Re: [CANSLIM] IPAR - 85 86 B

From: "Tim Fisher" <tim@orerockon.com>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] IPAR - 85 86 B
Date: 11 Jun 2001 06:29:03 -0700
Next Article (by Subject): Re: [CANSLIM] IRF "Norman"
Previous Article (by Subject): Re: [CANSLIM] IPAR - 85 86 B "David Squires"
Top of Thread: Re: [CANSLIM] IPAR - 85 86 B "David Squires"
Articles sorted by: [Date] [Author] [Subject]
I totally agree. I do not generally buy stocks that have not doubled in the 
past 52 weeks. That said, I made plenty off of the lower vol stocks after 
they had doubled already. ATVI is a pretty good example, altho its ADV was 
probably about 200k when I bot it, it's 800k now after tripling since Nov 
00. Ditto with THQI which is up 250% and has more than doubled ADV to 500k 
since Nov 00. Want a list of great stocks that have small ADV (<200k) and 
have doubled or tripled the past 52 weeks? I see plenty of them out there. 
Here's a few:

BZH HOV EASI HOC TRR WGOV JEC EPIQ KMX KWK ALLY WTSLA FLIR ATK TTI CKP GMCR

Need I go on? I guess I consider you all to be wrong, there are plenty of 
stocks that are doing great after ADV is well above 200k, were doing great 
when vol was less than 200k, and probably will continue to great even 
through 1M adv or higher. There are a few of those (but not many!) on my 
list as well. I like the 50k adv cutoff, I prefer closer to 100k since the 
50k stocks are so prone to manipulation, i.e. I get stopped out too 
frequently on them.  If I had to pick, I'd say 1M adv was a bit too high 
unless the fundamentals were great. Currently there are 4 stocks on my list 
with adv >1M and that says a lot.

