From: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com (canslim-digest) To: canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: canslim-digest V2 #252 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 Monday, May 25 1998 Volume 02 : Number 252 In this issue: Re: [CANSLIM] Lurking? [CANSLIM] Re.Tom [CANSLIM] In Defense of Jeffry Re: [CANSLIM] AMWD [CANSLIM] RESC Re: [CANSLIM] RESC [CANSLIM] Re: WBPR Re: [CANSLIM] RESC Re: [CANSLIM] RESC Re: [CANSLIM] RESC [CANSLIM] Connie Macks files Re: [CANSLIM] Re.Tom Re: [CANSLIM] These are the Taunts [CANSLIM] Tom and Jeffry Re: [CANSLIM] In Defense of Jeffry [CANSLIM] Farmer ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 11:04:43 -0500 From: "Chris McKeever" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Lurking? Welcome to the Betty Ford Clinic of Investing! The twelve step program to investing recovery! ;) The first step is that you can admit to breaking the rules! Lurker also Chris - -----Original Message----- From: Joe Scott To: CANSLIM Date: Saturday, May 23, 1998 8:44 PM Subject: [CANSLIM] Lurking? I >find that confessing my "rule breaking behavior" to the group has helped me >not to repeat those same mistakes again, that along with the locked >keyboard. :-) - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 13:29:37 EDT From: JANSI1AUG1 Subject: [CANSLIM] Re.Tom It's a shame that one of our more valuable assets has left. I may have disagreed with Tom (and many times his picks-after my analyses-weren't my cup of tea), but I certainly read every letter he posted. Each one was worthy of consideration-and since I make my income in the stock mkt., I don't value my time lightly. I came to this group in '96. I understood by the fourth or fifth Canslim Digest that some of Tom's picks weren't pure CANSLIM. But so what. I used the beta copy of DG-Online to analyze the stocks he mentioned. Isn't that what the Digest is all about? Why in the world someone would take exception to an OPINION freely and lucidly offered I have no idea. So, Jeffrey, you disagree with Tom's analyses of the Market. Fine. Why belittle him? I can understand why Tom became angry. You may not understand this, Jeffrey, but there is a big distinction between evaluating the Market, and evaluating a member-and his right to have an opinion without being criticized for having it. Tom always had logical and cogent reasons-many based on CANSLIM factors-of why he liked a stock (and even the Market). I will miss his contributions (assuming he has left for good). What many in this group might not realize is that many people in the market pay for the type of analytical/scanning Tom was offering to us for free. And I would remind you that Tom also had a lot of specialized knowledge concerning brokerage practices-since he once worked for a brokerage firm, and now works, I believe, for a firm which buys-and-sells international currency. The information he provided on brokers' practices and methods were so valuable, in my opinion, that I have archived many of them. It is a shame-and I must emphatically repeat this-that newbies to the stock market and the Digest will no longer have such a valuable resource-who seemed to answer all questions both pleasantly and thoroughly, no matter how elemental-to draw upon. I think we all owe Jeffrey a debt of gratitude. Perhaps for an encore he'll send each of us a computer virus? jans - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 18:30:38 -0700 (PDT) From: dbphoenix Subject: [CANSLIM] In Defense of Jeffry Some of you were here when I was part of this list before. Many of you have joined since I left. Therefore, many of you don't have the slightest idea who I am. And may not care to find out. I go through this prelude only to make it clear that I didn't just get off the bus. This neighborhood is familiar to me. I've observed and participated in many CS forums over the last couple of years. I initiated some of them. Message boards, websites, e-mail groups open and closed, etc. And not one of them--after a few weeks, anyway--was appropriate for newbies (or, for that matter, for anyone wanting to adhere to anything approaching the straight and narrow). Why? Because no one was willing to assume the role of gate-keeper and maintain that discipline. Actually, that's not true. There have been volunteers foolhardy enough to try, but they were invariably tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail for being too tight-assed about the whole thing. Thus there are no forums of which I'm aware which are devoted solely to CS, CS stocks, and CS discussions. And that's a shame. The great strength and the great weakness of CS are that it's flexible. If you're experienced and if you truly undestand what it is that CS is trying to do for you, it is adaptable to your particular goals and psychology. However, if you--experienced or not--do not take the time to understand CS and are instead determined to bend it to your will, you can quite easily stretch and pull and moosh it into something that's barely recognizable as CS. It often