point I agree with you. But I = pay a=20 respectable amount of money for the services (and data) of DGO. If I = find that=20 data is wrong, I complain. I am paying them this money to collect in one = place a=20 lot of data, and I expect it to be correct.
 
It would be different if I was using some free = service on=20 the net, then it's worth just what I am paying, and my responsibility to = check=20 the data.
 
When I look at a DGO chart, and there is no = earnings=20 estimates given, I understand it's going to be my job to do that. But = when I see=20 a forecast there from one or more analysts, I also have the right, IMO, = to=20 presume they (the analysts) did their job correctly, at least in terms = of=20 reading factual material like 10Q/K reports, and news releases. Where I = accept=20 their error is in trying to forecast the future. But the presence of a = forecast,=20 even if it appears too high, should give me assurance I don't have to go = read a=20 stack of historical reports unless I have questions.
 
Tom Worley
stkguru@netside.net
AIM:=20 TexWorley
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Katherine=20 Malm
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=
Sent: Thursday, January 24, = 2002 7:17=20 PM
Subject: [CANSLIM] PSFT: = Accounting=20 Shenanigans

Tom, I have accidentally deleted your last comment on this issue, = so this=20 is a continuation of the discussion.
 
After reading your comments about analysts doing what is expected = of=20 them, trusting the DGO to use diligent researchers, etc, a few = thoughts came=20 to mind.
 
First regards earnings estimates. This is where the analysts are = supposed=20 to do the leg work for us by pouring through the financials, = interviewing the=20 company, etc etc. But this is only *one* piece of information in the = DGO=20 charts and only *one* of many hurdles that a stock candidate must pass = to be=20 considered a buyable candidate under CANSLIM guidelines. I use the = forward=20 growth rate as the single most important hurdle when considering a = candidate.=20 If it doesn't pass minimum standards, I don't even look at the stock. = So far,=20 I've not met many forecasters who *under* forecast anything, so = meeting a=20 minimum hurdle doesn't lose any candidates. But what it *does* do is = let=20 marginal companies with marginal businesses and high expectations by = the=20 analyst community past the gate. This is the first reason that I think = due=20 diligence is necessary. During this process, I am looking at the = business to=20 see if the estimates pass the test of reasonableness. I don't take = anybody at=20 their word when it comes to forecasting. I've dealt with too many=20 manufacturing businesses to know better.
 
Second has to do with past fundamentals. When DGO reports, they = use the=20 proforma numbers NOT the GAAP numbers. In other words, they delete all = the one=20 time and extraordinary charges just like everybody else before they = report and=20 calculate the resultant QoQ and YoY growth rates. Every once in a = while, they=20 can't take the extraordinary items out per their procedure, so they = put a=20 little mark next to the numbers to let you know this. BUT, they don't = adjust=20 any of the growth rates as a result. So here we already have a big=20 discrepancy. I first became keenly aware of this when I owned JDSU in = '99-'00.=20 I'm looking at the GAAP numbers and seeing red, looking at the = proforma=20 numbers and seeing green. Not only that, but the difference was = *huge.* So,=20 again, due diligence and digging through the 10K's and 10Q's to sniff = out the=20 quality of earnings and revenues is a must in my mind. Also, any = shenanigans=20 around balance sheets would only show up in the ROE numbers reported = in DGO=20 and/or in the cashflow vs. EPS comparisons. When these numbers don't=20 jibe...I'm off to the 10K's with red pen in hand. In all, this is the = very=20 reason that I do not mine for candidates based on DGO data. I = *especially*=20 don't trust the EPS rankings and I pretty much ignore the SMR in favor = of=20 doing my own assessment of revenues, margins, earnings, ROE and = cashflow. It=20 takes time, but I think in the end it's worth it. It certainly doesn't = mean=20 I'm an expert at it, but at least I've put forth the effort. In the = end, I=20 have only myself to blame and not some 27 year old kid getting paid = $1m/year=20 to have lunch with CEO's.
 
Speaking of which....here's the due diligence blunder of the = year...=20 MCAF...will its lessons never end?
 
