From: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com (canslim-digest) To: canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: canslim-digest V2 #2139 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 Monday, February 18 2002 Volume 02 : Number 2139 In this issue: Re: [CANSLIM] BUY CANDIDATES Re: Re: [CANSLIM] Introduction: DuLaurence Re: [CANSLIM] Lack of Buy Candidates Re: [CANSLIM] Lack of Buy Candidates Re: AW: [CANSLIM] Lack of Buy Candidates ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 10:44:41 -0600 From: "Katherine Malm" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] BUY CANDIDATES This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_00B8_01C1B869.44FD1C80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Dave, One method that I've found helpful during "the tough times" is to cast = my net wide when seeking out buy candidates. I use forward growth rate = (>=3D15%), price (>=3D10) and volume (>=3D90000) as the only = requirements for a "first pass." I call these my "basic criteria" and I = think each person would define these very differently. What that does = for me is to keep me in the right sector of the sea, but doesn't blind = me to all the good looking fish in the area. The next pass I take restricts only based on minimal technical strength. = I look for RS>=3D60, >=3D200 day moving average and no more than 15% = below the 50 day moving average. It's surprising what interesting stocks = show up by keeping to these simple filters. Beyond that, the method you = employ to sort through the fish you catch is a matter of preference. Katherine ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Davellil5@aol.com=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 10:21 AM Subject: [CANSLIM] BUY CANDIDATES I belong to an investment club in which I hear dissatisfaction with = CANSLIM=20 methodology because it says, "No", so often these days -- and produces = so few=20 buy candidates. I tell them that's exactly what one should expect from a rational = stock=20 selection system in this spooky market. Yet, there are stocks that buck the market and even buck their own = industry=20 groups, to make substantial gains. My problem is finding a fruitful = hunting=20 ground for such stocks, i.e., a hunting ground that, under existing = market=20 conditions, maximizes the number of buy candidates I find for the = amoount of=20 effort I expend in screening and research. Any suggestions would be most gratefully received. Dave Schwartz davellil5@aol.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_00B8_01C1B869.44FD1C80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Dave,
 
One method that I've found helpful during "the tough times" is to = cast my=20 net wide when seeking out buy candidates. I use forward growth rate = (>=3D15%),=20 price (>=3D10) and volume (>=3D90000) as the only = requirements for a=20 "first pass." I call these my "basic criteria" and I think each = person=20 would define these very differently. What that does for me is = to keep me in=20 the right sector of the sea, but doesn't blind me to all the good = looking fish=20 in the area.
 
The next pass I take restricts only based on minimal technical = strength. I=20 look for RS>=3D60, >=3D200 day moving average and no more than 15% = below the=20 50 day moving average. It's surprising what interesting stocks show up = by=20 keeping to these simple filters. Beyond that, the method you employ to = sort=20 through the fish you catch is a matter of preference.
 
Katherine
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Davellil5@aol.com
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 = 10:21=20 AM
Subject: [CANSLIM] BUY = CANDIDATES

I belong to an investment club in which I hear = dissatisfaction=20 with CANSLIM
methodology because it says, "No", so often these = days -- and=20 produces so few
buy candidates.

I tell them that's exactly = what one=20 should expect from a rational stock
selection system in this = spooky=20 market.

Yet, there are stocks that buck the market and even = buck their=20 own industry
groups, to make substantial gains.  My problem = is=20 finding a fruitful hunting
ground for such stocks, i.e., a hunting = ground=20 that, under existing market
conditions, maximizes the number of = buy=20 candidates I find for the amoount of
effort I expend in screening = and=20 research.

Any suggestions would be most gratefully=20 received.