begins with an individual being seduced by the siren call of Relative Strength and the RS Rank. This, it seems clear, is the road to riches. What difference do the "C" and the "A" make? Clearly, investors don't care. They're bidding it up to the stratosphere. As far as that goes, who the hell cares about "I"? And "N"? That's a sucker bet. "M" is obviously irrelevant. Chips may be sinking like stones, but internet stocks are absolute rockets. So what do you have left? "L". Maybe "S". Or perhaps there's someone who claims that there are all sorts of ways to make money in the stock market and CS is hardly the only way or perhaps even the best way. "I've been trading options for years", they'll say. "Forget fundamentals and fundamental research--it's all in the charts", someone else will offer. "Penny and Dollar Stocks--That's the Ticket!" And all of these people are correct, at least in part, at least in some circumstances. One can make a lot of money in options. Or futures. Or by following TA alone and never cracking open an annual report. He can also lose a great deal of money these ways. But none of this has anything to do with CANSLIM or CANSLIM investing. It is also terribly confusing to a great many newbies and a not inconsequential number of experienced investors as well. "Eclecticism!", the grey-beards and hot-doggers alike proclaim. But they neglect to point out that an eclectic approach works only when one thoroughly understands each element of the eclecticism. Otherwise, one winds up with an investing strategy which is held together with band-aids and chewing gum. I've never really understood why anyone who knows that a particular stock is not a CS stock would ever bring it up in a supposedly CS forum. Granted, O'N gives you considerable rein in deciding what kind of earnings growth you will require for your own selections. But he never says that it's OK to ignore it altogether. By the same token, it's not OK to ignore earnings history. It's not OK to buy penny and dollar stocks. It's not OK to buy laggards and hope for the best. Doing these things may result in untold riches, but they have nothing to do with CANSLIM. If one wants to discuss cheap stocks or options or commodities or exoteric technical strategies or Bethlehem Steel, he is free to do so, and there are many forums that would welcome his comments. But they have no place in a CS forum, anymore than a discussion on shorting cocoa would be appropriate for a forum devoted to dividend reinvestment plans. Having said all that, it's time for me to ask just what kind of forum the members of this group want. If you want to be a general investment forum in which everyone is welcome, regardless of his or her investment philosophy, strategy, methods, or goals, terrific. In that case, nothing that anyone says is inappropriate and is immune to criticism. On the other hand, if you want a CS forum, it's up to each individual member to exercise some vigilance with regard to the subjects introduced and discussed, regarless of how obnoxious or venerated the individual introducing the subject may be. The statement that "nobody uses pure CS" is a cop-out. It is almost always a means whereby an individual introduces a stock which doesn't even begin to qualify as a CS stock, regardless of how far afield one has wandered. Not long ago, someone tried to bring up a field-services stock and was told in no uncertain terms that that subject was inappropriate for this forum. But it's perfectly OK to bring up stocks which cost only a few dollars or to discuss the crossings of 3-minute exponential moving averages. This group will be whatever you want it to be. What do you want it to be? Until you decide that, your criticisms of Jeff, Tom, or any other member are uncalled-for. - --Db _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 12:17:39 -0500 From: Joe Scott Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] AMWD Nelson, I haven't read "Beating the street", and I am really not the one to ask, I've only been trading stocks less than a year. Results have been good, but then look at the market I came in on. I read quite a bit, and surf the net for suggestions, and research. I haven't worked for the past year, so it has given me time to study, and learn about the market. I subscribe to the "the street" online, I find it very educational. The two books that have helped me the most would be "Trading for a Living" by Elder, and "How to Make Money in Stocks" by O'Neil. Its when I deviate from these rules that I get myself into trouble. Having had very little education in the areas of finance and economics, I really had no idea when I started investing how the markets even worked, I mean the actual mechanics of it. I bought the book "The Electronic Daytrader" by Friedfertig and West. It helped me understand what actually is happening when I buy or sell a stock. That might sound ridiculous, but I didn't see it clearly at all before that. I guess though to answer your question, yes HTMMIS I think would be the one, and it is not a book you can read once and