Go to Jeff Salisbury LWGate Home Page.From: "Katherine Malm" <kmalm@earthlink.net>
Subject: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 23:24:48 -0600
Next Article (by Author): Re: [CANSLIM] breakouts - return to base "Tom Worley"
Articles sorted by: [Date]
[Author]
[Subject]
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_016B_01C181D1.DC5B3F40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I've been playing around with the new filtering criteria in the beta DGO = and wanted to get the list's point of view on institutional ownership. (1) The DGO filter only includes mutual fund ownership, rather than = total institutional AND mutual fund ownership. Do you see this as a = problem? (2) Out of curiosity, I scanned for the following: Price>=3D$10; ADV>=3D90K; A/D =3D A, B, or C; Price > 50dMA 1% or more = (can't do 0.00001!); Price > 200dMA 1% or more; mutual fund ownership = >=3D10%; RS >=3D60. This is a wide net screen that looks for stocks performing relatively = well and liquid enough to be in big hands. If liquidity were based on = total float the results might be different. This gave 717 names. When I started lopping off mutual fund ownership, = the numbers of stocks were: 10-90% =3D 713 stocks 10-80% =3D 712 stocks 10-70% =3D 711 stocks 10-60% =3D 708 stocks 10-50% =3D 696 stocks 10-40% =3D 634 stocks 10-30% =3D 470 stocks 10-20% =3D 227 stocks 00-09% =3D 23 stocks (another bugaboo, can't scan for <10%) It seems like the primary concentration is around 10 to 40%. (But this = may not mean much if it doesn't include all institutional holders.) What would you view as a reasonable % ownership, neither too low nor too = high, for a good CANSLIM candidate? Katherine - ------=_NextPart_000_016B_01C181D1.DC5B3F40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4611.1300" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I've been playing around with the new = filtering=20 criteria in the beta DGO and wanted to get the list's point of view on=20 institutional ownership.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>(1) The DGO filter only includes mutual = fund=20 ownership, rather than total institutional AND mutual fund ownership. Do = you see=20 this as a problem?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>(2) Out of curiosity, I scanned for the = following:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Price>=3D$10; ADV>=3D90K; A/D =3D = A, B, or C; Price=20 > 50dMA 1% or more (can't do 0.00001!); Price > 200dMA 1% or more; = mutual=20 fund ownership >=3D10%; RS >=3D60.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>This is a wide net screen that looks = for stocks=20 performing relatively well and liquid enough to be in big hands. If = liquidity=20 were based on total float the results might be different.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>This gave 717 names. When I started = lopping off=20 mutual fund ownership, the numbers of stocks were:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>10-90% =3D 713 stocks</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>10-80% =3D 712 stocks</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>10-70% =3D 711 stocks</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>10-60% =3D 708 stocks</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>10-50% =3D 696 stocks</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>10-40% =3D 634 stocks</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>10-30% =3D 470 stocks</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>10-20% =3D 227 stocks</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>00-09% =3D 23 stocks (another = bugaboo, can't=20 scan for <10%)</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>It seems like the primary concentration = is around=20 10 to 40%. (But this may not mean much if it doesn't include all = institutional=20 holders.)</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>What would you view as a reasonable % = ownership,=20 neither too low nor too high, for a good CANSLIM candidate?</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Katherine</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML> - ------=_NextPart_000_016B_01C181D1.DC5B3F40-- - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email.
Next Article (by Author): Re: [CANSLIM] breakouts - return to base "Tom Worley"
Articles sorted by: [Date]
[Author]
[Subject]