Dave Schwartz
davellil5@aol.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_00B8_01C1B869.44FD1C80-- - - - -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: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:54:12 -0500 From: Subject: Re: Re: [CANSLIM] Introduction: DuLaurence I've never gone to the extreme of shaving my head (or face for that matter) but my normal attire *DOES* consist of scotch- taped pages of IBD judiciously wrapped around torso and legs (makes odd crinkly sound when walking --- caution needed when you sit down to avoid those exposing rips/tears). Carefully cone-shape folding and taping of the Big Picture makes for fashionable headgear and osmotic message transmission. I also have a light-chain necklace with a big clip, so I alternate daily between having HTTMIS and '24 Lessons' dangling at all times. Rolf (never-believe-a-word) H. canslim@lists.xmission.com wrote: > Hi Duke, Now that you are a "born again CANSLIMer" did you realize that shaving your head and carrying around WON's HTMMIS (How to Make Money in Stocks) at all times is condition of joining the list? Hah! *REALLY* just kidding. Welcome, Katherine - - - -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: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 10:03:44 -0800 From: Ian Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Lack of Buy Candidates This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - --Boundary_(ID_CtdsCkH3W1Qh69MciZim8w) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT I made great profits in my managed accounts last year, using a mixture of both long and short. However, in MY VR fund, which only allows long positions, I also made 40%+ from May 29 on (thats when I started doing it - it was also a bit of a market peak), and I was 25-35% cash the whole time. So I think that there is always money to be made in microcaps with growing revenue and EPS. IMHO, the reason that quality microcaps can resist 'M' is that they start with very low valuations relative to their bigcap peers. On the other hand, in a declining M, stocks that begin with historically bloated valuations have little chance of going a lot higher. In a flat/declining market, I believe that we have to give over-emphasis to the original 'S' in CANSLIM, and stick with stocks with lower shares outstanding. Remember, in WON's original studies (done in the 70's) the median # of shares outstanding was just under 5,000,000. The big tech names of the 90's started with those kind of numbers, but they split so many times in the mania days, they have, IMHO, no chance of ever making meaningful EPS numbers ever again. Ian ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Forant To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 5:03 PM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Lack of Buy Candidates Of course it's absurd. If anyone's been in the market for the past year and hasn't shorted and made $$, they are either very lucky or far better than the average investor. There was no shortage of stocks to short in TC2000 and candlesticks. L8ter DanF ----- Original Message ----- From: Ian To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 11:13 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Lack of Buy Candidates I find it almost absurd that WON discourages shorting. Almost all of WON's ideas appear to have originated with Jesse Livermore, who made the bulk of his money on the short side. The rules for selling a big CANSLIM winner make for perfect short candidates. Although selling a failed breakout as it returns into its base is NOT typically a good short candidate. JMHO. Ian ----- Original Message ----- From: Rob Miller To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 6:40 AM Subject: [CANSLIM] Lack of Buy Candidates Even if we have a FTD from here, I see few stocks worth buying. However, my short list is overflowing. The only moderately attractive stocks I see on the long side are those already in an uptrend that are riding their lower channel. Is shorting considered off limits for this list? I know that WON discourages it, but he also claimed to make good money from shorts in HTMMIS. As I understand it, he discourages it as a medium for the masses, nor necessarily for everyone. Rob - --Boundary_(ID_CtdsCkH3W1Qh69MciZim8w) Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
I made great profits in my managed accounts last year, using a mixture of both long and short. However, in MY VR fund, which only allows long positions, I also made 40%+ from May 29 on (thats when I started doing it - it was also a bit of a market peak), and I was 25-35% cash the whole time. So I think that there is always money to be made in microcaps with growing revenue and EPS. IMHO, the reason that quality microcaps can resist 'M' is that they start with very low valuations relative to their bigcap peers. On the other hand, in a declining M, stocks that begin with historically bloated valuations have little chance of going a lot higher.
 
In a flat/declining market, I believe that we have to give over-emphasis to the original 'S' in CANSLIM, and stick with stocks with lower shares outstanding. Remember, in WON's original studies (done in the 70's) the median # of shares outstanding was just under 5,000,000.  The big tech names of the 90's started with those kind of numbers, but they split so many times in the mania days, they have, IMHO, no chance of ever making meaningful EPS numbers ever again.
 
Ian
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Forant
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Lack of Buy Candidates

Of course it's absurd. If anyone's been in the market for the past year and hasn't shorted and made $$, they are either very lucky or far better than the average investor. There was no shortage of stocks to short in TC2000 and candlesticks.
 
L8ter
DanF
----- Original Message -----
From: Ian
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Lack of Buy Candidates

I find it almost absurd that WON discourages shorting. Almost all of WON's ideas appear to have originated with Jesse Livermore, who made the bulk of his money on the short side. The rules for selling a big CANSLIM winner make for perfect short candidates. Although selling a failed breakout as it returns into its base is NOT typically a good short candidate. JMHO.
 
Ian
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Rob Miller
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 6:40 AM
Subject: [CANSLIM] Lack of Buy Candidates

Even if we have a FTD from here, I see few stocks worth buying.  However, my short list is overflowing.  The only moderately attractive stocks I see on the long side are those already in an uptrend that are riding their lower channel.
 
Is shorting considered off limits for this list?  I know that WON discourages it, but he also claimed to make good money from shorts in HTMMIS.  As I understand it, he discourages it as a medium for the masses, nor necessarily for everyone.  
 