understand. I treat it, and others as study guides, I may have to go over something several times before I understand it. This for Phyllis, if I'm reading along and I'm not understanding what I'm reading, its a signal for me to stop, backup, and reread it, study it, until it is no longer Greek. It's going to take some time, if it was easy, everyone would do it. don't know a thing joe joe@2fords.net http://www.2fords.net/joe/ - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 17:41:06 -0400 From: Al French Subject: [CANSLIM] RESC Tony Austin mentioned RESC recently. According to DG (4/24) its estimated EPS increase for 1998 is a whopping 725%! Other numbers are C=65, A=44, New high last week, S=Float 8.5, a Leader in steel products group, but group strength is 41, I=18, ROE=17, and a/d has fallen from B to C, money stream has declined since March but still positive, u/d =1.2 as of 4/24/98. Thanks, Tony. I'm adding RESC to my watch list. Al French - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 17:50:20 -0500 From: "Joe Scott" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] RESC I bot RESC on May 11th on about 2X volume. 98 earnings are 25% not 725% that was a misprint. Hasn't had any volume lately, only traded 4300 shares on Friday. They reported great earnings last week, beat estimates and it didn't move the stock a bit. don't know a thing joe joe@2fords.net http://www.2fords.net/joe/ - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 19:24:16 -0400 From: Al French Subject: [CANSLIM] Re: WBPR Bill wrote: > > WBPR - 16 1/2 - Marginal CANSLIM numbers but an Interesting MF/OBV chart. > Comments appreciated. Thanks. > > - DG (4/24) indicates it would take 9.7 days to cover the short interest of WBPR based on its average daily volume. This is an increase of 127% over the previous month. This together with a decline in EPS growth from 40% in June 1997 to 15% in March 1998 doesn't sound encouraging to me. However, if this stock should take off, those shorts represent a store of "motivated" buyers that could really make things move. Al French - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 19:43:46 -0400 From: Craig Griffin Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] RESC Joe, >Hasn't had any volume >lately, only traded 4300 shares on Friday. That sounds a bit thin for institutions to be able to move in and out. I don't have DG so don't know what the sponsership is, but could be a bit of a limiting factor. >They reported great earnings last >week, beat estimates and it didn't move the stock a bit. As you probably know, sometimes the stock will wait a week or two after a good report and then move (and of course sometimes not). Frequently there will be no news on the actual day of the breakout - often those are the best ones because you have less traders in there playing it one way or another. The weekly volume characteristics (big volume on upweeks, lower volume on downweeks) and very tight 9% base do look good. The pivot is 22 the way I read it for a breakout of the 9 week base. You could also argue for a 7 week base that ended with a high volume week with May 11th being the breakout volume and May 12th clearing the 7 week pivot at 21 1/2. So the May 11 buy looks like a good one, Joe, from my perspective. You got in a bit early using sort of an advanced technique (IMHO). You did it right because you had volume and a tight base in your favor when you did it and now are nestled in nice and deep if it does decide to move on up. You might even get a chance to pyramid at 22+ if that is your bent. Haven't looked at DG. Just some CS oriented chart reading/opinions. Regards, Craig - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 19:33:27 -0500 From: "Joe Scott" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] RESC Craig, Funds 14%, banks 5%, Mgmt 6%, 8.6 mil float. I got in at 21 3/16, may consider pyramiding up to about 22 1/2. With the market looking like it is though, I'm not sure, I'll wait and see. Will depend how it moves, and how "M" looks at the time. don't know a thing joe joe@2fords.net http://www.2fords.net/joe/ - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 20:48:35 -0400 From: Craig Griffin Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] RESC Joe, At 07:33 PM 5/24/98 -0500, you wrote: >With the >market looking like it is though, I'm not sure, I'll wait and see. Will >depend how it moves, and how "M" looks at the time. Well said. Indeed M is iffy at the moment. Also, might move down - of course - one never really knows, that's why we have stops. Best of luck with it - so far, so good. >don't know a thing Yes you do, but it is a good tag line anyway :-). Regards, Craig PS. Enjoyed reading about your Central America adventures on your website. - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 20:52:18 EDT From: FBNAirPlt Subject: [CANSLIM] Connie Macks files Dear Connie: Please forward a copy of your omb/mf files to me. Thanks in advance. I enjoy reading your posts and trying to understand of what you speak. Robert - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 21:00:41 -0400 From: Neil Himber Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Re.Tom Hi Jans: Very well put. I agree entirely. I read only one of Jeffrey's postings. His sarcastic way turned me off. I've ignored him since. If the rest of the group would ignore him maybe he would go away. Neil JANSI1AUG1 wrote: > It's a shame that one of our more valuable assets has left. I may have > disagreed with Tom (and many times his picks-after my analyses-weren't my cup > of tea), but I certainly read every letter he posted. Each one was worthy of > consideration-and since I make my income in the stock mkt., I don't value my > time lightly. > > I came to this group in '96. I understood by the fourth or fifth Canslim > Digest that some of Tom's picks weren't pure CANSLIM. But so what. I used > the beta copy of DG-Online to analyze the stocks he mentioned. Isn't that > what the Digest is all about? Why in the world someone would take exception > to an OPINION freely and lucidly offered I have no idea. So, Jeffrey, you > disagree with Tom's analyses of the Market. Fine. Why belittle him? I can > understand why Tom became angry. You may not understand this, Jeffrey, but > there is a big distinction between evaluating the Market, and evaluating a > member-and his right to have an opinion without being criticized for having > it. > > Tom always had logical and cogent reasons-many based on CANSLIM factors-of why > he liked a stock (and even the Market). I will miss his contributions > (assuming he has left for good). What many in this group might not realize is > that many people in the market pay for the type of analytical/scanning Tom was > offering to us for free. > > And I would remind you that Tom also had a lot of specialized knowledge > concerning brokerage practices-since he once worked for a brokerage firm, and > now works, I believe, for a firm which buys-and-sells international currency. > The information he provided on brokers' practices and methods were so > valuable, in my opinion, that I have archived many of them. It is a shame-and > I must emphatically repeat this-that newbies to the stock market and the > Digest will no longer have such a valuable resource-who seemed to answer all > questions both pleasantly and thoroughly, no matter how elemental-to draw > upon. > > I think we all owe Jeffrey a debt of gratitude. Perhaps for an encore > he'll send each of us a computer virus? > > jans > > - - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 21:52:21 -0400 From: "bamend" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] These are the Taunts Let it lie. You have already done enough for the time being. - -----Original Message----- From: Jeffry White <"postwhit@sover.net"@sover.net> To: canslim@mail.xmission.com Date: Sunday, May 24, 1998 8:43 AM Subject: [CANSLIM] These are the Taunts >Reading the digest over the past few days, along with the flood of mail >sent directly to me, what is most apparent is how varied the >interpretations of our comments can be in this group. What insults >some, inspires an equal number to thanks. What sounds like an apology >to some, is viewed with disdain by others. And so on. > >With that in mind, these are the posts that created such a stir this >week past. BTW, I remain interested in the answers. However, I will >try not to raise this topic again. > >Tom begrudgingly answered these questions: > >> Tom, do I understand this explanation correctly to mean it is your "M" >> approach to play stocks that fit your CANSLIM criteria as long as the >> overall "bull market" continues? >> >> That is, as long as the "economic conditions, etc." are favorable for >> continuing upside movement in the "M", you do not adjust for >> intermediate moves down by reducing exposure to the market through stop >> placement, etc.? >> >> Thanks >> >> Jeffry (the Happy Cash Man) >> > > >His response is set out below, but it raised additional questions for >me, so I asked: > >> Tom, let me clean up this series of questions, post them again and see >> if I can understand your point here. You wrote: >> >> >> > But as long as I can continue finding stocks with top drawer CS >> > elements, I will continue to study charts and look for new buying >> > opportunities. I just don't find the "distribution" signals that >> > worked five years ago to be so clear today. Part of that is a result >> > of the duration of this bull mkt, which has led many "johnny come >> > lately"s to jump in (again a warning signal of a top). But mostly, I >> > think it is a result of the $20 billion or so being pumped into the >> > mkt every month on a net basis. And as long as the market says it >> > wants to go higher, whatever the reasons, who am I to argue with it?? >> > >> > Tom W >> > >> >> What exactly are you looking at which indicates "the market says it >> wants to go higher"? >> >> When you indicate a lack of clarity in distribution signals in the last >> 5 years, are you talking about distribution signals that pre-sage a bear >> market, or intermediate topping