At 07:42 AM 6/11/2001 -0500, you wrote:
> >>When you get 40,000 accelerating into 200,000 - that is the best 
> possible sign of a big future winner. If you wait for a long history of 
> 200,000+, you are likely already 150% short, and will have a MUCH harder 
> time getting another 300-400% from there.<<
>
>Most of the stocks I am interested in will have already doubled by the 
>time I start buying. This is of little concern to me because I am looking 
>for true market leaders. The first 150% means little in a true market 
>leading stock and the risks of illiquidity are too great in many cases. To 
>each his own. I would not have participated in the first moves of these 
>two stocks. They are now of interest to me because they have good numbers 
>and liquidity. Of course, I stand corrected on the stocks you highlighted.
>
>
>DSquires
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:ianstm@home.com>Ian
>To: <mailto:canslim@lists.xmission.com>canslim@lists.xmission.com
>Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 11:34 PM
>Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] IPAR - 85 86 B
>
>David:
>
>I find it interesting that 2 of the 6 stocks you posted were big 
>favourites of mine way before they had meaningful volumes (but AFTER they 
>had significant CANSLIM revenue and EPS growth).
>
>Check the ADV on MTON when I first posted it to this board at $14 last 
>Fall - 
><http://chart.yahoo.com/t?a=09&b=01&c=00&d=10&e=31&f=00&g=d&s=mton&y=0&z=mton>http://chart.yahoo.com/t?a=09&b=01&c=00&d=10&e=31&f=00&g=d&s=mton&y=0&z=mton. 
>
>
>Also TARO last spring - 
><http://chart.yahoo.com/t?a=03&b=09&c=00&d=06&e=10&f=00&g=d&s=taro&y=0&z=taro>http://chart.yahoo.com/t?a=03&b=09&c=00&d=06&e=10&f=00&g=d&s=taro&y=0&z=taro 
>- after they first showed some excellant y-o-y CANSLIM results.
>
>When you get 40,000 accelerating into 200,000 - that is the best possible 
>sign of a big future winner. If you wait for a long history of 200,000+, 
>you are likely already 150% short, and will have a MUCH harder time 
>getting another 300-400% from there.
>
>JMHO,
>
>Ian
>
>PS - Check the ADV on ACLNF for the 6 - 10 months leading up to this May, 
>then check it over the last 2 months, and watch it for the next 4-6 
>months. Since I feel ACLNF is the poster-child for CANSLIM fundamentals - 
>if my theory is correct, and the recent volume increase is sustained - 
>then ACLNF should see a significant price rise from its late April $23 
>level. We'll see ...
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:dcsquires1@home.com>David Squires
>To: <mailto:canslim@lists.xmission.com>canslim@lists.xmission.com
>Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 9:55 AM
>Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] IPAR - 85 86 B
>
> >>Out of curiosity, I tried a little experiment. I took Friday's Index to 
> the Daily Graphs Printed Products (roughly 2800 stocks) and eliminated 
> those with ADV above 250K or below 50K, and also had a closing price on 
> Friday less than $30.00 or better.  I then eliminated those with an RS 
> below 80, and subsequently those with an EPS below 80. Every single one 
> with ADV over 100K was eliminated by either the price, RS or EPS criteria.<<
>
>Everyone should remember this is but a snapshot of the current market. Low 
>ADV stocks are the kind of stocks setting up currently. If this exercise 
>was done before the bear market started it would likely have produced much 
>higher ADVs. Keep in mind what WON said.......He was talking about 200,000 
>ADV and said going lower was okay because the market has changed. However, 
>I don't think he would advocate going lower than 100K ADV.
>
>CANSLIM was designed to find huge winners...market leading stocks. You 
>rarely get 300-400% advances without an ADV over at least 150,000. 
>Institutions are responsible for the big moves and they simply won't play 
>big in low ADV stocks because the amount they can buy will make too small 
>a contribution to their overall performance. If you focus on stocks with 
>ADV below 100,000, you are, by default, likely to miss all the big winners 
>CANSLIM was designed to find.
>
>Here's a few leaders...MTON,NVDA,TARO,ALLY,IGT,EFDS. Look at there ADV's.
>
>DSquires
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:stkguru@netside.net>Tom Worley
>To: <mailto:canslim@lists.xmission.com>canslim@lists.xmission.com
>Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 7:24 AM
>Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] IPAR - 85 86 B
>
>Certainly, one thousand shares a day average.
>
>ADV is, by and large, a function of the true float. There are many decent 
>mid cap stocks that meet CANSLIIM criteria that have an ADV of 50,000 to 
>250,000. I just think you are doing yourself an injustice to automatically 
>exclude these, in many cases only because their float is small.
>
>Out of curiosity, I tried a little experiment. I took Friday's Index to 
>the Daily Graphs Printed Products (roughly 2800 stocks) and eliminated 
>those with ADV above 250K or below 50K, and also had a closing price on 
>Friday less than $30.00 or better.  I then eliminated those with an RS 
>below 80, and subsequently those with an EPS below 80. Every single one 
>with ADV over 100K was eliminated by either the price, RS or EPS criteria.
>
>All that was left was per attached.
>
>Tom Worley
><mailto:stkguru@netside.net>stkguru@netside.net
>AIM: TexWorley
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:jonathanlien@hotmail.com>Jonathan Lien
>To: <mailto:canslim@lists.xmission.com>canslim@lists.xmission.com
>Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 7:47 AM
>Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] IPAR - 85 86 B
>
>Tom,
>
>You are right. I do miss some great opportunties witch stocks trading 
>under 250K. I just like to trade mid and large cap stocks. I like the 
>stocks to be very liquid.
>
>Don't you have a minimum ADV?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: 
><mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com>owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com 
>[mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Tom Worley
>Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 11:50 PM
>To: canslim@lists.xmission.com
>Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] IPAR - 85 86 B
>
>That seems awfully high a standard, and unnecessary unless you are buying 
>10 to 20 thousand shares at a time.
>
>With a standard like that, you never gave yourself a chance at even part 
>of EPIQ's 480% gain in 14 months. Likewise on many, many other good 
>CANSLIM stocks.
>
>Tom Worley
><mailto:stkguru@netside.net>stkguru@netside.net
>AIM: TexWorley
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:jonathanlien@hotmail.com>Jonathan Lien
>To: <mailto:canslim@lists.xmission.com>canslim@lists.xmission.com
>Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 6:16 PM
>Subject: RE: [CANSLIM] IPAR - 85 86 B
>
>I don't look at stocks will ADV less than 250K. What does WON have to say 
>about minimum ADV?
>-----Original Message-----
>From: 
><mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com>owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com 
>[mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Tom Worley
>Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 12:22 PM
>To: <mailto:canslim@lists.xmission.com>canslim@lists.xmission.com
>Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] IPAR - 85 86 B
>
>Hi Ian,
>
>I dropped this one from my watch list a few weeks ago, just couldn't get 
>up enough interest. And I don't trust the perfume industry, I have seen 
>too many pure plays that were doing things "fast and loose", once it was 
>revealed the stock price collapsed.
>
>I might point out, even tho I like management having a significant stake 
>in the company, 84% is just too extreme. That is why average volume is so 
>low (4,200) as the 11.6 million issue only has 1.8 million shares in the 
>float.
>
>Valuations of shares of a subsidiary are often very subjective. Even where 
>the subsidiary is publicly traded, a large holding is unlikely to be 
>liquid at current market.
>
>Tom Worley
><mailto:stkguru@netside.net>stkguru@netside.net
>AIM: TexWorley
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:ianstm@home.com>Ian
>To: <mailto:canslim@lists.xmission.com>canslim@lists.xmission.com
>Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 12:21 PM
>Subject: [CANSLIM] IPAR - 85 86 B
>
>Volume precludes this from being a full-blown CANSLIM stock. But their 
>numbers, growth and outlook are CANSLIM. I noticed a volume alert on May 
>31 (I look for deltas in volume, not absolute volume level).
>
>They are also a value stock, as they own $155,000,000 in shares of their 
>Parisian subsidiary, have $30,000,000 in cash and have a market cap around 
>$165,000,000. (Some details in their latest Q PR: 
><http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/010508/2758.html>http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/010508/2758.html) 
>
>
>I understand that this is definitely not for everyone, but I thought some 
>might want to do some dd here. They are close to taking out their 52-week 
>high, and volume/bid size is increasing today.
>
>The chart is less meaningful on something totally illiquid like this. Much 
>more risk getting out than almost any other stock I know of.
>
>
>Ian

Tim Fisher
Ore-ROCK-On Rockhounding Web Site
Pacific Fishery Biologists Information
mailto:tim@OreRockOn.com
WWW http://OreRockOn.com


- -
- -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com"
- -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or
- -"unsubscribe canslim".  Do not use quotes in your email.
Go to Jeff Salisbury LWGate Home Page.