Rob  
- --Boundary_(ID_CtdsCkH3W1Qh69MciZim8w)-- - - - -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: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 10:16:08 -0800 From: Ian Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Lack of Buy Candidates This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - --Boundary_(ID_gNsqX4knJQIkvzSn9kvG4Q) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable I couldn't agree more, and I couldn't have said it better myself. I = have seen that microcaps with strong revenue and EPS growth will get bid = up in any market - the only thing they need is a fundamental shift = (increase) in average daily volume, and they have nowhere to go but up. = And it happens while the media and daytraders are still chasing = yesteryears winners. Personally, I think it would do many in the = industry a world of good if they went backed and looked at the = floats/valuations of those stocks circa 1990. It would provide them a = good framework for what they should be looking for today. Is there anyway you could email your list of 230 (I am particularly = interested in the lower price/lower liquidity names), as I would like to = do quick charts scans on them. Thanks a lot, Ian - ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Katherine Malm=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 7:58 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Lack of Buy Candidates Hi Ian, I keep a constantly refreshed database of stocks with the minimum = growth, price and volume characteristics that qualify them as CANSLIM = candidates in my mind. Right now that list contains nearly 700 names. Of = those, about 400 are what I'd call "OK" right now. I then take these = stocks and pass them through what I call my "master filter." In order to = pass this test, the stock has to be showing near term outperformance, = longer term minimal outperformance, minimal technical health and be a = member of an industry that shows near term outperformance and longer = term minimal outperformance. As of Friday, 135 stocks pass this test. Of = the remainder, the jury is still out as to which are breaking down and = which will buck up and work on their base. While 135 out of 10000 stocks = in the market seems paltry, the point is that there *are* names worth = watching on the long side. If I dip down into lower prices and = liquidity, the number of stocks goes up to about 230 names. It only = takes 10 or 12 to fill out a long portfolio so I see this as a healthy = sized pile from which to mine gems. (The remainder of my comments are general to the many posts against = this subject line and aren't necessarily in response to your question, = Ian.) I don't buy the CANSLIM party line that you should "stay out" of the = market if there aren't 1000's of stocks to choose from. I look for good = stocks with rising relative strength, strategic advantage and good = technical strength that are members of rising and strong industry = groups. I sell stocks that break down technically or that are members of = a group that is beginning to break down. I short stocks/groups in = industries that are breaking down to take advantage of the prevailing = winds. I let the market tell me which kinds of stocks are doing well. = Whether it's value/growth, small/mid/large cap, industry group, I'm = agnostic (except that I *do* stay away from super microcaps). What = works, works and I have a methodology that looks for what's working. The "market" is nothing more than a market of stocks. Too many people = focus on what's *not* working and miss the many great opportunities that = are out there. One of my mentors always says "when the market speaks, = have big ears." I say, "when a stock and an industry speaks, have big = ears." As I see it, too many folks are still focused on what *was* = working during the last Great Bull market. This is the history of = markets. A new bull starts and undiscovered gems begin to do well. Their = business and markets grow somewhat unnoticed by the masses. When it all = starts, they are micro/small caps. As the bull moves ahead, they = continue to grow and eventually become big caps. Late in the bull, = people begin to pile into the big caps making them bubble bait. Combine = overvalued stocks, piling-on by the masses, overcapacity buildouts by = the businesses and a confluence of macroeconomic events--it takes a = while to work off the excesses. But when the new bull begins, all the = new faces appear and tippy toe around somewhat unnoticed because = everyone's still worried about the big cap former winners that are = dive-bombing back to earth. Makings of a long flat market in my opinion = and all the more reason to be paying attention to the stocks and = industries that are in favor and then selling them when they fall out of = favor. Hard work, but do-able, and *all* of this in the sprit of = CANSLIM. Katherine ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ian=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 10:15 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Lack of Buy Candidates Katherine: I would greatly appreciate it if you would share your list of good = CANSLIM stocks making healthy bases. Caveat Emptor is understood :) Thank you, Ian ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Katherine Malm=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 6:54 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Lack of Buy Candidates Hi Rob, I know there are plenty of folks here who short, but the subject = only comes up on occasion because you are right, it is an advanced = trading technique in comparison to CANSLIM in general. I'd also agree = with you that my short scans are turning up far more candidates than my = long scans. At the same time, however, I also see plenty of good quality = CANSLIM stocks continuing to build healthy bases. All in all, I'd say = the market is "stuck!" Katherine ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Rob Miller=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 8:40 AM Subject: [CANSLIM] Lack of Buy Candidates Even if we have a FTD from here, I see few stocks worth buying. = However, my short list is overflowing. The only moderately attractive = stocks I see on the long side are those already in an uptrend that are = riding their lower channel. =20 Is shorting considered off limits for this list? I know that = WON discourages it, but he also claimed to make good money from shorts = in HTMMIS. As I understand it, he discourages it as a medium for the = masses, nor necessarily for everyone. =20 =20 Rob =20 - --Boundary_(ID_gNsqX4knJQIkvzSn9kvG4Q) Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
I couldn't agree more, and I couldn't have said it better myself. I have seen that microcaps with strong revenue and EPS growth will get bid up in any market - the only thing they need is a fundamental shift (increase) in average daily volume, and they have nowhere to go but up. And it happens while the media and daytraders are still chasing yesteryears winners. Personally, I think it would do many in the industry a world of good if they went backed and looked at the floats/valuations of those stocks circa 1990. It would provide them a good framework for what they should be looking for today.
 