After some follow-up discussions here on my MCAF selling blunder, = I wrote=20 to MCAF's IR department asking them exactly how they generated income = from the=20 "Windows XP tie-in" that was so heavily touted about the time MCAF = started its=20 run. This I should have done *while* I was doing my DD, not in post = analysis.=20 Here is the IR reply to my inquiry:
 
My question:

It was my understanding that = MCAF was the=20 security service of choice under the Microsoft Windows XP OS, yet a = friend of=20 mine recently purchased a Dell with XP and it came with Symantec's = product=20 installed. How, specifically does the tie in work and how does it = generate=20 revenues for MCAF?

 
Dear Ms=20 Malm:

McAfee.com = is a tab=20 in the XP version of Windows Instant Messenger. Windows Messenger has = a large=20 community of users and by putting our services in front of so many = users; it=20 will translate to subscribers, which will translate to=20 revenue.

 Dell has = chosen the=20 Symantec product to bundle on its = computers.

Regards,

Marisa=20 Lewis, Investor=20 Relations Manager

Well...I'll=20 mark this one for the "journal of duh", as one of my friends likes to = call=20 it. =20 - --Katherine

- ------=_NextPart_000_00E8_01C1A50F.0DF643A0-- - - - -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: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 13:31:41 -0500 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: [CANSLIM] Mr. Greenspan's speech This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_00A6_01C1A4DB.75543310 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable For those members trying to get some feel for "M" for the next year, I = suggest you read the entire speech. It is quite interesting, and can be = found at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/testimony/2002/20020124/default.h= tm For my part, I got the following notes: His 1/11/02 speech was unintentionally worded too pessimistically, he = intended it to explain that the economy had bottomed, and was showing = signs of recovery (in other words, forget about another rate cut) Because consumer spending remained unusually strong last year, he does = not expect sharp acceleration this year (in other words, Feds will be = slow to raise rates). Some other comments suggesting that he does not = see inflationary pressures at this time. New unemployment claims have peaked. Inventory reductions have been = good, and should soon result in increased industrial production, leading = to new hiring. Productivity growth has been good, and combined with sharp workforce = reductions, permitted most corporations to maintain financial health. Use of technology to improve productivity, and control any growth in = unit cost of production, has been only 50% implemented. And new = technology will further help in the future (he was very strong on = technology). Homebuilding, and sales of existing homes, and refinancing, continues to = look strong, and he expects this to continue. An economic stimulus now does not appear to be needed, even tho the Prez = and Congress wants to do something. The tax cut was needed and justified, and likely softened the impact of = the recession. He is not concerned over small budget deficits for the next several = years. He spent quite a bit of time discussing why past budget surpluses = were as large as they were, primary implication was from capital gains = taxes on investments, bonuses, stock option exercises, etc. In context, = sounds like he was saying that if we get this economy back on its feet = quickly, revenues to the govt will increase over plan from similar = taxes, and the deficit disappear. Tom Worley stkguru@netside.net AIM: TexWorley - ------=_NextPart_000_00A6_01C1A4DB.75543310 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
For those members trying to get some feel for = "M" for the=20 next year, I suggest you read the entire speech. It is quite = interesting, and=20 can be found at:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/testimony/2002/200201= 24/default.htm
 
For my part, I got the following = notes:
 
His 1/11/02 speech was unintentionally worded = too=20 pessimistically, he intended it to explain that the economy had = bottomed, and=20 was showing signs of recovery (in other words, forget about another rate = cut)
 
Because consumer spending remained unusually = strong last=20 year, he does not expect sharp acceleration this year (in other words, = Feds will=20 be slow to raise rates). Some other comments suggesting that he does not = see=20 inflationary pressures at this time.
 
New unemployment claims have peaked. Inventory = reductions=20 have been good, and should soon result in increased industrial = production,=20 leading to new hiring.
 
Productivity growth has been good, and combined = with sharp=20 workforce reductions, permitted most corporations to maintain financial=20 health.
 
Use of technology to improve productivity, and = control any=20 growth in unit cost of production, has been only 50% implemented. And = new=20 technology will further help in the future (he was very strong on=20 technology).
 
