From: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com (canslim-digest) To: canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: canslim-digest V2 #358 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 Saturday, August 15 1998 Volume 02 : Number 358 In this issue: [CANSLIM] canslim-digest V2 #357 - I'm out of the office Re: [CANSLIM] Dow Transports - 50 Crossed the 200 today Re: [CANSLIM] VIX (CBOE's Volatility Index) [CANSLIM] Re: NonCanslim "Futures" Re: [CANSLIM] VIX (CBOE's Volatility Index) Re: [CANSLIM] Dow Transports - 50 Crossed the 200 today Re: [CANSLIM] stuff to read Re: [CANSLIM] stuff to read Re: [CANSLIM] VIX (CBOE's Volatility Index) [CANSLIM] How to make money in this market without shorting... Re: [CANSLIM] stuff to read [CANSLIM] On Psychology Re: [CANSLIM] selling short Re: [CANSLIM] Time to start counting? [CANSLIM] Chart Patterns Re: [CANSLIM] VIX (CBOE's Volatility Index) [CANSLIM] Interest rates [CANSLIM] shorts RE: [CANSLIM] Charting software (new attempt at the question) Re: [CANSLIM] On Psychology ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 04:54:55 -0600 From: "William Couch" Subject: [CANSLIM] canslim-digest V2 #357 - I'm out of the office I am out of the office until August 24. If you need immediate assistance, = please contact Dan Herrmann or Kevin Dick. Bill - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 04:50:25 -0700 (PDT) From: TM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Dow Transports - 50 Crossed the 200 today Frank, Thank you for detailed post. I've spent some time looking at it for the informtion itself, but also as a model that I think has wider applications. I have a few very basic questions. In bc there are 3 Dow Transports: 26099601 (pattern is correct, indicator scale is off), 26099605 (scale is correct,), 26099600 (scale is correct, also has volume). Also the last 2 don't have the history the first one does. Would you mind commenting on these; its got to be a different way of looking at the same information; what does the different view tell? Thanks again. I don't know that I've told you, but I study your posts carefully; to me, they hint of a statistical system. In that case, we have odds to play. TM - ---"Frank V. Wolynski" wrote: > > Dow Jones Transports Observations/Thoughts/Ramblings: > Price Indicator: 3004.71 > 50day MOV: 3365.65 > 200day MOV: 3368.39 > > The 50day MOV moved beneath the 200day MOV today for the first time in years. > Since 1994 in fact if I am reading Big Charts correctly. > > The good news is that it is extended beneath the 200day MOV almost as much > as it was above. Probably within a few percent anyway. > > BC shows the index back to 1985 and that is as far I as could look, but the > Index appears to do this every few years or so. Related to the price of Oil? > Maybe. Probably. > > Are we at the bottom. I think not, but it is interesting how it has built > bottoms during the past 13 years. Not that this one will be the same, but > the period does embrace two full fledge Bear markets, 1987 and 1994. > > I believe in balance in the scales and equal swings in the pendulum. > More or less. > The transport high was put in at 3686.02 on 4/16/98. > The 200day MOV was 3214.57 > A difference of roughly 472 points. > > Today the index stands at 3004.71 > The 200day MOV is 3368.39 > A difference of roughly 364 points. > > Does this infer an additional 108 point downside potential then a bottom > building? Maybe. > It is interesting that the low reached on 10/28/97 of 2916.43 is approx 88 > points away from todays close. > > I also find it interesting that the close on 10/27/98 was 3004.58! Within > .13 of todays close! Wowzer..... > > If I do all this mumbo jumbo with the high of 4/16/98 instead of the close, > then the separation becomes, 3735.37 - 3214.57, or 520.80. > Then the low figure beneath the 200day MOV becomes 3368.39 - 520.80 or > 2847.59. > > Another interesting number! > On 8/29/98 the low was 2844.30, pretty close. > > There is also a long term trendline that has a first point in late 1994, > then some touching in fall of 1996. This trendline, as best as I can draw > it extends currently to slightly over 2700. Of course time will cause the > trendline value to increase over the coming days and it would not surprise > me to see the value up nearer to 2800 by the time an intersection is > approaching. > > I wish I knew the Fibonacci numbers for the last transport advance, the > fall of 96 to the top in early 98. It could be interesting. > > I don't have much trouble picturing the transports getting to the levels > indicated above, that implies at least another 150 to 300 points to the > downside. And it appears that would be approximately a 50% retrace of the > advance referenced above. > > The transports are certainly starting to take on a hopeless graph shape! > And we all know what that means! > > Frank Wolynski > > > - > > _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 05:22:26 -0700 (PDT) From: TM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] VIX (CBOE's Volatility Index) A couple of days ago, Tom Brokaw had a feature on daytrading. The thesis was that the nature of the market has changed dramatically with the information, facilities, and technology available to individual investors today. The report said that now daytrading accounts for in the 2-3% off all trades. It seems like that might raise the volatility level overall but skew