Is there anyway you could email your list of 230 (I am particularly interested in the lower price/lower liquidity names), as I would like to do quick charts scans on them.
 
Thanks a lot,
 
Ian
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 7:58 AM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Lack of Buy Candidates

Hi Ian,
 
I keep a constantly refreshed database of stocks with the minimum growth, price and volume characteristics that qualify them as CANSLIM candidates in my mind. Right now that list contains nearly 700 names. Of those, about 400 are what I'd call "OK" right now. I then take these stocks and pass them through what I call my "master filter." In order to pass this test, the stock has to be showing near term outperformance, longer term minimal outperformance, minimal technical health and be a member of an industry that shows near term outperformance and longer term minimal outperformance. As of Friday, 135 stocks pass this test. Of the remainder, the jury is still out as to which are breaking down and which will buck up and work on their base. While 135 out of 10000 stocks in the market seems paltry, the point is that there *are* names worth watching on the long side. If I dip down into lower prices and liquidity, the number of stocks goes up to about 230 names. It only takes 10 or 12 to fill out a long portfolio so I see this as a healthy sized pile from which to mine gems.
 
(The remainder of my comments are general to the many posts against this subject line and aren't necessarily in response to your question, Ian.)
 
I don't buy the CANSLIM party line that you should "stay out" of the market if there aren't 1000's of stocks to choose from. I look for good stocks with rising relative strength, strategic advantage and good technical strength that are members of rising and strong industry groups. I sell stocks that break down technically or that are members of a group that is beginning to break down. I short stocks/groups in industries that are breaking down to take advantage of the prevailing winds. I let the market tell me which kinds of stocks are doing well. Whether it's value/growth, small/mid/large cap, industry group, I'm agnostic (except that I *do* stay away from super microcaps). What works, works and I have a methodology that looks for what's working.
 
The "market" is nothing more than a market of stocks. Too many people focus on what's *not* working and miss the many great opportunities that are out there. One of my mentors always says "when the market speaks, have big ears." I say, "when a stock and an industry speaks, have big ears." As I see it, too many folks are still focused on what *was* working during the last Great Bull market. This is the history of markets. A new bull starts and undiscovered gems begin to do well. Their business and markets grow somewhat unnoticed by the masses. When it all starts, they are micro/small caps. As the bull moves ahead, they continue to grow and eventually become big caps. Late in the bull, people begin to pile into the big caps making them bubble bait. Combine overvalued stocks, piling-on by the masses, overcapacity buildouts by the businesses and a confluence of macroeconomic events--it takes a while to work off the excesses. But when the new bull begins, all the new faces appear and tippy toe around somewhat unnoticed because everyone's still worried about the big cap former winners that are dive-bombing back to earth. Makings of a long flat market in my opinion and all the more reason to be paying attention to the stocks and industries that are in favor and then selling them when they fall out of favor. Hard work, but do-able, and *all* of this in the sprit of CANSLIM.
 
Katherine
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Ian
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Lack of Buy Candidates

Katherine:
 
I would greatly appreciate it if you would share your list of good CANSLIM stocks making healthy bases. Caveat Emptor is understood :)
 
Thank you,
 
Ian
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 6:54 AM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Lack of Buy Candidates

Hi Rob,
 
I know there are plenty of folks here who short, but the subject only comes up on occasion because you are right, it is an advanced trading technique in comparison to CANSLIM in general. I'd also agree with you that my short scans are turning up far more candidates than my long scans. At the same time, however, I also see plenty of good quality CANSLIM stocks continuing to build healthy bases. All in all, I'd say the market is "stuck!"
 
Katherine
----- Original Message -----
From: Rob Miller
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 8:40 AM
Subject: [CANSLIM] Lack of Buy Candidates

Even if we have a FTD from here, I see few stocks worth buying.  However, my short list is overflowing.  The only moderately attractive stocks I see on the long side are those already in an uptrend that are riding their lower channel.
 