action leading to intermediate term >> corrections/conslidations? >> >> Were the "distribution" signals "clear" to you back in early October of >> 1997, prior to the crash? How about January 1997? >> >> If not, what exactly did you find to be unclear in each of those >> intermediate term tops? >> >> Whether you found those tops true to WON's distribution signals, what >> other points in the indices did you have in mind where "distribution" >> signals (compression type after an 3-6 month advance) were not clear >> during the past five years compared to those in the prior period which >> are referencing in your comments here? >> >> Thanks in advance for your response, Tom. >> >> Jeffry > > >If those were taunts, harangues, attacks, etc. then I suppose I am >guilty as charged. But, I think the subsequent posts I made were what >got everyone's dander up, although I may be mistaken. My later posts >where intended to be my expressions of amazement at comments like "If >you didn't notice, I'm trying to ignore your taunts", "Tom's already >answered this question, ignore him, Tom doesn't follow CANSLIM, WON's >"M", etc". >Yep, I knew that already, but wouldn't you like to know the answers to >the questions above from someone who understands WON's "M" and has >rejected it in favor of something else? I follow WON's M the best I >can, and if someone has some information which suggests it doesn't work, >I would and do want to know. > >I'm happy to let this lie, no need for anyone to respond. > >Regards, > >Jeffry > >- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 17:16:56 -0700 From: Dan Cash Subject: [CANSLIM] Tom and Jeffry Jeffry, My grind with you, Jeffry, is not your principled stand concerning the interpretation of "M". In fact, I do not care one way or the other. It has entirely to do with your style of presentation and how your actions have effected ME. I am, for all practical purposes, a lurker and a newbie. I have been a unintroduced member of this news group since about August of last year. I became aware immediately of the quality of expression, knowledge, expression and generosity of members giving their time to share their insights into investing and the market. Tom was one of many, but one I enjoyed to read and evaluate what he had to share. The tenor of the group was one of cordiality and patience to those of us "newbie's" who make naive or stupid comments without being made to feel badly. There has been developing a harshness and aura of less tolerance that I would surely like to see go away. I went back to the archives to find your statement regarding your problem with sarcasm as follows: Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 16:04:12 -0500 From: Jeffry White Subject: [CANSLIM] Market Direction Well, Tom. All the indices are down today, with the exception of the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index and the Transports are up .01%. Is this a "distribution day" in your book, or do we have to have some newsworthy item like Saddam, Monica, Newt, Boris before we start thinking short term (at minimum) top? (Part of his response) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 20:13:05 -0500 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Market Direction Jeffrey, You posted a simple statement that a particular day was distributional. In hopes of learning from you, I asked you why. Your response was that certain indexes were down for the day, and why didn't I agree with you. I noted at the time that part of your reasoning was that NASDAQ closed in the lower half of the range for the day (yet still up almost a full percentage point), thus I felt it worth pointing out that some of the indexes you indicated as down were, in fact, up. Your response was "so what". - ------------- You may believe this, that is your right, but I don't like your sarcasm, and will thus choose to hit the delete button in the future rather than the Reply to Author. I respect your right to your point of view, and attempted to learn from it. I don't appreciate the response. Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 06:45:19 -0500 From: Jeffry White <"postwhit@sover.net"@sover.net> Subject: [CANSLIM] Market Direction Fair enough on the sarcasm point, but it's not only my nature, but something I have a hard time controlling with one who seemingly deviates so far from some CANSLIM, requirements particularly the "L" and the "M". Not to mention, cheap stocks only for a round lot entitlement and sitting through a market crash with no stops on a couple of those cheap stocks, selling a good mover (albeit cheap) because of some emotionalism over Saddam. Maybe it's a sarcasm out of fear that one day I'll get my head all cluttered up with noise and will forget the simple application with which I have had such good fortune since paying a couple of years tuition to the market. This seemed to me to be the beginning of your crusade regarding your difference with Tom about your interpretation of "M" with Tom. Sarcasm being part of my nature is not something that I am proud of. It