Homebuilding, and sales of existing homes, and=20 refinancing, continues to look strong, and he expects this to=20 continue.
 
An economic stimulus now does not appear to be = needed,=20 even tho the Prez and Congress wants to do something.
 
The tax cut was needed and justified, and likely = softened=20 the impact of the recession.
 
He is not concerned over small budget deficits = for the=20 next several years. He spent quite a bit of time discussing why past = budget=20 surpluses were as large as they were, primary implication was from = capital gains=20 taxes on investments, bonuses, stock option exercises, etc. In context, = sounds=20 like he was saying that if we get this economy back on its feet quickly, = revenues to the govt will increase over plan from similar taxes, and the = deficit=20 disappear.
 
Tom Worley
stkguru@netside.net
AIM:=20 TexWorley
- ------=_NextPart_000_00A6_01C1A4DB.75543310-- - - - -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: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 16:55:10 -0800 (PST) From: Dave Cameron Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Mr. Greenspan Greetings all, I have just recently checked out (from my local library) a book entitled Greenspan: The Man Behind Money (copyright in 2000). Author is Justin Martin. I'm finding it a fascinating read; and will purchase the book. It gives good insights into Alan Greenspan's life, background, beliefs, obfuscations, and helps to make sense of what he says. Some top economists who've worked with Greenspan are qouted. Martin Anderson and Murray Weidenbaum read and critiqued it. Former President Ford is quoted. etc. etc. A good example of a learning which can make one money is as follows: The "irrational exuberance" comments are talked about (a day in which I went to 100% cash and sacrificed several hundred dollars at the open - which bounced back the next day). Interestingly enough, the CANSLIM rules would have forced one to cash (as I was) if followed religiously on that day. I remember distinctly (that after I'd already sold), the evening of those comments, Tom Worley posted to the group that based on his extensive experience following Greenspan's comments, he recommended to hold fast to everyone. I'd not only sold, I'd posted that it would be a good day to cut your losses - and protect your gains. After this read, if I'd known then what I know now about Greenspan, I wouldn't have sold. Finally, as a postscript, I have more time for reading - less time for investing. My second child was born on Monday; my wife just got back from the hospital. I've been reading "Greenspan: The Man Behind Money" at 2 AM feedings... Maybe I understand it better that way. Dave - --- Tom Worley wrote: > In case anyone missed it, Mr. G speaks to Congress today at 10 AM > on the US economy, and is expected to be upbeat, clarifying his > comments from his Jan 11 speech in San Francisco. > > Best indications I can see are that there will not be a further cut > in the Fed rate on 1/30/02. Hopefully today will clarify that, and > prepare the market for that. A bullish perspective on a recovering > economy is likely, IMO, to more than offset any disappointment at > not getting another 25 BP cut. > > Tom Worley > stkguru@netside.net > AIM: TexWorley > ===== Dave Cameron dfcameron@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com - - - -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: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 18:59:12 -0600 From: "Katherine Malm" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Mr. Greenspan This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0212_01C1A509.36659440 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dave...Congratulations! and good reading...you'll have plenty of time = with all those middle of the night feedings.... Katherine ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Dave Cameron=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 6:55 PM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Mr. Greenspan Greetings all, I have just recently checked out (from my local library) a book entitled Greenspan: The Man Behind Money (copyright in 2000).=20 Author is Justin Martin. I'm finding it a fascinating read; and will purchase the book. It gives good insights into Alan Greenspan's life, background, beliefs, obfuscations, and helps to make sense of what he says. Some top economists who've worked with Greenspan are qouted. Martin Anderson and Murray Weidenbaum read and critiqued it. Former President Ford is quoted. etc. etc. A good example of a learning which can make one money is as follows:=20 The "irrational exuberance" comments are talked about (a day in which I went to 100% cash and sacrificed several hundred dollars at the open - which bounced back the next day). Interestingly enough, the CANSLIM rules would have forced one to cash (as I was) if followed religiously on that day. I remember distinctly (that after I'd already sold), the evening of those comments, Tom Worley posted to the group that based on his extensive experience following Greenspan's comments, he recommended to hold fast to everyone. I'd not only sold, I'd posted that it would be a good day to cut your losses - and protect your gains. After this read, if I'd known then what I know now about Greenspan, I wouldn't have sold. =20 Finally, as a postscript, I have more time for reading - less time for investing. My second child was born on Monday; my wife just got back from the hospital. I've been reading "Greenspan: The Man Behind Money" at 2 AM feedings... Maybe I understand it better that way. Dave =20 --- Tom Worley wrote: > In case anyone missed it, Mr. G speaks to Congress today at 10 AM > on the US economy, and is expected to be upbeat, clarifying his > comments from his Jan 11 speech in San Francisco. >=20 > Best indications I can see are that there will not be a further cut > in the Fed rate on 1/30/02. Hopefully today will clarify that, and > prepare the market for that. A bullish perspective on a recovering > economy is likely, IMO, to more than offset any disappointment at > not getting another 25 BP cut. >=20 > Tom Worley > stkguru@netside.net > AIM: TexWorley >=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Dave Cameron dfcameron@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!=20 http://auctions.yahoo.com - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. - ------=_NextPart_000_0212_01C1A509.36659440 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dave...Congratulations! and good reading...you'll have plenty of = time with=20 all those middle of the night feedings....
 