Is shorting considered off limits for this list?  I know that WON discourages it, but he also claimed to make good money from shorts in HTMMIS.  As I understand it, he discourages it as a medium for the masses, nor necessarily for everyone.  
 
Rob  
- --Boundary_(ID_gNsqX4knJQIkvzSn9kvG4Q)-- - - - -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: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 10:29:54 -0800 From: Ian Subject: Re: AW: [CANSLIM] Lack of Buy Candidates This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - --Boundary_(ID_gXDKjGjpFKOML5Funq1z6A) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable I know that that if I get 'lucky' with 4-6 picks in a year, even if I = take 40 meaningful positions and make lots of other small 'boredom' = trades, that I will have a very good year. As far as I can tell, running = and pyramiding winners hard, and taking small losses in losers is the = the hallmark of every successful trader/speculator who ever lived.=20 I would also add that it flies in the face of the old saying 'you cant = go broke taking a profit'. Most people I've seen who don't do well, fail = precisely because they do 'take a profit', but they take it way too = early.=20 Ian ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Katherine Malm=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 8:57 AM Subject: Re: AW: [CANSLIM] Lack of Buy Candidates Hi Tom, Your comments about EPIQ as a "big winner" in the portfolio remind me = of comments I often hear from others when we have discussions about the = big winners in our portfolios. On one hand, it really bugs me to hear = people say "well, yeah, of course you had great returns, you had XXXX an = YYYY....you were just lucky." Excuse me? I found XXXX and YYYY using the = same methodical diligence I apply to all my buys. The difference is, = these guys never triggered sell rules like all the others. Last Fall, I = listened to a presentation by Kevin Marder, a hedge fund manager and a = CANSLIM-style investor. He said the same thing that I've heard from = other successful investors. "At the end of each year I give my = accountant a list of my trades for tax purposes. On that list are a = bunch of trades with very small losses. Also on that list are some = really big gains that were responsible for most of my returns for the = year. This happens every year without exception." On the other hand, a comment such as "you were just lucky" makes me = smile and nod in agreement, because I define luck as "being prepared = when the opportunity arises and being willing to seize it." Yes, big = winners are about luck in that sense. Finally, one of my favorite quotes = and one that always stays in view at my desk: "Opportunities are usually disguised as hard work, so most people = don't recognize them." --Anne Landers Here's to "big winners" and your continued "good luck"! Cheers, Katherine ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Tom Worley=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 3:34 PM Subject: Re: AW: [CANSLIM] Lack of Buy Candidates Your memory is pretty good, altho I consider buying small caps as = much closer to classic CANSLIM rules for "S" than IBD or WON currently = pushes. I wasn't losing money during the roaring bulls, just not making what = I could. But that was not the fault of my application of CANSLIM, it = was a direct consequence of total neglect of my portfolio due dedication = and hours spent on my day job. But even with total neglect, I still managed = about 12% or so without trading, so at least better than a money market. You are correct also that EPIQ was a major contributor to my profits = in 2001, and I expect it to continue contributing in 2002. But I = finished the year with every stock I owned up for the year, and with minimal = trading. I only bought two new ones in 2001, the rest I had owned from prior = years. So far in 2002, I have added 6 new ones, and sold one (merger = announced). Altho three of the new ones are presently down, I am still up a little = overall. And having fun. Tom Worley stkguru@netside.net AIM: TexWorley ----- Original Message ----- From: "esetser" To: Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 11:01 AM Subject: Re: AW: [CANSLIM] Lack of Buy Candidates Be careful here, Tom has his own special breed of CANSLIM, and it = seems that his returns have NOT been a good indicator of average returns = in the group. Unless I'm mistaken, Tom was losing money or breaking even = back in the roaring bull, so maybe it was just his turn!! Tom does at least the following different from my approach (just = from memory): 1 - Microcaps only (below the minimum recommended by WON) (S?) 2 - Buys in the base before the breakout (Needs to because of 1) 3 - Doesn't use Industry Group Strength as a leader/laggard = indicator (I) 4 - Buys in all markets (M) >From my perspective, he violates the normal rules for S, I, and M. However, Tom does admit to this, and doesn't even generally post his selections due to these variations. Given the differences, I think it should be expected that Tom's = performance over a given year will vary from many of us. (And there is that one = stock that has appreciated several times his original investment that is impacting the results too!) One