the results for an individual stock. What are you finding? Are there implications for Canslim? BTW, what exactly does volatility mean? Murphy describes it as an opposing pressure to the trend, Edwards/Magee as a tendency to move up or down in price. Are volume and time factors? Thank you, TM - ---Tom Worley wrote: > > I thought of a new wrinkle on my system this morning. I have found > that VIX (the CBOE Volatility Index) has been historically a good > indicator of a favorable/unfavorable climate for CANSLIM type stocks. > Generally, if VIX is under 20 (low volatility), it's a favorable > climate. Unfortunately, I haven't been paying as much attention as I > used to, or should have been. > > This morning, I took a look at the 1 year, 6, 3 and 1 month charts of > VIX using MACD on the bottom at BigCharts with my usual settings. I > noted two important (to me) details. First, had I thought of using > this back then, I would have noted that VIX earlier this year when I > was making some nice money was still tracking around 21-23. A > cautionary sign (since it was over 20), had I been looking. MACD at > the time was negative (a positive in this context) so wouldn't have > been chased out, but would/should have tightened my tolerance. > > Second, MACD quite clearly shows that I should have exited CANSLIM > type stocks on July 21 or 22, when MACD went positive (bad thing in > this context). As I recall, that wouldn't have been a bad exit point. > > It looks like MACD is about to go negative again, however VIX is still > at 30, well over 20, thus the mkts would appear to need to do a lot of > calming before the environment will again become favorable to > CANSLIMers. > > Tom W > > > > - > > _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 08:50:50 -0400 From: Ari Lawson Subject: [CANSLIM] Re: NonCanslim "Futures" May I ask where you have an account for Futures? Jeffry White wrote: > Frank's recent post, which I saw in a digest this morning (but have > misplaced), correctly designates the lows in the respective indices from > which to count for 1% on volume confirmation signals. > > As of today's close, NYSE, SP and DOW have completed day two of the > count, the Nasdaq Composite day seven (August 5 low still active for the > count). > > Note the downtick in sentiment in IBD today (along with the Investor's > Corner article). Bulls now at 43.4%, Bears at 31.9%. Not conducive to > a sustained upward move, in my experience. But moving with lightening > speed away from the extremes we saw in mid-July, and a dramatic move > from the numbers we saw just last Thursday. I'd imagine we'll need to > see Bulls at or below 40, and Bears closing in on 40 before a move like > we saw in January can be sustained. > > A look back at the October 1997 chart might be helpful to foster some > patience in those itching with cash. The August 4 mini-crash will take > some time to digest, I should think, much like we saw in November, > December and January. Couple of false starts in that three month period > (only one really, unless you accepted IBD's mis-fire of a 12th day 1% on > volume day). > > I've been watching/hoping for a "climax sell off", which I thought we > might have on Tuesday. According to my friends at the Stock Farmer, a > gap down open with an intraday new low in the downturn, followed by a > close unchanged to higher on the day on an increase in daily volume > provides the better signal for a potential market turn confirmed by the > 1% on volume count. Kind of a collosal "Oh F*ck" panic sell-off where > the last of the weaklings attempt to put themselves out of their misery. > > I hope that is helpful. Not really much to say without some classic > signs of a bottom. It seems I write about the mechanics of this > phenomenon so often, that my descriptions may not be all that helpful. > Please hit me with questions if these comments are not clear. > > Jeff > > BTW, Tannis, inspired by your direct market approach, I've just reopened > a futures trading account that lay dormant since my last trade of a > contract on some grade of bovine or swine several years ago. I'm > thinking seriously of trading WON's price and volume signals with > options on the mini-value line, much like you've been doing with SPY > (but without the leverage). No more stock picking, perhaps. Wouldn't > that be a relief? > > - - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 06:01:29 -0700 (PDT) From: rolatzi Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] VIX (CBOE's Volatility Index) Tom: You are not the first person to discover that property about the VIX. I will have to search it down but it has been previously noted that when the VIX < 20 low priced stocks (proxied by the Russell 2000 index) does well. Ciao, Rich - ---Tom Worley wrote: > > I thought of a new wrinkle on my system this morning. I have found > that VIX (the CBOE Volatility Index) has been historically a good > indicator of a favorable/unfavorable climate for CANSLIM type stocks. > Generally, if VIX is under 20 (low volatility), it's a favorable > climate. Unfortunately, I haven't been paying as much attention as I > used to, or should have been. > > This morning, I took a look at the 1 year, 6, 3 and 1 month charts of > VIX using MACD on the bottom at BigCharts with my usual settings. I > noted two important (to me) details. First, had I thought of using > this back then, I would have noted that VIX earlier this year when I > was making some nice money was still tracking around 21-23. A > cautionary sign (since it was over 20), had I been looking. MACD at > the time was negative (a positive in this context) so wouldn't have > been chased out, but would/should have tightened my tolerance. > > Second, MACD quite clearly shows that I should have exited CANSLIM > type stocks on July 21 or 22, when MACD went positive (bad thing in > this context). As I recall, that wouldn't have been a bad exit point. > > It looks like MACD is about to go negative again, however VIX is still > at 30, well over 20, thus the mkts would appear to need to do a lot of > calming before the environment will again become favorable to > CANSLIMers. > > Tom W > > > > - > > _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 09:41:10 -0400 From: "Frank V. Wolynski" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Dow Transports - 50 Crossed the 200 today I can only speculate that the indexes are provided to BC from various services, each tracking the Indexes their own way, some weighted, some not. The one I used was the 26099600, correct scale with volume. I'm sorry I cannot shed any more light on the differences. I truely don't know. I don't have a formal statiscal system, but am always studying the risk/reward and possibilities, especially of the 'And now for something completely different' events that can trigger unexpected moves and swift sentiment changes that so typically catch everyone (including me) off guard. I do however track the groups as depicted and numerically represented by the IBD. It could become something very statiscal, too early to tell however. It seems to verify and track fairly well what DB is observing with his group surrogates and narrower group focus (not tracking all 197 groups). So in many ways, I have reinvented the wheel and can conclude that you don't need to track all 197! Regards, Frank Wolynski At 04:50 AM 8/14/98 -0700, you wrote: >Frank, >Thank you for detailed post. I've spent some time looking at it for >the informtion itself, but also as a model that I think has wider >applications. > >I have a few very basic questions. In bc there are 3 Dow Transports: >26099601 (pattern is correct, indicator scale is off), 26099605 (scale >is correct,), 26099600 (scale is correct, also has volume). Also the >last 2 don't have the history the first one does. Would you mind >commenting on these; its got to be a different way of looking at the >same information; what does the different view tell? > >Thanks again. I don't know that I've told you, but I study your posts >carefully; to me, they hint of a statistical system. In that case, we >have odds to play. > >TM > > > > > > > >---"Frank V. Wolynski" wrote: >> >> Dow Jones Transports Observations/Thoughts/Ramblings: >> Price Indicator: 3004.71 >> 50day MOV: 3365.65 >> 200day MOV: 3368.39 >> >> The 50day MOV moved beneath the 200day MOV today for the first time >in years. >> Since 1994 in fact if I am reading Big Charts correctly. >> >> The good news is that it is extended beneath the 200day MOV almost >as much >> as it was above. Probably within a few percent anyway. >> >> BC shows the index back to 1985 and that is as far I as could look, >but the >> Index appears to do this every few years or so. Related to the price >of Oil? >> Maybe. Probably. >> >> Are we at the bottom. I think not, but it is interesting how it has >built >> bottoms during the past 13 years. Not that this one will be the >same, but >> the period does embrace two full fledge Bear markets, 1987 and 1994. >> >> I believe in balance in the scales and equal swings in the pendulum. >> More or less. >> The transport high was put in at 3686.02 on 4/16/98. >> The 200day MOV was 3214.57 >> A difference of roughly 472 points. >> >> Today the index stands at 3004.71 >> The 200day MOV is 3368.39 >> A difference of roughly 364 points. >> >> Does this infer an additional 108 point downside potential then a >bottom >> building? Maybe. >> It is interesting that the low reached on 10/28/97 of 2916.43 is >approx 88 >> points away from todays close. >> >> I also find it interesting that the close on 10/27/98 was 3004.58! >Within >> .13 of todays close! Wowzer..... >> >> If I do all this mumbo jumbo with the high of 4/16/98 instead of the >close, >> then the separation becomes, 3735.37 - 3214.57, or 520.80. >> Then the low figure beneath the 200day MOV becomes 3368.39 - 520.80 or >> 2847.59. >> >> Another interesting number! >> On 8/29/98 the low was 2844.30, pretty close. >> >> There is also a long term trendline that has a first point in late >1994, >> then some touching in fall of 1996. This trendline, as best as I can >draw >> it extends currently to slightly over 2700. Of course time will >cause the >> trendline value to increase over the coming days and it would not >surprise >> me to see the value up nearer to 2800 by the time an intersection is >> approaching. >> >> I wish I knew the Fibonacci numbers for the last transport advance, >the >> fall of 96 to the top in early 98. It could be interesting. >> >> I don't have much trouble picturing the transports getting to the >levels >> indicated above, that implies at least another 150 to 300 points to >the >> downside. And it appears that would be approximately a 50% retrace >of the >> advance referenced above. >> >> The transports are certainly starting to take on a hopeless graph >shape! >> And we all know what that means! >> >> Frank