Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 6:10 PM

To: CANSLIM

Subject: [CANSLIM] hummmm???

<= /DIV>Well, we now have higher highs as well as higher lows in the DOW 30,= NYSE
Composite, and S&P500. Naz 100, Composite, and R2000 s= till have not
delivered this, but still hold out possibilities if we g= et one or two more
good days. Big caps, and some mid caps, seem to be = ruling the markets these
days.

DJ Utilities, NYSE Financial, an= d S&P 400 Midcap have also given us higher
highs and lows. DJ Tran= sportation and S&P 600 have not.

Curious if any members have d= one any examination of this being accomplished
on light volume. Is thi= s just the summer doldrums causing light volume, fear
factor holding e= veryone back, or just a sucker rally waiting for the short
traders to = take charge again?

Tom Worley
stkguru@bellsouth.net
AIM: Tex= Worley

-
-To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xm= ission.com"
-In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or
-"unsu= bscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email.
= - ------=_NextPart_001_0002_01C244AB.B41EA9C0-- - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 23:19:12 -0700 From: "NANCY POLCARO" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Market turning UP - ------=_NextPart_001_0003_01C244B2.2A47A100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I signed up for the email from the man who was in the group and had to le= ave because he didn't have time to keep up with this list. I believe h= is name is Ernie. He said his charts show that we will be in a bull till= the end of Sept. or beginning of Oct. (for those who did not sign up for= it:) Minus a war, etc. This would be nice. Nancy =20 - ----- Original Message ----- From: Chazmoore@aol.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 7:07 PM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: [CANSLIM] Market turning UP =20 Tom: This is a bit off subject but I am sending it anyway so you can feel= bullish again. =20 Today, the NYSE Bullish Indicator shows that 36% of stocks on the NYSE ar= e signaling buy, with Bull Confirmed. The NASDAQ 100 Bullish Indicator is= now at 38% with Bull Confirmed, and the S&P 500 Bullish Indicator is at = 44% with a Bull Alert. =20 Granted, this may be a correction within a bear market, but for the short= term it looks pretty good. (I suspect it will crash tomorrow after I hav= e set myself up, but remember Tom, I am doing this for you.) =20 Charley =20 - ------=_NextPart_001_0003_01C244B2.2A47A100 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I signed up fo= r the email from the man who was in the group and had to leave becau= se he didn't have time to keep up with this list. I believe&n= bsp; his name is Ernie. He said his charts show that we will be in = a bull till the end of Sept. or beginning of Oct. (for those who did not = sign up for it:) Minus a war, etc. This would be nice. Nancy<= /DIV>

----- Original Message -----
F= rom: Chazmoore@aol.com

Sent:= Thursday, August 15, 2002 7:07 PM

To: canslim@lists.xmission.com

Subject: [CANSLIM] Market turning UP

Tom: This is a bit off subje= ct but I am sending it anyway so you can feel bullish again.
Today, t= he NYSE Bullish Indicator shows that 36% of stocks on the NYSE are signal= ing buy, with Bull Confirmed. The NASDAQ 100 Bullish Indicator is now at = 38% with Bull Confirmed, and the S&P 500 Bullish Indicator is at 44% = with a Bull Alert.
Granted, this may be a correction within a bear ma= rket, but for the short term it looks pretty good. (I suspect it will cra= sh tomorrow after I have set myself up, but remember Tom, I am doing this= for you.)

Charley

- ------=_NextPart_001_0003_01C244B2.2A47A100-- - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 21:15:03 -1000 From: "Mike Gibbons" Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Inst Ownership This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C244A0.D2239A80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > and the quality of mutual fund ownership, above average. and there's the rub. Where is quality defined, how is it measured and what is above average? Rhetorical question, because I don't think there's an answer, But, I've been wrong before and I expect the redoubtable Katherine or Tom will prove me so again :-) Aloha, Mike Gibbons Proactive Technologies, LLC http://www.proactech.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Chazmoore@aol.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 6:12 PM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Inst Ownership Gentlemen, if I may guide this discussion back to it's beginning, I believe I was the one who pontificated that IBD/DGO recommends no more than 25% mutual fund ownership, because otherwise there would be inadequate institutional capacity left to buy the stock when it started to move. In my opinion they use mutual funds because they leave a paper trail, and the quality of investment skill can be measured. Other institutions, for example life insurance companies, are more difficult to evaluate. For most public companies, institutions own most of the outstanding float, maybe 80% to 90% (according to Yahoo). Since the bulk of the ownership cannot be evaluated as respects investment skill and success, WON hones in on that part that can be monitored; the mutual funds. He recommends mutual fund sponsorship, but for growth stocks, he likes to see the percentage of ownership at less than 25%, and the quality of mutual fund ownership, above average. But then, what do I know? Charley - ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C244A0.D2239A80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

