From: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com (canslim-digest) To: canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: canslim-digest V2 #259 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 Friday, May 29 1998 Volume 02 : Number 259 In this issue: RE: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM, "M", and DG alternatives (Part One)--Larry [CANSLIM] How Do the following look [CANSLIM] "M"-Tom, Frank, Db Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM, "M", and DG alternatives (Part One)--Larry Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM, "M", and DG alternatives (Part One)--Larry [CANSLIM] Holt Board Back in Business Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM, "M", and DG alternatives (Part One)--Larry [CANSLIM] Market Article Glass half full (was Re: [CANSLIM] "M", and DG alternatives (Part One)--Larry) Re: [CANSLIM] "M"-Tom, Frank, Db [CANSLIM] IBD - Buy Side Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM, "M", and DG alternatives (Part One)--Larry [CANSLIM] Totally non-CANSLIM - If you have an appraisal coming up, watch out for these. . . Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM, "M", and DG alternatives (Part One)--Frank Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM, "M", and DG alternatives (Part One)--Larry Re: [CANSLIM] IPO's & the IBD [CANSLIM] Re. BigCharts [CANSLIM] Re. Edac & International Sales [CANSLIM] Quotes Plus2: Re: [CANSLIM] Quotes Plus2: [CANSLIM] "Internet" stocks Re: [CANSLIM] "Internet" stocks--Johann Re: [CANSLIM] "Internet" stocks--Johann Re: [CANSLIM] "Internet" stocks--Johann ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 15:52:19 -0700 (PDT) From: dbphoenix Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM, "M", and DG alternatives (Part One)--Larry <> I concur. The problem is that the information is so out of date. Funds only have to report their holding twice a year, and most of them would rather not have to report them at all. Therefore, whatever information you may have about fund sponsorship is old news. Personally, I just ignore it. What matters is demand, not # of funds or float. If enough people want the stock to move it, then it will move. Holders of DELL certainly haven't been disappointed. In our search around the railroad platform for that undiscovered little smallcap startup, the trains just keep leaving the station, one after the other. < 80 would be good enough and that I wouldn't have to check the actual #s. After posting a few stocks that had EPS > 80 and having members inform me that the recent Q wasn't up enough, I began checking and it's not too uncommon to have EPS > 80 and not have a good recent Q.>> This is not at all uncommon. Many people, whether new to investing or just new to CS, equate relative strength with RS rank and earnings strength and stability with EPS rank. They need not have anything to do with each other. If you want to know the relative strength, plot a relative strength line. If you want to know the earnings strength, look up the financials. Easy enough to do on the net. - --Db _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 19:46:47 -0400 From: Chris Reid Subject: [CANSLIM] How Do the following look I was looking at some graphs and I liked the following The Gap (GPS) Capital One Financial Corporation (COF) United Stationers Inc (USTR) Best Buy Co (BBY) All have good canslim numbers and seem a couple seem to be basing, comments needed Thanks in Advance Christopher - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 20:12:41 -0400 From: Jeffry White <"postwhit@sover.net"@sover.net> Subject: [CANSLIM] "M"-Tom, Frank, Db Tom wrote: > Glad we can agree on CNBC, great entertainment if you can avoid taking > them seriously. Kinda like a soap opera, except not as close to "real > life", or reality of any kind. > > Tom W Thanks for your explanations and responses to my questions. Glad we cleared the air. Maybe I can get us back around to those other questions of mine at some point in the future as we learn how best to dosi-doe!! Db wrote: > On the other hand, it may be just as important to determine when and > where the volume came in--on the downside or on the upside? In other > words, if the heaviest volume occurs on the downside, the day might be > considered negative even though it wound up technically positive. I'm > not referring to yesterday in particular, but harking back to the > false signals we received last winter (even IBD got caught with its > pants down on that one). Lighter volume to the upside could be > nothing more than a dead cat bounce. > > Since the NAZ has violated strong support and there's no support > nearby, it's sort of hanging out there in the middle of nowhere. The > prudent investor will wait until it makes up its mind what it wants to > do. > > - --Db > > "Dead cat bounce"--That's why we wait for the "follow through day" before taking action, right? But we can still become optomistic and hopeful on a day like yesterday without clouding the head, I think. However, I've been known to let even that type of thinking corrupt me to a fault. I agree with your observation about upside and downside volume on a reversal, but I don't know how to quantify that with any measure of comfort within the CANSLIM "M". Do you? And, "follow through days" can and do fail, as