Katherine
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Dave=20 Cameron
Sent: Thursday, January 24, = 2002 6:55=20 PM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Mr.=20 Greenspan

Greetings all,

I have just recently checked out = (from my=20 local library) a book
entitled Greenspan: The Man Behind Money = (copyright=20 in 2000).
Author is Justin Martin.

I'm finding it a = fascinating=20 read; and will purchase the book.   It
gives good = insights into=20 Alan Greenspan's life, background, beliefs,
obfuscations, and helps = to make=20 sense of what he says.

Some top economists who've worked with = Greenspan=20 are qouted.   Martin
Anderson and Murray Weidenbaum read = and=20 critiqued it.   Former
President Ford is = quoted.   etc.=20 etc.

A good example of a learning which can make one money is = as=20 follows:
 The "irrational exuberance" comments are talked = about (a=20 day in
which I went to 100% cash and sacrificed several hundred = dollars=20 at
the open - which bounced back the next day).   = Interestingly=20 enough,
the CANSLIM rules would have forced one to cash (as I was)=20 if
followed religiously on that day.   I remember = distinctly=20 (that after
I'd already sold), the evening of those comments, Tom = Worley=20 posted
to the group that based on his extensive experience=20 following
Greenspan's comments, he recommended to hold fast to=20 everyone.   I'd
not only sold, I'd posted that it would = be a good=20 day to cut your
losses - and protect your gains.   After = this=20 read, if I'd known then
what I know now about Greenspan, I wouldn't = have=20 sold. 

Finally, as a postscript, I have more time for = reading -=20 less time
for investing.   My second child was born on = Monday; my=20 wife just got
back from the hospital.   I've been reading = "Greenspan: The Man
Behind Money" at 2 AM feedings...   = Maybe I=20 understand it better that
way.

Dave
 
--- Tom = Worley=20 <stkguru@netside.net> = wrote:
> In case anyone missed it, Mr. G speaks to Congress = today at 10=20 AM
> on the US economy, and is expected to be upbeat, clarifying = his
> comments from his Jan 11 speech in San Francisco.
> =
>=20 Best indications I can see are that there will not be a further = cut
> in=20 the Fed rate on 1/30/02. Hopefully today will clarify that, = and
>=20 prepare the market for that. A bullish perspective on a = recovering
>=20 economy is likely, IMO, to more than offset any disappointment = at
> not=20 getting another 25 BP cut.
>
> Tom Worley
> stkguru@netside.net
> = AIM:=20 TexWorley
>


=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Dave Cameron
dfcameron@yahoo.com

______= ____________________________________________
Do=20 You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! =
http://auctions.yahoo.com

-=
-To=20 subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com"
-In= the=20 email body, write "subscribe canslim" or
-"unsubscribe = canslim".  Do=20 not use quotes in your email. - ------=_NextPart_000_0212_01C1A509.36659440-- - - - -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 #2079 ****************************** 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.