>=20 and the quality of mutual fund = ownership, above=20 average.

and=20 there's the rub. Where is quality defined, how is it measured and = what is=20 above average? Rhetorical question, because I don't think there's an = answer,=20 But, I've been wrong before and I expect the redoubtable Katherine or = Tom will=20 prove me so again :-)

Aloha,

Mike = Gibbons

Proactive = Technologies,=20 LLC

http://www.proactech.com

-----Original Message-----
From:=20 owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of=20 Chazmoore@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 6:12=20 PM
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com
Subject: Re: = [CANSLIM]=20 Inst Ownership

Gentlemen, if I may guide this discussion back to it's = beginning, I=20 believe I was the one who pontificated that IBD/DGO recommends no more = than=20 25% mutual fund ownership, because otherwise there would be inadequate = institutional capacity left to buy the stock when it started to move. = In my=20 opinion they use mutual funds because they leave a paper trail, and = the=20 quality of investment skill can be measured. Other institutions, for = example=20 life insurance companies, are more difficult to evaluate.

For = most=20 public companies, institutions own most of the outstanding float, = maybe 80% to=20 90% (according to Yahoo). Since the bulk of the ownership cannot be = evaluated=20 as respects investment skill and success, WON hones in on that part = that can=20 be monitored; the mutual funds. He recommends mutual fund sponsorship, = but for=20 growth stocks, he likes to see the percentage of ownership at less = than 25%,=20 and the quality of mutual fund ownership, above average.

But = then,=20 what do I know?

Charley =

- ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C244A0.D2239A80-- - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 21:24:28 -1000 From: "Mike Gibbons" Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Inst Ownership This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C244A2.231D2AE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ah Ha, and as a I continued to read, I discovered the redoubtable Katherine had indeed already provided the answer to my foolishly thought rhetorical question. Oh Well, go PHA and assuage my sorrows. Aloha, Mike Gibbons Proactive Technologies, LLC http://www.proactech.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Mike Gibbons Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 9:15 PM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Inst Ownership > and the quality of mutual fund ownership, above average. and there's the rub. Where is quality defined, how is it measured and what is above average? Rhetorical question, because I don't think there's an answer, But, I've been wrong before and I expect the redoubtable Katherine or Tom will prove me so again :-) Aloha, Mike Gibbons Proactive Technologies, LLC http://www.proactech.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Chazmoore@aol.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 6:12 PM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Inst Ownership Gentlemen, if I may guide this discussion back to it's beginning, I believe I was the one who pontificated that IBD/DGO recommends no more than 25% mutual fund ownership, because otherwise there would be inadequate institutional capacity left to buy the stock when it started to move. In my opinion they use mutual funds because they leave a paper trail, and the quality of investment skill can be measured. Other institutions, for example life insurance companies, are more difficult to evaluate. For most public companies, institutions own most of the outstanding float, maybe 80% to 90% (according to Yahoo). Since the bulk of the ownership cannot be evaluated as respects investment skill and success, WON hones in on that part that can be monitored; the mutual funds. He recommends mutual fund sponsorship, but for growth stocks, he likes to see the percentage of ownership at less than 25%, and the quality of mutual fund ownership, above average. But then, what do I know? Charley - ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C244A2.231D2AE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Ah=20 Ha, and as a I continued to read, I discovered the redoubtable Katherine = had=20 indeed already provided the answer to my foolishly thought rhetorical = question.=20 Oh Well, go PHA and assuage my sorrows.