they did late last year. But I wouldn't overlook that the first "follow through" proclaimed by IBD was "late", and we had quite a discussion in this group about whether it was valid just because IBD printed and article and "surely WON gave personal approval to the story". The second one suckered me into about a half loaded position, half of which stopped me out, half of which went on to lead when the third follow through off a low occurred in January. Also, sentiment remained relatively high until late Jan. and the groups that were then "leading" carried the "defensive stock" tone right through the beginning of the year. Remember that the "late" follow through day spawned such formidable leadership as electric utilities, soaps & cleaning detergents and other high growth stocks!!!! Frank wrote: > As DB (or someone else on the maillist) stated earlier, he is affected by > what he hears, so trys to tune it out. So am I, I can't stop the > cause/effect relationship. However I am trying to get a handle on how it > affects me so I can discriminate between what I know, and what I think I > know and what I hear others say they know. So I inundate myself with all > the data I can get, CNBC, IBD, Barrons, others opinions. If I can > pigeonhole all that and make sense of it, I think I might stand a chance of > not doing something stupid. > I just find it easier to assume I am stupid, can't pigeonhole any of it, can't discriminate between what I know, what I hear, what I hope, etc. When I so much as try to do what you are attempting with the "opinion" part of the equation, I inevitably do something stupid. And one stupid act, leads to a mistake, which leads to at least one stupid mistake... Certinaly can't fault you for trying, however. I think Db describes the kind of isolation from the distractions that I strive for. Very similar to horseplay for me, actually. If I go play my system at the track (ignoring things like I really am a fan of Pat Day, intensely dislike D. Wayne Lukas, don't like favorites, favor Seattle Slew and Alydar bloodlines more than any others), and enjoy the beer, crowd, sun and scene, I make enough to go out and treat a good size party to dinner, etc. But when I like the swing of a horses tail, find myself betting against a clear winner just because D. Wayne is the trainer, I get my rear-end handed to me every time. - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 20:22:15 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM, "M", and DG alternatives (Part One)--Larry Disagree, DB, my understanding is that funds routinely report their holdings on a quarterly basis, and this data is usually shown in Daily Graphs charts within anything from several weeks later to as much as 6 weeks later. In a few special situations (e.g. where a single fund or in some cases a family of funds with common management) exceeds a 5% ownership stake in a single company, this will be reported on a monthly basis or less. Tom W - -----Original Message----- From: dbphoenix To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Date: Thursday, May 28, 1998 7:42 PM Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM, "M", and DG alternatives (Part One)--Larry ><of a CS suggestion. So maybe I can use it as a suggestion instead of a >criteria.>> > >I concur. The problem is that the information is so out of date. >Funds only have to report their holding twice a year, - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 21:34:37 -0400 From: "Frank V. Wolynski" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM, "M", and DG alternatives (Part One)--Larry Tom's response partially explains something I observed in the early 90's. I subscribed to the S&P Stock Guide. The little glued book that is roughly 5x7 and a couple of hundred very thin pages. I was following a few companies via the guides monthly issuance and updating a database with the fundamentals. Every month the institutional data was changing. Either number of institutions holding the stock or the percentage held. The reason I say partially is that the numbers fluctuated enough over that 1 & 1/2 years that I find it hard to believe there were as many special situations as Tom describes below that could cause the fluctuations. The S&P folks must be getting their information from another more frequently updated source. Anyone know Sam Stovall's EMail address? I've got a question for him and I could add this one to it also! Frank Wolynski At 20:22 5/28/98 -0400, Tom Worley wrote: >Disagree, DB, my understanding is that funds routinely report their >holdings on a quarterly basis, and this data is usually shown in Daily >Graphs charts within anything from several weeks later to as much as 6 >weeks later. In a few special situations (e.g. where a single fund or >in some cases a family of funds with common management) exceeds a 5% >ownership stake in a single company, this will be reported on a >monthly basis or less. > >Tom W > >-----Original Message----- >From: dbphoenix >To: canslim@lists.xmission.com >Date: Thursday, May 28, 1998 7:42 PM >Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM, "M", and DG alternatives (Part >One)--Larry > > >><>of a CS suggestion. So maybe I can use it as a suggestion instead of >a >>criteria.