other note. From my perspective, Tom's value to the group is = his willingness to take the time to review most anyone's suggestions and selections and give great detail in his responses. His general = approach may not follow CANSLIM exactly, but his postings to the group do = following WON quite closely. He is our master educator on the technique, and = gives a lot of time and effort to the group. FWIW, I ended up 2001 with about a 13% loss and am down about 6% = more this year so far. Presently, I am only 25% invested with one position. = I am not really responding on the group much, since I do not feel I have = the experience to short, and I am waiting for "M" to clear up before new purchases. At 11:36 AM 2/16/02 +0100, you wrote: >I think Tom bend only one rule --> stay out of the market if there = is a >downtrend in the overall market. > >But as I said, if you choose small caps and or IGs that are going = up, no >problem making money on the long side. >Just look on the builders or on the gold stocks latley ... > >BUT NEVER, NEVER buy stocks when the market and the IG is down. >I have not seen one example where a member of the group does not = break down >then (besides its a small cap) as well. > >Some IGs are just setting up a bull market for its members no = matter what >the market is doing. > >> -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: Tom Worley [SMTP:stkguru@netside.net] >> Gesendet am: Saturday, February 16, 2002 6:19 AM >> An: canslim@lists.xmission.com >> Betreff: Re: [CANSLIM] Lack of Buy Candidates >> >> While I routinely violate CANSLIM rules, nonetheless my entire = process is >heavily based in CANSLIM. And I netted 76% for the full year, so = yeah, I >made a net profit. >> >> Tom Worley >> stkguru@netside.net >> AIM: TexWorley >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: David Squires >> To: canslim@lists.xmission.com >> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 12:11 AM >> Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Lack of Buy Candidates >> >> >> haven't shorted in years, fully invested year round, made lots = of $$ >last year, and profitable so far this year (including my fully = margined >account). >> >> >>fully invested year round, made lots of $$ last year<< >> >> You were fully invested last year long and made a net profit? = You >better call George Soros! BTW, is this even remotely CANSLIM. >> >> DSquires >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Tom Worley >> To: canslim@lists.xmission.com >> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 10:47 PM >> Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Lack of Buy Candidates >> >> >> haven't shorted in years, fully invested year round, made = lots of $$ >last year, and profitable so far this year (including my fully = margined >account). >> >> Tom Worley >> stkguru@netside.net >> AIM: TexWorley >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Dan Forant >> To: canslim@lists.xmission.com >> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 8:03 PM >> Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Lack of Buy Candidates >> >> >> Of course it's absurd. If anyone's been in the market for = the past >year and hasn't shorted and made $$, they are either very lucky or = far >better than the average investor. There was no shortage of stocks = to short >in TC2000 and candlesticks. >> >> L8ter >> DanF >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Ian >> To: canslim@lists.xmission.com >> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 11:13 AM >> Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Lack of Buy Candidates >> >> >> I find it almost absurd that WON discourages shorting. = Almost all >of WON's ideas appear to have originated with Jesse Livermore, who = made the >bulk of his money on the short side. The rules for selling a big = CANSLIM >winner make for perfect short candidates. Although selling a failed >breakout as it returns into its base is NOT typically a good short >candidate. JMHO. >> >> Ian >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Rob Miller >> To: canslim@lists.xmission.com >> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 6:40 AM >> Subject: [CANSLIM] Lack of Buy Candidates >> >> >> Even if we have a FTD from here, I see few stocks worth = buying. > However, my short list is overflowing. The only moderately = attractive >stocks I see on the long side are those already in an uptrend that = are >riding their lower channel. >> >> Is shorting considered off limits for this list? I = know that >WON discourages it, but he also claimed to make good money from = shorts in >HTMMIS. As I understand it, he discourages it as a medium for the = masses, >nor necessarily for everyone. >> >> Rob >> << Datei: ATT00014.htm >> - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. - --Boundary_(ID_gXDKjGjpFKOML5Funq1z6A) Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
I know that that if I get 'lucky' with 4-6 picks in = a year,=20 even if I take 40 meaningful positions and make lots of other small = 'boredom'=20 trades, that I will have a very good year. As far as I can tell, running = and=20 pyramiding winners hard, and taking small losses in losers is the the = hallmark=20 of every successful trader/speculator who ever lived.
 