has made my life hell at times and not pleasant to be around. I resort to it when I feel threatened, insecure, afraid. If I am at one with myself and my position, I do not need to do so. If sarcasm is truely part of your nature, you would be tough to be around, live around, work around. And you would be pretty lonely, I would imagine. Sarcasm is aggressive, sarcasm is angry, sarcasm is ridiculing, sarcasm is belittling, sarcasm is met to put someone down and put that person at an disadvantage, sarcasm is designed to embarrass, sarcasm is dirty fighting. I think you have succeeded in birthing these attributes with yours. I have never met Tom, nor talked to him directly. I grew to look forward to reading what various consistent authors have posted here, Tom being only one. And I grew to like Tom. I appreciate the time and thought that he was willing to give to me to become better educated in this pursuit that we are all on, to make some of our assets grow. I appreciated his approach and knowledge of world markets, and his stock picks were of interest to me to further study. Your characterization of them being "cheap stocks" is demeaning and discounting. He never put them out there without a lot of qualifications that most of us are bright enough to understand. I have made a hell of a lot more money with his picks that I have of your sharing. Low priced undervalued, good CANSLIM characteristics mostly. Not "cheap" with its connotation of no value. You obviously hold his picks in contempt, but there are those of us who look at them. Low priced picks surely are not everyone's bag. I have not seen one from Peter Christiansen less than, probably 25 to 30 dollars, and many that are posted here are above 50. So what? There is enough room here for all without scorn or ridicule. You have harped in a number of responses that you were concerned that the "newbies" would get the wrong idea from Tom about CANSLIM'S philosophy of "M"; that you were pressing the issue to protect us from that contamination. Your attitude, I find, is condescending and patronizing. All of us "newbies", did not just slip out of the amniotic sack. I am 59 years old, have a HUGE portfolio of life experiences, and a rather large smoke detector that I have kept fresh batteries in. Jeffry, we are all adults here, and I for one did not get that email message making you the keeper of "M". I do not need you looking out for me. I do not trust and am always suspicious of dogmatism by anyone or any group. And as a Christian, I am suspicious of any group professing to have THE answer or that this is THE only true interpretation of the Scriptures. We all put our shorts on one leg at a time. O'Neil does also. He has not arrived at the TRUTH any more than you or I have. So for you to hold your reading and interpretation of a belief, or philosolophy out as The Truth, The Way, and The Light is simply wrong. It is YOUR interpretation of what WON has said, and I dare say that we all might just look at the same information and come up with a different take on it. Who is right? (Tom) >> Jeffry, since you apparently can't figure out that I am trying to >> politely ignore your taunts, I guess I must state it for the record. (You) >I meant nothing of the sort, sorry. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." -Lewis Carroll [Through the Looking Glass] I surely did interpret you words as taunting. You reminded me of a shool yard bully that kept poking his finger into someone's chest and getting in their face until a response was elicited. Tom gave you many clear messages that he did not want to engage you in a discussion and he gave these a number of times, but your finger was there pushing and you got your response. You know, the sadness of this episode, is the discussion could have evolved between the two of you on an high quality intellectual level if you had been respectful, not taunting, not sarcastic, not ridiculing. It could have been a educating and informative discussion covering all those points you both were making and more. It just seems to me you had a ax to grind with him and would not let up until you got your fight, and I do not have a clue as to why. It seemed to my that you were trying to make him look foolish. What has this got to do with me? I lost a mentor. I lost the company of a gentle man. I lost daily contact with someone whom I appreciated being in relationship with. I lost a source of sense of the market place. I lost a source of investments ideas. I have gained a low grade anger, roiling around in me when I have to think about the stupidity and worthlessness of sacrificing a relationship on your alter of pride, principle and self-righteousness. You screwed up Jeffry. Sincerly, Dan Cash - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 08:45:04 -0400 (EDT) From: "Surindra J. Singh" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] In Defense of Jeffry Great post db. The only difference I see with you is your address: Yahoo now. Do you own this rather poor canslim candidate yet. I personally will prefer to discuss