>> >> >>I concur. The problem is that the information is so out of date. >>Funds only have to report their holding twice a year, > > >- > > - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 21:40:04 -0400 From: "Frank V. Wolynski" Subject: [CANSLIM] Holt Board Back in Business The Holt board is back to posting New Hi's & Lo's for the exchanges. ( Quantity that is, not the individual issues making the new H/L's.) http://metro.turnpike.net/holt/index.html Frank - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 17:51:19 -0700 (PDT) From: dbphoenix Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM, "M", and DG alternatives (Part One)--Larry <> You may be right. I read that it was six months. At any rate, even at several weeks, it's old news. A lot can happen in six weeks. That is, the funds that held it six weeks ago needn't necessarily be holding it now or be holding tomorrow or next week. Turnover is simply higher now than it was 15 years ago. Therefore, I'd rather just follow the chart. - --Db _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 19:30:49 PDT From: "Charles Morgan" Subject: [CANSLIM] Market Article Everybody, This a portion of an article from October 1997 Kiplinger's magazine. It is sort of long, but I find it to be interesting. It is an article of the 1973-74 Bear market(which was 21 months long). January 11,1973 (DOW 1052) A great day to own stocks.Investors, feeding on the economy, push the Dow up more than 5 and a half points, to an all time high of 1052. Optimism abounds. "As time goes on, the economy is becoming less and less vulnerable to big booms and big busts," says L.O. Hooper, of the W.E. Hutton & Co. brokerage, in the current Forbes."Competent economists, constantly more influential in government and in money management, are doing more and more to keep trends in control." For some time, it has seemed as if there were two stock markets: a favored few stocks and all the rest. A handful of bluechips referred to as the nifty fifty lead the way. Among them are McDonald's-at $74, it's selling for a staggering 83 times its earnings per share for the previous 12 months. Avon is at $133(with a P/E of 63). Eastman Kodak commands $148(P/E 47), Coca-Cola is $148(47) and IBM is $415(38). These are all steadily growing companies, and the thinking is that they deserve the high P/Es because their potential for growth seems limitless. A few people are appalled at valuations for the nifty fifty. One of them is John Neff, the veteran value investor who runs Windsor fund. "The whole growth-stock-multiple fad is crazy," Neff tells Forbes. "People are just buying quality companies at any price and hanging on forever. I bought McDonald's at a P/E of 16 and sold it at a P/E of 25." Now look at the stock, he says. "This is sheer fantasy." The article lists a number of significant days with appropriate commentary from the period. The final day is October 4,1974 with the Dow at 585. On this day part of the commentary is "Now there seems to be no bottom, and the sense of defeat on Wall Street is almost palpable. Word on the floor of the NYSE is that some institutional stock portfolios are for sale." During this 21 months, there was a Middle East war, Watergate, and an oil crisis which probably moved things along. The before mentioned stock prices were down from 60% to 85%. The Dow was down 44%. Just some food for thought. Chuck ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 22:41:22 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Glass half full (was Re: [CANSLIM] "M", and DG alternatives (Part One)--Larry) Or, you could see a stock that shows no institutional ownership, but has all the qualities of attracting a small cap fund, or patient pension fund, yada yada yada, and not be turned away by the lack of institutional ownership despite its sterling CS elements and top drawer chart. That's why I am not scared away by the lack of funds ownership, only by the excess of it. And that's why of the some 19 stocks on my watch list, I felt good about having one of the ten on NASDAQ that managed to hit a new high today (RUSH) and having 13 of the 19 manage to close up for the day. I don't think I have yet added or deleted a stock from my watch list, or just avoided it, solely on "I" reasons, nor do I think it has ever directly affected my buy or sell actions. I consider "I" to be a lagging indicator, and on those stocks where I had the patience to wait and watch, have often been able to "see" where the funds finally got on the bandwagon. Tom W - -----Original Message----- From: dbphoenix To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Date: Thursday, May 28, 1998 10:12 PM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM, "M", and DG alternatives (Part One)--Larry ><holdings on a quarterly basis, and this data is usually shown in Daily >Graphs charts within anything from several weeks later to as much as 6 >weeks later. In a few special situations (e.g. where a single fund or >in some cases a family of funds with common management) exceeds a 5% >ownership stake in a single company, this will be reported on a >monthly basis or less.