I would also add that it flies in the face of the = old saying=20 'you cant go broke taking a profit'. Most people I've seen who don't do = well,=20 fail precisely because they do 'take a profit', but they take it way too = early.=20
 
Ian
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Katherine=20 Malm
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com =
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 = 8:57=20 AM
Subject: Re: AW: [CANSLIM] Lack = of Buy=20 Candidates

Hi Tom,
 
Your comments about EPIQ as a "big winner" in the portfolio = remind me of=20 comments I often hear from others when we have discussions about the = big=20 winners in our portfolios. On one hand, it really bugs me to hear = people=20 say "well, yeah, of course you had great returns, you had XXXX an = YYYY....you=20 were just lucky." Excuse me? I found XXXX and YYYY using the same = methodical=20 diligence I apply to all my buys. The difference is, these guys never=20 triggered sell rules like all the others. Last Fall, I listened to a=20 presentation by Kevin Marder, a hedge fund manager and a CANSLIM-style = investor. He said the same thing that I've heard from other successful = investors. "At the end of each year I give my accountant a list of my = trades=20 for tax purposes. On that list are a bunch of trades with very small = losses.=20 Also on that list are some really big gains that were responsible for = most of=20 my returns for the year. This happens every year without = exception."
 
On the other hand, a comment such as "you were just lucky" makes = me smile=20 and nod in agreement, because I define luck as "being prepared when = the=20 opportunity arises and being willing to seize it." Yes, big winners = are about=20 luck in that sense. Finally, one of my favorite quotes and one that = always=20 stays in view at my desk:
 
"Opportunities are usually disguised as hard work, so most people = don't=20 recognize them." --Anne Landers
 
Here's to "big winners" and your continued "good luck"!
 
Cheers,
Katherine
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Tom=20 Worley
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com =
Sent: Saturday, February 16, = 2002 3:34=20 PM
Subject: Re: AW: [CANSLIM] = Lack of Buy=20 Candidates

Your memory is pretty good, altho I consider buying = small=20 caps as much
closer to classic CANSLIM rules for "S" than IBD or = WON=20 currently pushes.

I wasn't losing money during the roaring = bulls,=20 just not making what I
could. But that was not the fault of my=20 application of CANSLIM, it was a
direct consequence of total = neglect of=20 my portfolio due dedication and hours
spent on my day job. But = even with=20 total neglect, I still managed about 12%
or so without trading, = so at=20 least better than a money market.

You are correct also that = EPIQ was=20 a major contributor to my profits in
2001, and I expect it to = continue=20 contributing in 2002. But I finished the
year with every stock I = owned up=20 for the year, and with minimal trading. I
only bought two new = ones in=20 2001, the rest I had owned from prior years. So
far in 2002, I = have added=20 6 new ones, and sold one (merger announced). Altho
three of the = new ones=20 are presently down, I am still up a little overall.
And having=20 fun.

Tom Worley
stkguru@netside.net
AIM:=20 TexWorley
----- Original Message -----
From: "esetser" <esetser@covad.net>
To: = <canslim@lists.xmission.com= >
Sent:=20 Saturday, February 16, 2002 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: AW: [CANSLIM] = Lack of=20 Buy Candidates


Be careful here, Tom has his own special = breed of=20 CANSLIM, and it seems
that his returns have NOT been a good = indicator of=20 average returns in the
group.  Unless I'm mistaken, Tom was = losing=20 money or breaking even back in
the roaring bull, so maybe it was = just his=20 turn!!

Tom does at least the following different from my = approach=20 (just from
memory):

1 - Microcaps only (below the minimum=20 recommended by WON) (S?)
2 - Buys in the base before the breakout = (Needs=20 to because of 1)
3 - Doesn't use Industry Group Strength as a=20 leader/laggard indicator (I)
4 - Buys in all markets = (M)

>From=20 my perspective, he violates the normal rules for S, I, and = M.
However,=20 Tom does admit to this, and doesn't even generally post = his
selections=20 due to these variations.

Given the differences, I think it = should be=20 expected that Tom's performance
over a given year will vary from = many of=20 us.  (And there is that one stock
that has appreciated = several times=20 his original investment that is
impacting the results = too!)

One=20 other note.  From my perspective, Tom's value to the group is=20 his
willingness to take the time to review most anyone's = suggestions=20 and
selections and give great detail in his responses.  His = general=20 approach
may not follow CANSLIM exactly, but his postings to the = group do=20 following
WON quite closely.  He is our master educator on = the=20 technique, and gives a
lot of time and effort to the = group.

FWIW,=20 I ended up 2001 with about a 13% loss and am down about 6% more = this
year=20 so far.  Presently, I am only 25% invested with one=20 position.   I am
not really responding on the group = much, since=20 I do not feel I have the
experience to short, and I am waiting = for "M" to=20 clear up before new
purchases.