what the tital of this list is: CANSLIM candidates. I have presented some momentum stocks in the past, but response from the group was cold and no one cared for those due to their non canslim characters. Have a nice Memorial day. Surindra - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 09:27:02 -0400 From: Jeffry White <"postwhit@sover.net"@sover.net> Subject: [CANSLIM] Farmer I thought we ended this conversation!?! :-)) You wrote: > Your recent comment that you don't even look at the picks posted to the group, > preferring instead to stick to those you get from the Farmer, simply > suggests to me that you use the Farmer's system rather than CANSLIM. > Possibly Farmer is pure CANSLIM, possibly not. I just can't understand > not using original data and design if you want to know CANSLIM. I don't look at picks posted to the group, but I *NEVER* said I stick to picks I get from the Farmer. What I *SAID* was I never look at the picks posted in the group (other than a passing glance at the chart, or a few numbers just to get a feel for what a particular individual finds appealing) because I don't find it helps me. In fact, I find it hurts my trading. If I see someone else's pick, and they've had some good one's lately, I tend to cut corners and even do stupid things like chase them. I protect my "head" from that type of problem by not paying attention to the picks in the forum. What I also said was that I tend to read only the posts to the group which feature explanations of basic (yours many times more than not) CANSLIM criteria/rules/analyses. That keeps me on the straight and narrow...kind of like re-reading HTMMIS everyday, but making sure I don't get stuck on one point that is my favorite at the moment. Selfish? Damn right, but what I'm willing to give in return is an objective use of WON's price and volume signals coupled with sentiment numbers (something I know well, analyse well and have seen work well, in person and via computer for historical confirmation over much more than 5 years). Although the Farmer occasionally posts a pick of mine, I haven't traded a single stock they've posted since the NasBars System has been developed. Same reason as above. And although I've made reference to the Farmer (not by name or address) in some of my posts of late, I don't think I'll post the address to the group in general because it would be misleading. The Farmer USED to be pure CANSLIM, but on my suggestion (with some experience in the futures markets) they transformed their price and volume "M" interpretation of HTMMIS into a stock index futures system. Since then, their "M" is not, to my way of thinking, a WON "M". And their stock picks are rarely CANSLIM (focusing instead on high RS stocks with huge weekly breakouts from appropriate bases, etc.).I did learn most everything I know about CANSLIM from the men who run the Farmer, not from the Farmer web site. They are excellent teachers, as are you. I stumbled upon them by accident and didn't even know what CANSLIM was until I finished my first year trading the discipline to an outright doubling of my speculation accounts. Actually, you should check out the Farmer in detail sometime. The fact that they have developed a futures trading system based upon WON's price and volume signals in Chapter 7 is really fascinating. Unfortunately, the system is no longer a helpful guide to the CANSLIM "M", in my opinion. We are arguing feverishly on that topic as you and I write. I do follow the basics, as strictly and meticulously as I can and get my ideas and data from IBD, DG, HTTMIS and other sources for confirmation of earning's growth, etc. I don't think we do things differently, except, I *weaned* myself from what I considered a very bad habit of tailoring my stock pick prices to the size and tolerance of my account. We also don't do the "M" the same, obviously. Other than that, I don't see a difference and I'm not sure what I've actually posted to the group (except my use of options to enhance leverage on the long side, and safely play short on climax type tops) which would suggest to you that we don't do things the same. > I don't feel a need to "disagree, challenge, contest or > explain" anyone else's point of view, yours included. I made an > exception to this, to my regret, when I felt you were trying to > convince all in the group to sell everything because a correction was > about to happen. I didn't say you were wrong, I simply expressed a > different read on "M". Nothing wrong in giving investors more than one > scenario to consider, and let them make up their own minds. > Nothing wrong with an alternative scenario, but why won't you answer questions about what it is specifically that you don't like, don't understand, don't trust, don't think works over the past 5 years with the price and volume numbers, etc. upon which I rely? "The market continues to tell me it wants to move higher"? Is that something you think should go unquestioned? I want to know what you think, but you make me challenge, contests, etc. because you won't explain some of