>> > >You may be right. I read that it was six months. At any rate, even >at several weeks, it's old news. A lot can happen in six weeks. That >is, the funds that held it six weeks ago needn't necessarily be >holding it now or be holding tomorrow or next week. Turnover is >simply higher now than it was 15 years ago. Therefore, I'd rather >just follow the chart. > >--Db > > - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 17:41:32 -0700 (PDT) From: dbphoenix Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] "M"-Tom, Frank, Db <<"Dead cat bounce"--That's why we wait for the "follow through day" before taking action, right?>> Supposedly. <> Hate to sound like a Zen master, but, no, you can't. Hopeful, fearful, anxious, doubtful, etc., etc., serve no purpose other than to--as you say--cloud judgement. Until one has brought "feelings" under control, every decision must be made very carefully. This is not a video game; it's a business. So each decision must be a business decision. Bummer. <> As regards CAMSLIM "M", it would be tough. One must remember that when HTMMIS was written, there were no PCs, no internet, no intraday charts. At least for the common folk. That's one of the reasons why, over the past year, I've tried to get into the spirit of CS rather than the piddly details. - --Db _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 06:58:43 -0400 From: "Frank V. Wolynski" Subject: [CANSLIM] IBD - Buy Side The Buy Side "New Buys of Top-Rated Mutual Funds" appeared in todays IBD. I think it last appeared about a month ago. Don't know their publishing frequency for that particular feature, but thought it relevant to post the heads up since some of our discussion of late has been about institutional sponsorship. Frank Wolynski P.S. Also for anyone new to the process of investing in stocks, Page B3 has a primer on what happens when you place an order. - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 07:08:07 -0400 From: "Frank V. Wolynski" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM, "M", and DG alternatives (Part One)--Larry Db, Although I'm a semi-proponent that the chart tells all, it is not necessarily old news that institutions are acquiring a particular company. Interestingly enough, Cisco Systems stayed in a trading range of roughly $18 - $25 for an eight month period prior to its initial breakout. During that time, institutions steadily and aggressively were purchasing the stock. I have the exact #'s in a database I no longer keep, but have an archived copy and can extract the numbers if you are interested. Frank Wolynski At 17:51 5/28/98 -0700, dbphoenix wrote: ><holdings on a quarterly basis, and this data is usually shown in Daily >Graphs charts within anything from several weeks later to as much as 6 >weeks later. In a few special situations (e.g. where a single fund or >in some cases a family of funds with common management) exceeds a 5% >ownership stake in a single company, this will be reported on a >monthly basis or less.>> > >You may be right. I read that it was six months. At any rate, even >at several weeks, it's old news. A lot can happen in six weeks. That >is, the funds that held it six weeks ago needn't necessarily be >holding it now or be holding tomorrow or next week. Turnover is >simply higher now than it was 15 years ago. Therefore, I'd rather >just follow the chart. > >--Db > > > > > >_________________________________________________________ >DO YOU YAHOO!? >Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > >- > > - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 07:50:13 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: [CANSLIM] Totally non-CANSLIM - If you have an appraisal coming up, watch out for these. . . OK, forgive me, but I got some good chuckles out of these. Where were they, tho, when I was scratching my brains trying to write polite personnel evaluations about someone so hard to say something nice?? Tom W >Actual quotes >from Federal employee performance evaluations: > > "Since my last report, he has reached rock bottom and has > > started to dig." > > "His men would follow him anywhere, but only out of morbid > > curiosity." > > "I would not allow this employee to breed." > > "Works well when under constant supervision and cornered > > like a rat in a trap." > > "He would be out of his depth in a parking lot puddle." > > "This young lady has delusions of adequacy." > > "She sets low personal standards and then consistently fails > > to achieve them." > > "This employee should go far - and the sooner he starts, the > > better." > > "This employee is depriving a village somewhere of an > > idiot." > > >These are actual lines out of OER (Officer Efficiency > >Reports) - performance appraisal for the military. > > > * Not the sharpest knife in the drawer. > > * Got into the gene pool while the lifeguard wasn't > > watching. > > * A room temperature IQ. > > * Got a full 6-pack, but lacks the plastic thingy to > > hold it all together. > > * A gross ignoramus -144 times worse than an ordinary > > ignoramus. > > * A photographic memory but with the lens cover glued on. > > * A prime candidate for natural deselection. > > * Bright as Alaska in December. > > * One celled organisms out score him in IQ tests. > > * Donated his body to science before he was done using it. > > * Fell out of the family tree. > > * Gates are down, the lights are flashing, but the train > > isn't coming. > > * Has two brains: one is lost and the other is out looking > > for it. > > * He's so dense, light bends around him. > > * If brains were taxed, he'd get a rebate. > > * If he were any