AW: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership

From: Andreas Himmelreich <judgejimmy@web.de>
Subject: AW: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 22:16:59 +0100
Next Article (by Date): [CANSLIM] Analysis on Industry Groups and their technical patterns Andreas Himmelreich
Previous Article (by Date): Re: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership "Katherine Malm"
Articles sorted by: [Date] [Author] [Subject]
Sorry Katherine, I should have written Shares (not shares Outstanding).
I like shares that have not a high Market Cap. I think Ryan and Oneil do too.


> -----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
> Von:	Katherine Malm [SMTP:kmalm@earthlink.net]
> Gesendet am:	Tuesday, December 11, 2001 8:41 PM
> An:	canslim@lists.xmission.com
> Betreff:	Re: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership
> 
> >>> Boucher says 1 - 16% is optimum (fuel), 35% max, David Ryan (an
> successful
> > student of Oneil, interviewed in market wizzards) says 1 - 20%.
> 
> Thanks, Andreas. That seems a good number to keep from being "overowned."
> 
> > Boucher adds Banks and Fonds
> 
> That's what I was thinking would make sense. I've sent a feedback to DGO
> about total institutional vs. mutual fund ownership in their scans.
> 
> >>That's the reason why I bought ECTX (15% Banks and Fonds, less shares
> outstanding)
> 
> Your comment confused me, so just want to be sure I understood what you were
> saying. The numbers on DGO show % funds, % other institutions/banks as a %
> of the float. In this case, float is 3.5m. Banks/Institutions own 15% of
> 3.5m or 525K shares. Not much.
> 
> The outstanding shares are total shares, float is a % of that. So, in this
> case 3.5m float / 16.2m outstanding = 22% of the outstanding shares are in
> float. That means institutions only own 0.525m/16.2m = 3.24% of outstanding
> shares. Still nice and low either way, but much lower than the implied 15%.
> 
> >>instead of UTSI (50% Banks and Fonds)
> Just to compare apples and apples. UTSI has 39.5m float, 106.9m outstanding,
> 50% of *float* is in institutional hands. That means they own 0.5*39.5m =
> 19.75m shares. That's 19.75m / 106.9m outstanding = 18.48% of outstanding.
> Conversely, that will still qualify it for Ryan but not Boucher criteria,
> and certainly much higher than ECTX. But it's not nearly as scary as the
> idea that institutions own 50%!
> 
> Katherine
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andreas Himmelreich" <judgejimmy@web.de>
> To: <canslim@lists.xmission.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 5:23 AM
> Subject: AW: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership
> 
> 
> > Boucher says 1 - 16% is optimum (fuel), 35% max, David Ryan (an
> successfull
> > student of Oneil, interviewed in market wizzards) says 1 - 20%.
> > Boucher adds Banks and Fonds.
> >
> > I do not like Stocks that have more then 30 - 40%, the stock then is
> > already known to everybody.
> > Thats the reason why I bought ECTX (15% Banks and Fonds, less shares
> > outstanding) instead of UTSI (50% Banks and Fonds)
> >
> > > -----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
> > > Von: Katherine Malm [SMTP:kmalm@earthlink.net]
> > > Gesendet am: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 6:25 AM
> > > An: canslim@lists.xmission.com
> > > Betreff: [CANSLIM] Institutional Ownership
> > >
> > > 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>=$10; ADV>=90K; A/D = A, B, or C; Price > 50dMA 1% or more (can't
> > do 0.00001!); Price > 200dMA 1% or more; mutual fund ownership >=10%; RS
> > >=60.
> > >
> > > 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% = 713 stocks
> > > 10-80% = 712 stocks
> > > 10-70% = 711 stocks
> > > 10-60% = 708 stocks
> > > 10-50% = 696 stocks
> > > 10-40% = 634 stocks
> > > 10-30% = 470 stocks
> > > 10-20% = 227 stocks
> > > 00-09% =  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
> > >  << Datei: ATT00011.htm >>
> >
> > -
> > -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com"
> > -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or
> > -"unsubscribe canslim".  Do not use quotes in your email.
> 
> 
> -
> -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com"
> -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or
> -"unsubscribe canslim".  Do not use quotes in your email.

- -
- -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.