your comments. I want to know why you are comfortable taking yourself out of a position like EPIQ based upon Saddam Huessein? Why sit without stops through the worst correction in 10 years with cheap stocks like MSON and SOCR? I make huge mistakes, too, but I want to know what it is about your "M" that makes you believe it is a worthy effort. Many others in this group do as well, believe me. If we disagree, so what? You are comfortable, you are not going to change, apparently. So why get so defensive about it? Just answer the question, but because you've set yourself up as the patriarch of this group, expect someone to challenge you on comments that are as flip as "distribution signals over the past 5 years have not been clear." You're not gonna get away with a comment like that in a group full of very smart, eloquent and serious folks like those in this group. If not some pissant like me, then there'll be another one join every week. Defensiveness just feeds my interest, and it breeds discontent amongst the following. That's the "discussion" I think the group needs, particularly if you feel I now sound as though I'm trying to "convince" the group to sell. Not my purpose in the least, just pointing out what my analysis suggests (and have you noticed how many in the group now admit that they've not done very well over the past 6 weeks and wish they'd moved a little sooner?) and how I use it to get off margin, then trim the weeklings. I've fully acknowleged that my approach may be a bit rash, as opposed to letting myself slowly get stopped out, but that's my way of protecting money profits as well as psychological comfort which I will need at the next market turn to the upside. It seemed particularly appropriate to set my signals out, since no one paid any attention to them back in October, but seemed to recall a faint voice after many were trapped in that debacle. > One difference we have that seems to cause the conflicts is that you > are trying to presuade me to change to your way of thinking and > investing, while I am perfectly comfortable sticking to what works for > me and don't care if anyone else, yourself included, follows my style. > Having been responsible for several hundred investors' portfolio > management, I frankly don't desire or welcome that responsibility > again. I'm not trying to persuade you of anything, although I think if you really objectively studied the price and volume and sentiment indicators in conjunction with how the leadership stocks behave in response to those signals, you'd persuade yourself of the following: If you play stocks like IMRS, LHSPF, NBTY, WFMI, PAYX, THRX, SFSK, BEAS, MAST, etc. "distribution signals" are remarkably early telltale signs that the coming "correction/consolidation" is close at hand and it is time to protect youself, financially and psyhcologically from the greed and fear that can take a long time to overcome. But short of persuading yourself of that point, I'm sorry if I've been percieved to be trying to persuade you of anything. It may be that I've staked out a position in the group in an effort to provide some questions and reading which provokes those who are inclined to hang on your comments with some food for thought (many have suggested that it is a helpful buffer to what they feel is far from WON's "M" that they are seeking to learn). Whatever works for you, but don't loose sight of the fact that your articulate commentary basically puts you close to assuming "responsibility for several hundred investors' portfolios" you don't "desire or welcome". Just as my comments apparently could be interpreted to be an effort to "convince" the group to sell, so to your comments on cheap stocks and the "M" "noise" (can't think of a better word) hold a great deal of influence. To me, your style of play seems well suited to avoiding the demise of the leaders, which I think, is why you don't necessarily need to move so decisively toward a less exposed position based upon sentiment and price and volume numbers. That, in fact, was my experience when I played cheaper stocks, but I found the benefit of playing more liquid leaders breaking from bottoming action preferable. That move necessitated, however, a more disciplined, objective approach to the "M", I think. There is a difference in how the cheaper less followed CANSLIM stocks behave early in a correction/consolidation, don't you agree? Your gains since April 1 are a testament to that it would seem. But, is it fair to ignore that difference when so many hang on your every word about whether the "M" is o.k. for CANSLIM stocks in general? Of course, they shouldn't hang on your words, but you know they do. Shouldn't some consideration be given to those who would hang on your "M" commentary and apply it to leadership stocks (which I think you must certainly agree are failing miserably). I think so, and that's why I spoke up. Gotta go, Tom. Regards. - - ------------------------------ End of canslim-digest V2 #252 ***************************** 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.