more stupid, he'd have to be watered twice > > a week. > > * If you give him a penny for his thoughts, you'd get > > change. > > * If you stand close enough to him you can hear the ocean. > > * It's hard to believe that he beat out 1,000,000 other > > sperm. > > * One neuron short of a synapse. > > * Some drink from the fountain of knowledge; he only > > gargled. > > * Takes him 1 1/2 hours to watch 60 minutes. > > * Was left on the Tilt-A-Whirl a bit too long as a baby. > - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 06:10:17 -0700 (PDT) From: dbphoenix Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM, "M", and DG alternatives (Part One)--Frank <> I don't mean to imply that the numbers are completely useless. But, by the same token, one has no way of knowing how current they are. IBD, for example, may state that such-and-such a fund held so-and-so during the previous quarter, but that doesn't mean they still hold it as of this morning. And if institutions are accumulating or distributing a company and it doesn't show up in the chart, then what difference does it make? Add to that the fact that every site you go to will have a different number--sometimes slight, often not--for sponsorship. What it all boils down to is that if the number doesn't do anything for me, even if it's reliable, I pay little attention to it. A large part of the importance of fund sponsorship has to do with the conditions at the time HTMMIS was written. There were far fewer funds then, and individual investors perceived the market differently. One of the reasons stocks and markets fell was that they couldn't maintain overbought conditions--everyone who had bought had bought. Therefore, if a stock had high fund sponsorship, there weren't enough people left to buy to sustain the move, much less propel it. Today, however, there are more funds than there are stocks listed on the NYSE. Fund managers' jobs depend in large part on performance. They don't have the option of going into cash the way they did 15 years ago. If they move out of one sector, they must put the money to work in another (one reason why the market keeps going higher even though certain sectors dramatically correctly in turn). Plus, with IRAs, 401Ks, and the money bubble itself, cash keeps pouring in to the market. Therefore, even when it seems as though there's no one left to buy, the ones who've already bought are put in the position of having to buy more. Everyone tells frightening stories of funds pulling out of overowned stocks. But I'm far more concerned about traders on a day-to-day basis. Funds are not responsible for what's been happening with, for example, the "internet" stocks. The responsibility for those moves lies with the individual investor. - --Db _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 09:33:55 EDT From: Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] CANSLIM, "M", and DG alternatives (Part One)--Larry In a message dated 98-05-28 22:56:08 EDT, you write: << <> You may be right. I read that it was six months. At any rate, even at several weeks, it's old news. A lot can happen in six weeks. That is, the funds that held it six weeks ago needn't necessarily be holding it now or be holding tomorrow or next week. Turnover is simply higher now than it was 15 years ago. Therefore, I'd rather just follow the chart. --Db >> This is like any other indicator............if you wait too long for your conformation you will sacrifice some gains. I think WON says something like "It's not your Aunt Betty down the street buying all those shares". It seems those volume spikes on the chart are enough for WON. This is just my interpretation of course. DSquires - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 09:34:00 EDT From: Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] IPO's & the IBD Frank, This is an excellent IPO site. They have strict ranking system and often pick good performers. http://gaskinsco.com/reviews.htm DSquires - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 10:04:06 EDT From: Subject: [CANSLIM] Re. BigCharts Connie: Has this happened to you to: I set BigCharts with the "setting" button, and sometimes the next day I get the default chart (1yr. stock and volume). Sometimes it comes up with my settings though. So, either I'm doing something wrong or BigCharts has a big bug. Has this ever happened to you or anyone else you know of? Would you surmise on a solution? I'm out of ideas. (Yesterday I wrote to BigCharts regarding this problem, but they haven't answered me yet.) jans - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 10:33:12 EDT From: Subject: [CANSLIM] Re. Edac & International Sales Tom, I just read your 5/26 Digest E-mail asking if anyone had any ideas when to sell. If it were mine I'd sell now ( I know you are down a point or so since you asked on the 26th). I looked at Big Charts and the MACD is turning. This, to me, would be cause for concern, but wouldn't persuade me-by itself-to sell. Also, slow stoch and its avg.is also turning at around 80 (which indicates an overbought area). What would convince me to sell is that Money Flow and slow Stoch are both in weak divergence with the highs of the stock. I could be wrong-sometimes the stock keeps on going from momentum because of inertia. However, because of these (and mainly the Money Flow) I would sell. Assuming you don't pay much commission, I might buy it back if this is only a correction (as would be indicated to me by slow Stochastic and its avg. going down to around 20, and MACD hitting off its avg.