Wolynski >> >> >> - >> >> > >_________________________________________________________ >DO YOU YAHOO!? >Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > >- > > - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 12:20:40 -0400 From: Craig Griffin Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] stuff to read Patrick, You wrote: >Here are a couple of online things that might be interesting - > >An article on shorting stocks at http://investor.msn.com > Like Dan, I enjoyed the shorting article. Thanks for posting the link. Here is a fundamentals based analysis of the markets from a "contrarian". I recommend reading the current article and the 3 or 4 "Recent Market Raps" linked to at the bottom of the page. His basic take is that the US economy is in for some difficulties and therefore so is the stock market. He thinks the people recommending the semis now are nuts. He seems to think things will not get better until after next year (2000+). http://www.stocksite.com/features/contrarian/rap/ These are along the lines of a Tom Worley market/economic analysis (so not your WON type read based sheerly on technicals). And BTW, Tom, now that you are posting a bit more - I would be interested in your opinion on these articles if you get a chance to read them. Thanks to all who make this a great list. Best regards, Craig - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 12:43:15 -0400 From: Craig Griffin Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] stuff to read Immediately I found the opposite view from my last posted link on Yahoo. So here it is (and I promise to stop posting for a few minutes now - at least) ... http://biz.yahoo.com/finance/980814/interview__4.html - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 14:05:16 -0400 From: Robert Bomba <73223.2767@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] VIX (CBOE's Volatility Index) >> Are volume and time factors? << I would say time is but volume is not. If you have a stock that moves in range of 50 to 55 in a 1,2 or 3 day/week (?) period I would call that volatile. The same stock moving 5 pt's over a years time would not be IMO. Bob - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 21:31:15 +0200 From: Johan Van Houtven Subject: [CANSLIM] How to make money in this market without shorting... I'm thinking of designing T-shirts & polo's with a "Bear Power" slogan. Should make you look pretty clever nowadays. Those "Girl Power" thingies are 'pass=E9' now anyway, so there's room for something new. Any buyers out there? ;^) Can't hide that I'm enjoying watching the markets working towards a lower close today... SP500 near the 200EMA (E200:1057) now.=20 Have a nice weekend, Johan Van Houtven / CLICK! N.V. - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 14:44:47 -0800 From: "Patrick Wahl" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] stuff to read > Here is a fundamentals based analysis of the markets from a "contrarian". > I recommend reading the current article and the 3 or 4 "Recent Market Raps" > linked to at the bottom of the page. His basic take is that the US economy > is in for some difficulties and therefore so is the stock market. He > thinks the people recommending the semis now are nuts. He seems to think > things will not get better until after next year (2000+). > > http://www.stocksite.com/features/contrarian/rap/ I like this Fleckenstein guy. CNBC has been pulling him out to argue with Joe Battapaglia on the bearish side of thing. I certainly agree with him on the semis. AMAT announced this week that they will probably be laying people off. That doesn't sound like the lead in to an industry turn around. - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 13:53:44 -0700 (PDT) From: dbphoenix Subject: [CANSLIM] On Psychology Stumbled across this today > http://www.investorhome.com/psych.htm . Good weekend reading. - --Db _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 15:34:01 -0400 From: Ray Mathews Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] selling short Re: Selling short...If anyone is interested, PitBull investors has an interesting approach to selecting short sale candidates. It uses the CANSLIM criteria sort of in reverse. You find RS=99 and A/D = A as candidates. Then when they begin to fade, look at a chart, and many times you'll find stocks that are on the wane... - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 10:27:27 -0700 (PDT) From: dbphoenix Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Time to start counting? <> Just for the hell of it, it might be interesting to use DIA in addition to these measures since the variations in volume are so much easier to see. I have no idea what the correlation has been, is, or will be, but both DIA and SPY might be more useful tools than one might think, particularly since SPX doesn't provide volume. - --Db _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 16:09:13 -0700 (PDT) From: dbphoenix Subject: [CANSLIM] Chart Patterns Someone was asking a few days ago about graphic representations of chart patterns, i.e., something more than just text descriptions. I found this site today and it may be helpful to chart pattern newbies. It provides more examples than DataPoint. http://www.chartpatterns.com/ - --Db _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 20:08:52 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] VIX (CBOE's Volatility Index) I haven't observed