Aloha,

Mike = Gibbons

Proactive = Technologies,=20 LLC

http://www.proactech.com

-----Original Message-----
From:=20 owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Mike=20 Gibbons
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 9:15 = PM
To:=20 canslim@lists.xmission.com
Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Inst=20 Ownership

> and the quality of = mutual fund=20 ownership, above average.

and=20 there's the rub. Where is quality defined, how is it measured and = what is=20 above average? Rhetorical question, because I don't think there's an = answer,=20 But, I've been wrong before and I expect the redoubtable Katherine or = Tom will=20 prove me so again :-)

Aloha,

Mike = Gibbons

Proactive = Technologies,=20 LLC

http://www.proactech.com

-----Original Message-----
From:=20 owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of=20 Chazmoore@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 6:12 = PM
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com
Subject: Re: = [CANSLIM]=20 Inst Ownership

Gentlemen, if I may guide this discussion back to it's = beginning, I=20 believe I was the one who pontificated that IBD/DGO recommends no = more than=20 25% mutual fund ownership, because otherwise there would be = inadequate=20 institutional capacity left to buy the stock when it started to = move. In my=20 opinion they use mutual funds because they leave a paper trail, and = the=20 quality of investment skill can be measured. Other institutions, for = example=20 life insurance companies, are more difficult to evaluate. =

For most=20 public companies, institutions own most of the outstanding float, = maybe 80%=20 to 90% (according to Yahoo). Since the bulk of the ownership cannot = be=20 evaluated as respects investment skill and success, WON hones in on = that=20 part that can be monitored; the mutual funds. He recommends mutual = fund=20 sponsorship, but for growth stocks, he likes to see the percentage = of=20 ownership at less than 25%, and the quality of mutual fund = ownership, above=20 average.

But then, what do I know?

Charley=20

- ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C244A2.231D2AE0-- - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 23:03:59 -0500 From: Gene Ricci Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Inst Ownership This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0479_01C244B0.09F1A740 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_047A_01C244B0.09F1A740" - ------=_NextPart_001_047A_01C244B0.09F1A740 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I told them that they should call it fund ownership instead of = institutional ownership, very misleading.=20 That clears up another mystery as to the differences in data sources.=20 Gene ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Tom Worley=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 10:34 PM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Inst Ownership Mutual funds are pretty easy to define and monitor activity = consistently, hence why DGO reports them. They are also required to file = various reports of holdings, so easier to track. Institutionals range = from semi-public pension funds to very private investors. So long as = they don't exceed 5% holdings in a company, it can be very difficult, if = not impossible, to track what they are doing. ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Gene Ricci=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:50 PM Subject: [CANSLIM] Inst Ownership Tom, I agree with you... unfortunately.... DGO/IBD only counts mutual = funds ! This explains the difference between DGO and other data sources. = DGO doesn't count them all. Here's what they said (today): "When you say "count" we count the amount of shares of the floating = supply of stock that Mutual Funds own as registered with the NYSE and = NASDAQ exchanges."=20 regards, Gene ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Tom Worley=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 5:39 PM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] UCBH Institutional ownership includes, in addition to mutual funds, = pension funds, insurance companies, some banks (buying for their own = account), venture capital funds, etc. There are also some individual = investors that usually get counted, a certain Saudi Arabian prince comes = to mind, who will buy $50 to $250 million worth of stock at a time, = easily the size of a mutual fund order. A bank is not always an "institutional investor" (unless buying for = its own account) as it is often used as custodian, or even agent, for = other institutional accounts as well as many retail accounts. My = employer is a bank, and also custodian for its securities clients. As = such, its collective holdings of some securities would easily be large = enough to count as "institutional" in size, yet they are not because the = end owner is a retail client of the bank, often making his or her own = investment decisions. WON does not count bank holdings for this reason, as it is difficult = to distinguish bank holdings as "proxy owner" from own holdings, same as = a broker dealer holding in street name for its clients. ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Gene Ricci=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:25 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] UCBH Ann, my data source shows growth at 18, not too shabby for a bank... Charley... I'm awaiting a definitive answer from IBD on = institutional ownership. I've asked them what they count and what they = don't count because of the significant differences in the 'numbers' from = different data suppliers. My second question to them is 'why aren't = banks and pension funds, etc. counted in their numbers.=20 In the Q&A below, IBD switches between calling it institutional = ownership and mutual funds... if a bank isn't an institution why doesn't = IBD just call it funds?=20 What is a level of institutional ownership you consider when = buying a stock? If too many shares are already owned by institutional = investors, can that hurt a stock's chances of rising?=20 =20 Answer=20 It is hard to tell how much institutional ownership is too = much. Therefore, you should place less weight on this factor. Rather, = focus on the quality of ownership. You want to see at least a few of the = better performing mutual funds owning the stock you are considering = buying. In some cases, however, if too many shares are owned by = institutional investors, this could be bad. That's because it represents = large potential selling if anything goes wrong with the company or the = general market. =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Chazmoore@aol.com=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 8:58 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] UCBH Ann: I will give you my thoughts to get you started.=20 Fundamentally, the stock looks sound. You say they lost a fraud = suit but for the time being the market has not reacted negatively. You = didn't say when, but if it wasn't yesterday, I wouldn't put much weight = on it. The market tends to respond very quickly to negative news.=20 You didn't state your investment goals, but in my opinion this is = not a growth stock. For one thing if institutions own 91% now, there = simply isn't enough stock available to new buyers to move the price = significantly. That does not mean they cannot enjoy good steady slow = growth. The funds own 31%; WON recommends staying below 25%.=20 The real positive for this stock is the Group RS rating, and the = Price RS.=20 The negative is the very weak market.=20 Charley - ------=_NextPart_001_047A_01C244B0.09F1A740 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I told them that they should call it = fund=20 ownership instead of institutional ownership, very misleading.=20