-which to me would mean confirmation of a trend up. However, I must admit that the Money Flow weak divergence would really make me pause.) Tom, I wrote to DG asking them to put the % of internat. sales each stock's total sales come from. I believe this is especially important because of the Asian crisis, and it's consequential affect on EPS and EPS momentum. They said they will be looking into it. However, until they do put it up with the other fundamental data on DG-Online, do you know of an address on the Web or AOL that gives such international information for a stock without having to search through paragraphs of blather. jans - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 17:15:02 +0200 From: "Thomas F. Unterberger" Subject: [CANSLIM] Quotes Plus2: Here is a copy from Quotes Plus : QP2 is expected to be released next week. I can take your order and hold it until next week if you would like. Just email your correct mailing address and a new expiration date on your credit card. It will cost $39.00 + $12.00 S&H out of country. If you want to pay for a subscription also the cost are as follows: Internet monthly service------------------$18.95, mutual funds add $3.00 Toll-free # monthly service---------------$25.95, mutual funds add $4.00 6 months subscriptions are a 5% discount 1-year subscriptions are a 10% discount Thank you Daphne - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 18:38:53 +0200 From: Johan Van Houtven Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Quotes Plus2: >Just email >your correct mailing address and a new expiration date on your credit card. Security-wise, this is a big no-no. Your email passes many, many servers and anyone scanning for the words 'VISA' and such will easily accumulate a list of credit card nrs with exp dates. FAX your data or use PGP encoded email (both sender and reciever must have PGP installed.) More info on PGP: http://www.nai.com/default_pgp.asp Johan Van Houtven CLICK! N.V. / Wilrijk, Belgium - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 16:29:08 +0200 From: Johan Van Houtven Subject: [CANSLIM] "Internet" stocks DB wrote: > Funds are not responsible for what's been happening with, for >example, the "internet" stocks. The responsibility for those moves >lies with the individual investor. > >--Db DB, can you please elaborate on this. What exactly is your point? Did you mean to say that it was the buying power of individual investors that was responsible for the upward moves we have seen in YHOO, XCIT, SEEK etc during the last 6 months or so? - --- Johan Van Houtven - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 10:54:42 -0700 (PDT) From: dbphoenix Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] "Internet" stocks--Johann <> I'm beginning to lose the thread here, Johann :) When it comes to the major search engines like Yahoo, probably not, though I suspect that traders did have a substantial influence on these moves as well. But when you look at stocks like KTEL which began at the few-dollar level (or less) and rocketed in a matter of days, it isn't a stretch to assume that it's the work of traders, particularly since profits were taken so rapidly. The genesis of all this had to do with the importance of fund ownership and the influence of fund managers' behavior on stock price. Fund managers just don't jump in and out of stocks like this. They can't. The number of shares they'd have to buy in order for the stock to occupy any decent place in their portfolios would demand buying so many shares that the fund might as well buy the company (which, in a sense, is what Warren B. does). My point overall is that what we know of the degree of fund ownership is always out of date. Sometimes it's off to a small extent. Sometimes much greater (remember when Vinick--sp?--was exiting MU while touting the stock). But beyond that, even if we were able to determine on a daily or even weekly basis which funds owned what and how much, what difference would it make? What constituted "overowned" 15 years ago doesn't necessarily constitute "overowned" today since the meaning of "overowned" has changed. Therefore, to eliminate a stock from consideration solely because its fund sponsorship (which may or may not be accurate) is above a certain point doesn't make much sense to me. But then none of us is responsible for what any of us does with his or her money. Just bringing up something that I think needs to be examined. - --Db _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 14:16:49 -0400 From: "PHYLLIS ROBINSON" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] "Internet" stocks--Johann Hi everyone, So as i understand it, if you are looking at IBD RS and EPS, this is not the same as Canslim? Please help me to underdstand this!! I was under the impression that RS and EPS that WON talks about in his book is the same criterisa that is printed in IBD. Thanks,Phyllis - -----Original Message----- From: dbphoenix To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Date: Friday, May 29, 1998 2:08 PM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] "Internet" stocks--Johann >< >Did you mean to say that it was the buying power of individual investors >that was responsible for the upward moves we have seen in YHOO, XCIT, >SEEK >etc during the last 6 months or so?