the correlation with low priced stocks, if anything my experience would be to the contrary. But I have observed a close relationship between low nrs on VIX and a healthy CANSLIM (regardless of price) environment. Hadn't thought of looking at VIX with an MACD perspective till this morning, and was pleased at what I saw. Tom W - -----Original Message----- From: rolatzi To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Date: Friday, August 14, 1998 9:03 AM Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] VIX (CBOE's Volatility Index) > >Tom: >You are not the first person to discover that property about the VIX. >I will have to search it down but it has been previously noted that >when the VIX < 20 low priced stocks (proxied by the Russell 2000 >index) does well. >Ciao, >Rich > >---Tom Worley wrote: >> >> I thought of a new wrinkle on my system this morning. I have found >> that VIX (the CBOE Volatility Index) has been historically a good >> indicator of a favorable/unfavorable climate for CANSLIM type stocks. >> Generally, if VIX is under 20 (low volatility), it's a favorable >> climate. Unfortunately, I haven't been paying as much attention as I >> used to, or should have been. >> >> This morning, I took a look at the 1 year, 6, 3 and 1 month charts of >> VIX using MACD on the bottom at BigCharts with my usual settings. I >> noted two important (to me) details. First, had I thought of using >> this back then, I would have noted that VIX earlier this year when I >> was making some nice money was still tracking around 21-23. A >> cautionary sign (since it was over 20), had I been looking. MACD at >> the time was negative (a positive in this context) so wouldn't have >> been chased out, but would/should have tightened my tolerance. >> >> Second, MACD quite clearly shows that I should have exited CANSLIM >> type stocks on July 21 or 22, when MACD went positive (bad thing in >> this context). As I recall, that wouldn't have been a bad exit point. >> >> It looks like MACD is about to go negative again, however VIX is still >> at 30, well over 20, thus the mkts would appear to need to do a lot of >> calming before the environment will again become favorable to >> CANSLIMers. >> >> Tom W >> >> >> >> - >> >> > >_________________________________________________________ >DO YOU YAHOO!? >Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > >- > - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 21:44:19 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: [CANSLIM] Interest rates Hummmm, seems the US Treasury 30 year bond closed at 5.54% today, a new record low. Seems I recall a member of this group forecasting 5.5% by the end of this year, tho it appears likely to happen sooner than I anticipated. Since corps are having difficulty, for a variety of reasons, in raising prices and boosting profits, and growth is difficult right now, expect a flurry of corp refinancings, new debt offerings, etc to buy back existing, higher rate long term debt. May result in some short term non-recurring charges as they buy back debt at a premium (call rate) but should help strengthen profits by reducing their cost of servicing debt over the long haul. We have already had several rounds of this, but rates have now dropped to a point where, just like home mortgages, we may see more of this, despite the extremely high prime lending rate. Corps that have already exhausted most of their cost cutting remedies will likely be looking at this as an alternative. Tom W - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 22:42:07 -0700 From: "Mike Lucero" Subject: [CANSLIM] shorts Here's a couple of short candidates I found scanning for RS < 15 and near 52-week low after > 6 weeks basing. DBD ETEC Mike - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 00:28:25 -0700 From: "Mike Lucero" Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Charting software (new attempt at the question) They say $199 is the upgrade price from previous products. Mike > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com > [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of dbphoenix > Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 1998 6:30 AM > To: canslim@lists.xmission.com > Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] Charting software (new attempt at the question) > > > > > < it's > expensive ($350 ordered in August, $500 after), and not yet available. > Thanks for posting the info. > > Mike>> > > The brochure I received in the mail gave a price of $199. This is not > unusual. If anyone were interested in it and told them you received a > solicitation in the mail for that price, I'm sure they'd give it to > you. They always have. > > --Db > > > > _________________________________________________________ > DO YOU YAHOO!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > > - > > - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 13:11:59 +0200 From: Johan Van Houtven Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] On Psychology >Stumbled across this today > http://www.investorhome.com/psych.htm . >Good weekend reading. > >--Db Thank you, DB. Excellent article, with many interesting links. It is a MUST-read IMO, especially for those who think that all this 'psychology stuff' is horse manure. Johan Van Houtven / CLICK! N.V. - - ------------------------------ End of canslim-digest V2 #358 ***************************** 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.