At 11:36 AM = 2/16/02=20 +0100, you wrote:
>I think Tom bend only one rule --> stay = out of=20 the market if there is a
>downtrend in the overall=20 market.
>
>But as I said, if you choose small caps and = or IGs=20 that are going up, no
>problem making money on the long=20 side.
>Just look on the builders or on the gold stocks latley=20 ...
>
>BUT NEVER, NEVER buy stocks when the market and = the IG is=20 down.
>I have not seen one example where a member of the group = does=20 not break down
>then (besides its a small cap) as=20 well.
>
>Some IGs are just setting up a bull market for = its=20 members no matter what
>the market is = doing.
>
>>=20 -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Tom Worley=20 [SMTP:stkguru@netside.net]
>> Gesendet am: Saturday, = February 16,=20 2002 6:19 AM
>> An: canslim@lists.xmission.com=
>>=20 Betreff: Re: [CANSLIM] Lack of Buy = Candidates
>>
>> While=20 I routinely violate CANSLIM rules, nonetheless my entire process=20 is
>heavily based in CANSLIM. And I netted 76% for the full = year, so=20 yeah, I
>made a net profit.
>>
>> Tom=20 Worley
>> stkguru@netside.net
>> = AIM:=20 TexWorley
>>   ----- Original Message=20 -----
>>   From: David = Squires
>>  =20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=
>>  =20 Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 12:11 AM
>>   = Subject:=20 Re: [CANSLIM] Lack of Buy=20 Candidates
>>
>>
>>   haven't = shorted=20 in years, fully invested year round, made lots of $$
>last = year, and=20 profitable so far this year (including my fully=20 margined
>account).
>>
>>   = >>fully=20 invested year round, made lots of $$ last=20 year<<
>>
>>   You were fully = invested=20 last year long and made a net profit? You
>better call George = Soros!=20 BTW, is this even remotely = CANSLIM.
>>
>>  =20 DSquires
>>     ----- Original Message=20 -----
>>     From: Tom=20 Worley
>>     To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=
>>    =20 Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 10:47 = PM
>>    =20 Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Lack of Buy=20 = Candidates
>>
>>
>>    =20 haven't shorted in years, fully invested year round, made lots of=20 $$
>last year, and profitable so far this year (including my = fully=20 = margined
>account).
>>
>>    = =20 Tom Worley
>>     stkguru@netside.net
>>&n= bsp;   =20 AIM: TexWorley
>>       ----- = Original Message = - -----
>>       From:=20 Dan Forant
>>       To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=
>>      =20 Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 8:03=20 PM
>>       Subject: Re: = [CANSLIM]=20 Lack of Buy=20 = Candidates
>>
>>
>>    &nb= sp; =20 Of course it's absurd. If anyone's been in the market for the=20 past
>year and hasn't shorted and made $$, they are either = very lucky=20 or far
>better than the average investor. There was no = shortage of=20 stocks to short
>in TC2000 and=20 = candlesticks.
>>
>>      = =20 L8ter
>>      =20 DanF
>>         = - -----=20 Original Message=20 -----
>>         = From:=20 Ian
>>         To: = canslim@lists.xmission.com=
>>        =20 Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 11:13=20 AM
>>         = Subject: Re:=20 [CANSLIM] Lack of Buy=20 = Candidates
>>
>>
>>    &nb= sp;   =20 I find it almost absurd that WON discourages shorting. Almost = all
>of=20 WON's ideas appear to have originated with Jesse Livermore, who made = the
>bulk of his money on the short side. The rules for = selling a big=20 CANSLIM
>winner make for perfect short candidates. Although = selling a=20 failed
>breakout as it returns into its base is NOT typically = a good=20 short
>candidate.=20 = JMHO.
>>
>>       &n= bsp;=20 = Ian
>>
>>
>>
>>   &nbs= p;    =20 ----- Original Message=20 = - -----
>>         &n= bsp;=20 From: Rob=20 = Miller
>>         &= nbsp;=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=
>>           = Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 6:40=20 = AM
>>          = ;=20 Subject: [CANSLIM] Lack of Buy=20 = Candidates
>>
>>
>>    &nb= sp;     =20 Even if we have a FTD from here, I see few stocks worth = buying.
>=20 However, my short list is overflowing.  The only moderately=20 attractive
>stocks I see on the long side are those already in = an=20 uptrend that are
>riding their lower=20 = channel.
>>
>>       = ;   =20 Is shorting considered off limits for this list?  I know=20 that
>WON discourages it, but he also claimed to make good = money from=20 shorts in
>HTMMIS.  As I understand it, he discourages it = as a=20 medium for the masses,
>nor necessarily for=20 = everyone.
>>
>>      &nbs= p;   =20 Rob
>>  << Datei: ATT00014.htm=20 >>




-
-To 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.
- --Boundary_(ID_gXDKjGjpFKOML5Funq1z6A)-- - - - -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 #2139 ****************************** 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.