>> > >I'm beginning to lose the thread here, Johann :) When it comes to the >major search engines like Yahoo, probably not, though I suspect that >traders did have a substantial influence on these moves as well. But >when you look at stocks like KTEL which began at the few-dollar level >(or less) and rocketed in a matter of days, it isn't a stretch to >assume that it's the work of traders, particularly since profits were >taken so rapidly. > >The genesis of all this had to do with the importance of fund >ownership and the influence of fund managers' behavior on stock price. > Fund managers just don't jump in and out of stocks like this. They >can't. The number of shares they'd have to buy in order for the stock >to occupy any decent place in their portfolios would demand buying so >many shares that the fund might as well buy the company (which, in a >sense, is what Warren B. does). > >My point overall is that what we know of the degree of fund ownership >is always out of date. Sometimes it's off to a small extent. >Sometimes much greater (remember when Vinick--sp?--was exiting MU >while touting the stock). But beyond that, even if we were able to >determine on a daily or even weekly basis which funds owned what and >how much, what difference would it make? What constituted "overowned" >15 years ago doesn't necessarily constitute "overowned" today since >the meaning of "overowned" has changed. Therefore, to eliminate a >stock from consideration solely because its fund sponsorship (which >may or may not be accurate) is above a certain point doesn't make much >sense to me. > >But then none of us is responsible for what any of us does with his or >her money. Just bringing up something that I think needs to be >examined. > >--Db > > > > > >_________________________________________________________ >DO YOU YAHOO!? >Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > >- > - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 12:23:29 -0700 (PDT) From: dbphoenix Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] "Internet" stocks--Johann <> Don't jump to conclusions, Phyllis. I'm probably alone in this. I learned long ago to separate O'N the researcher and investor from O'N the newspaper publisher. When I began investing 10 years ago, I scoured IBD, hanging on its every word, but much of what I gathered didn't make sense to me. There's really nothing unique or even unusual about CANSLIM. Most of its principles date back to the last century. What O'N did is put it all together into a comprehensive and relatively comprehensible package, aided by his daily newspaper. What he learned in his research is that a record of strong, stable earnings was "critical" (his word) to selecting winning stocks. To aid the investor in locating these companies, he came up with the EPS formula. But to say that EPS rank is the same as the actual earnings record is to say that a photograph of a banana is the same as a banana. They are not the same. And those who go strictly by IBD's EPS numbers without ever looking at the company's balance sheet or its 10K are taking a great deal on faith and swimming in very muddy water. The other half of the equation after what to buy is when to buy it, which is where charts and relative strength come in. O'N advises buying stocks with strong relative strength. That does not--much to many investors' surprise--mean stocks that are going up. A stock can have a high relative strength and be basing, or even forming a cup and handle. What he's talking about are stocks that are going places, strong stocks, industry leaders (even if they may not be price leaders at that exact moment), gorillas. Again, to help investors (specifically, subscribers), he came up with the RS formula. But also again, the RS rank is not the same as relative strength. If you want to see relative strength, you need to find or plot a relative strength line. Otherwise, unless you plot every stock in IBD in Excel, you have no way of knowing whether the relative strength is increasing or decreasing. You also have no way of knowing whether the relative strength line is diverging from the price plot unless you look at it. Ditto with group and sector composites and indices. An RS line can also tell you how fast a stock or group is moving relative to the market. An RS number can't, unless you keep track of it and plot it on a spreadsheet. But, as to the latter, unless your time is worth 25 cents an hour, it's a lot easier just to buy an inexpensive charting program and have the computer do it in a few seconds. So, to make a short story long, the RS and EPS ranks mentioned in the book are the same as those in IBD. However, the bulk of HTMMIS is devoted to extolling the virtues of earnings and relative strength, and EPS and RS ranks are only surrogates for earnings and relative strength, not the earnings and relative strength themselves. To get at those, you have to dig a little deeper. - --Db _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - - ------------------------------ End of canslim-digest V2 #259 ***************************** 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.