That clears up another mystery as to = the=20 differences in data sources.

Gene

----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Tom=20 Worley

To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=

Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 = 10:34=20 PM

Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Inst=20 Ownership

Mutual funds are pretty easy to define and = monitor=20 activity consistently, hence why DGO reports them. They are also = required to=20 file various reports of holdings, so easier to track. Institutionals = range=20 from semi-public pension funds to very private investors. So long as = they=20 don't exceed 5% holdings in a company, it can be very difficult, if = not=20 impossible, to track what they are doing.

----- Original Message -----=20

From: Gene Ricci =

To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=

Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:50 PM

Subject: [CANSLIM] Inst Ownership

Tom, I agree with you... = unfortunately....=20 DGO/IBD only counts mutual funds ! This explains the difference = between DGO=20 and other data sources. DGO doesn't count them all.

Here's what they said = (today):

"When you say "count" we count the amount of shares of the = floating=20 supply of stock that Mutual Funds own as registered with the NYSE and = NASDAQ=20 exchanges."

regards,

Gene

----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Tom=20 Worley

To: canslim@lists.xmission.com= =20

Sent: Thursday, August 15, = 2002 5:39=20 PM

Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] = UCBH

Institutional ownership includes, in = addition to=20 mutual funds, pension funds, insurance companies, some banks (buying = for=20 their own account), venture capital funds, etc. There are also = some=20 individual investors that usually get counted, a certain Saudi = Arabian=20 prince comes to mind, who will buy $50 to $250 million worth of = stock at a=20 time, easily the size of a mutual fund order.

A bank is not always an "institutional = investor"=20 (unless buying for its own account) as it is often used as = custodian, or=20 even agent, for other institutional accounts as well as many retail=20 accounts. My employer is a bank, and also custodian for its = securities=20 clients. As such, its collective holdings of some securities would = easily be=20 large enough to count as "institutional" in size, yet they are not = because=20 the end owner is a retail client of the bank, often making his or = her own=20 investment decisions.

WON does not count bank holdings for this = reason, as=20 it is difficult to distinguish bank holdings as "proxy owner" from = own=20 holdings, same as a broker dealer holding in street name for its=20 clients.

----- Original Message -----=20

From: = Gene = Ricci

To: canslim@lists.xmission.com= =20

Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:25 AM

Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] UCBH

Ann, my data source shows growth = at 18, not=20 too shabby for a bank...

Charley... I'm awaiting a = definitive answer=20 from IBD on institutional ownership. I've asked them what they count = and=20 what they don't count because of the significant differences in the=20 'numbers' from different data suppliers. My second = question to=20 them is 'why aren't banks and pension funds, etc. counted in their = numbers.=20

In the Q&A below, IBD switches = between=20 calling it institutional ownership and mutual funds... if a bank = isn't an=20 institution why doesn't IBD just call it funds?

What is a level of institutional ownership = you=20 consider when buying a stock? If too many shares are already = owned by=20 institutional investors, can that hurt a stock's chances of=20 rising?

	Answer
	It is hard to tell how much institutional = ownership=20 is too much. Therefore, you should place less weight on this = factor.=20 Rather, focus on the quality of ownership. You want to see at = least a=20 few of the better performing mutual funds owning the stock you = are=20 considering buying. In some cases, however, if too many shares = are=20 owned by institutional investors, this could be bad. That's = because it=20 represents large potential selling if anything goes wrong with = the=20 company or the general = market.

----- Original Message ----- =

From:=20 Chazmoore@aol.com